What do pre 1950 LG2's go for these days???

[onewilyfool]

Any info, advice etc....appreciated!!!! And, any info for dating would be appreciated. Guy says it is "pre-1950" whatever that means....I hear the 1949 qnd '46 versions of this guitar are considered some of the best......thanks in advance

[jedzep]

Wassup Wily? I searched for quite a while before I found my '56. I paid $1750. in a private transaction for a guitar that had zero structural issues, just a bunch of dings and rubs. I really cannot imagine any LG2 or 3 that could have better playability and tone. but I figure they're out there. It just happens to be a consistent small bod...even down to it's lowest incarnation, the B25. You can use that price base for your research and extrapolate back into 'collector world' to keep jacking up the cost of earlier models. There's 1 or 2 forum members who have put out pics of their great looking 40's LG2's. I don't recall having seen nice examples rise into the 3G range yet in my search, but if it's any help to you I've 'Sophie's Choiced' myself down from 13 acoustics to 2 and the LG2 was one I kept. I'm a percussive flatpicker more than anything so it suits me. Nice to have a punchy worker guitar AND a smooth strummer. I starting to feel at peace with just having a couple of guitars. I am self medicating, however.

[j45nick]

It's all about condition. Not sure how the guy identified it as "pre-1950", but if there is a FON, we should be able to pin that down. If no FON, it has to be done by characteristics. I would say for a block logo LG-2 (as opposed to script or banner), the absolute max I would be willing to pay would be $2K, and that would be for a pretty special guitar in excellent condition.

 

These come up all the time on ebay. They must have made a million of them.

 

Dating should be fairly comparable to dating a J-45, as the characteristics and their evolution are similar, but not identical. Logo changed about 1948. Pickguard changed from teardrop to big about the same time as the J-45, around 1955. Same with the 20-fret board, etc. Rectangular bridge lasted until at least the late 50's.

 

Pictures?

[zombywoof]

As has been noted figuring out whether an LG-2 was made in 1946 or 1947 is pretty much impossible. Both have the script logo and usually no FON. The only difference I can come up with you can find 1946 guitars with a 1 3/4" nut. I am not sure how long Gibson continued to make them with the pre-War width nut but the 1947 LG-2s have a 1 11/16" nut. Other than that though I cannot for the life of me figure out why a 1946 would be a "better" year for the guitar than 1947. Maybe somebody somewhwere said it and clicked their heels 3 times or something.

 

Not really sure on price - If I recall I paid around $2400 for my 1946 LG-2 (no FON but it has a 1 3/4" neck). Not a killer price but not outrageous eitther, I have seen them go for a couple hundred less and a couple of hundred more.

 

[zombywoof]

 

Dating should be fairly comparable to dating a J-45, as the characteristics and their evolution are similar, but not identical. Logo changed about 1948. Pickguard changed from teardrop to big about the same time as the J-45, around 1955. Same with the 20-fret board, etc. Rectangular bridge lasted until at least the late 50's.

 

 

I believe Gibson also went to a thicker bracing and bridge in 1955. They had also discontinued the fabric side supports by 1950.

[j45nick]

I believe Gibson also went to a thicker bracing and bridge that year.

 

Sometime around there, for sure. Generally the same bracing pattern, but braces went a bit shorter and fatter, rather than the earlier knife-edge brace. I swear you could cut your finger on the top edge of the back braces in my '48 J-45. Cross-sectional area is about the same, but the tall, thin braces should actually make for a stiffer top/back. Those thin braces are one reason you find a lot of loose braces in these old-timers: not much gluing surface.

 

Don't know about the bridge thickness, as my bridge drawings for the J-45 show the same height of bridge for rectangular and belly versions, but I'm not sure if the LG's followed the same pattern.

 

Not sure what the tonal implications of the brace changes are. I've got similar guitars with both bracing types, and can't isolate the specific effect. There are too many other things going on. When it comes to J-45's, however, I'd definitely prefer pre-1955, although I've played some really sweet late-50's ones.

[Rambler]

Lowest $$ Ive seen for a script LG2 is around 2k. Dealers generally are asking for more, and sellers follow suit. Have yet to reach 'peak vintage.'

[EuroAussie]

 

 

Not really sure on price - If I recall I paid around $2400 for my 1946 LG-2 (no FON but it has a 1 3/4" neck). Not a killer price but not outrageous eitther, I have seen them go for a couple hundred less and a couple of hundred more.

 

 

Wow, thats brilliant news. As I start thinking about small bodied Gibsons I kept thinking I would love a vintage LG-2 but one with a 1 3/4 nut width. I thought that was a just a fantasy until I saw this post.

 

Now, how the hell do I find one .....

 

btw: what does 'FON' stand for ?

[Gruffchris]

There's a 1943 on ebay for $3,999.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-1943-Gibson-LG-2-Acoustic-Guitar-Willcutt-Guitars-/230866356885?pt=Guitar&hash=item35c0b50a95

[jedzep]

FON...Fiscally Outrageous Nugget (or) Factory Order Number.

 

My observations are that the wider nut 'baseball bat' necked LG2's are quite hard to come across. Unless your fingers are fat and clumsy and/or you're a collector looking for those 40's era gems, the extra 16th of an inch hardly effects playability and tone. You'll get great satisfaction out of any yr. that still has the rectangular bridge. I'd love to find one without a pickguard myself.

[EuroAussie]

FON...Fiscally Outrageous Nugget (or) Factory Order Number.

 

My observations are that the wider nut 'baseball bat' necked LG2's are quite hard to come across. Unless your fingers are fat and clumsy and/or you're a collector looking for those 40's era gems, the extra 16th of an inch hardly effects playability and tone. You'll get great satisfaction out of any yr. that still has the rectangular bridge. I'd love to find one without a pickguard myself.

 

Interesting, the idea of 1 3/4 nut width is tempting but the thick baseball bat profile isnt.

 

I have two small bodies guitars right now, the 00-15 which has a 1 11/16 nut width and my Furch OM which has a 1 3/4. Both have a 'comfortable' neck proifle, but I must say I distinctly prefer the extra width of the Furch.

 

Ive barely played any small bodied Gibsons so hard for me to tell at this stage, just comparing it mainly to the 00-15.

 

Probably silly question, but what do you mean by 'rectangular bridge' ? Im only beginning my learning curve on these old small bodied Gibsons.

 

Also, is there much of a difference in tone between LG-2 and LG-3 ? Ive listened to enough sound samples between LG-1 and LG-2 (LG-1 seems more bluesy, simpler tone, LG-2 more like a small J-45) but not really heard much LG-3.

[jedzep]

Aside from slight or not so slight tonal inequities in any two guitars, the 2 and 3 sound very much alike and swap out. BK did a few real nice demos somewhere back in the forum with his LG3, which you could access. Somewhere in the last part of the 50's and early 60's Gibson put the belly bridge on with adj saddle contraptions that perforated the tops with two more holes and metal sleeves. That's one of the downgrade moments. The LG size also fits in my arms juuuust right for the comfortable play time. High action on these is extra tiring.

[j45nick]

 

Probably silly question, but what do you mean by 'rectangular bridge' ? Im only beginning my learning curve on these old small bodied Gibsons.

 

Also, is there much of a difference in tone between LG-2 and LG-3 ? Ive listened to enough sound samples between LG-1 and LG-2 (LG-1 seems more bluesy, simpler tone, LG-2 more like a small J-45) but not really heard much LG-3.

 

 

LG-2 is to LG-3 like J-45 is to J-50. Differences are purely cosmetic: one sunburst, the other natural.

 

Rectangular bridge has a rectangular footprint, like this:

 

 

Belly bridge an be either belly-down (Martin style), or belly-up, like this:

 

[EuroAussie]

Gotcha, thanks Nick !

[tpbiii]

Here is our 1946 LG-2

.

 

It is all original with playing ware and dings.

 

Here is a price analysis based on the average high retail values for exc all original instruments from VG price guides. Remember, these are dealers estimates for asking prices -- thus skewed high.

 

 

We paid $1300 for ours in 2006.

 

I did a sound comparisons analysis for our three LGs -- 1942 LG-1 (mahogany top), 1946 LG-2 and 1959 LG-1 (rescue).

 

Here are some short sample comparisons:

 

 

1959 LG-1 1942 LG-1

 

 

1946 LG-2 1942 LG-1

 

 

1959 LG-1 1946 LG-2

 

 

 

Here is another set of comparisons -- done using materials we might actually play sometimes. This is work ion progress.

 

Songs

Splice and dice

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

[zombywoof]

Looking at Tom's LG-2, mine and a few other '46 LG-2s, what is really noticeable is that there does not appear to have been alot of time spent blending the burst on the lower bout. Mine is has such a clean dark edge on one side looking the guitar from a distance you would swear it was a pre-lacquered piece of top wood spliced in.

[EuroAussie]

Thanks a lot for that Tom, really enjoyed the comparisements !

 

And in fact it was interesting because I really found the LG-1 highly appealing, in fact even more than the LG-2.

 

As I hear it the LG-1 has a very direct tone, clear as a bell and projects really well, while the LG-2 is warmer, and in actual fact sounds like a lighter version of a J-45. Would that be kinda correct assesment ?

 

As I look for a small bodied Gibson which would be primarily used to play the blues Im starting to think maybe an LG-1 is the right option ?

 

Glad you put this up Tom, makes me start to evaluate the models in a new light.

 

cheers,

EA

 

 

 

Here is our 1946 LG-2

.

 

It is all original with playing ware and dings.

 

Here is a price analysis based on the average high retail values for exc all original instruments from VG price guides. Remember, these are dealers estimates for asking prices -- thus skewed high.

 

 

We paid $1300 for ours in 2006.

 

I did a sound comparisons analysis for our three LGs -- 1942 LG-1 (mahogany top), 1946 LG-2 and 1959 LG-1 (rescue).

 

Here are some short sample comparisons:

 

 

1959 LG-1 1942 LG-1

 

 

1946 LG-2 1942 LG-1

 

 

1959 LG-1 1946 LG-2

 

 

 

Here is another set of comparisons -- done using materials we might actually play sometimes. This is work ion progress.

 

Songs

Splice and dice

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

[jt]

As I look for a small bodied Gibson which would be primarily used to play the blues Im starting to think maybe an LG-1 is the right option ?

 

Great stuff, as always, Tom.

 

Euro,

 

I've also got a Banner LG-1 and it's one of my favorite gutars (and it now sits in Montana serving as the prototype for new reissue). But, beware: these are among Gibson's rarest guitars. A little over 100 ever shipped (the precise number will be available in a bookstore near you within a few week!) and all shipped in 1943 with the exception of 1 that shipped in 1945. The post war LG-1 is a very different guitar because it features ladder bracing while the Banner guitar is x-braced.

[zombywoof]

Interesting, the idea of 1 3/4 nut width is tempting but the thick baseball bat profile isnt.

 

 

 

The necks are not what I would call even close to Louisville Sluggers. The neck on my LG-2 is not near as beefy as the one on my Banner J-50 and is dwarfed by the necks on my 1930s Supertone and Kay Kraft.

 

While they may be a tad wider than the LG necks with the 1 11/16" nut the necks do not appear to be any deeper. I always assumed that as the LGs were essentially student guitars, Gibson designed them to accomodate smaller hands.

 

On the rectangular bridges it might be a fig newton of my imagination but I swear at least those on the LG-2s have a slightly thicker bass side than treble. J45Nick, Tom, JT and the rest of you guys who know about such things - any insight on this.

[EuroAussie]

For the experts here, how would you evaluate the tone, condition and price of this LG-2 ?

 

Its hard for me to properly tell as the pickin' is hellishly fast, but for those who own one maybe it would be easier to asses ?

 

It comes with a 1 3/4 nut width.

 

http://www.themusicemporium.com/product-detail/product/gibson-lg-2-40194741.html

[EuroAussie]

Great stuff, as always, Tom.

 

Euro,

 

I've also got a Banner LG-1 and it's one of my favorite gutars (and it now sits in Montana serving as the prototype for new reissue). But, beware: these are among Gibson's rarest guitars. A little over 100 ever shipped (the precise number will be available in a bookstore near you within a few week!) and all shipped in 1943 with the exception of 1 that shipped in 1945. The post war LG-1 is a very different guitar because it features ladder bracing while the Banner guitar is x-braced.

 

Oh, thats good to know JT, thank you for that. So what is the difference between an X-braced LG-1 and LG-2 ?

 

Which begs the question, when do you expect the 'reissue' LG-1 to arrive from Montana, that could be interesting ?

[zombywoof]

For the experts here, how would you evaluate the tone, condition and price of this LG-2 ?

 

 

 

I sure as heck would want to know what they mean by "decent action."

[EuroAussie]

I sure as heck would want to know what they mean by "decent action."

 

And beyond that Zomby, you're not giving me much here ....

[j45nick]

For the experts here, how would you evaluate the tone, condition and price of this LG-2 ?

 

Its hard for me to properly tell as the pickin' is hellishly fast, but for those who own one maybe it would be easier to asses ?

 

It comes with a 1 3/4 nut width.

 

http://www.themusicemporium.com/product-detail/product/gibson-lg-2-40194741.html

The smallbody Gibsons respond very well to this very aggressive fingerpicking style, but I wouldn't expect it to be quite so "punchy" with a more subdued attack. Sounds like a very good recording setup they are using in this clip, which helps a lot. You can here why the LG-2 is sometimes called the "small J-45", alhtough side-by-side, the ones I have heard have a completely different balance.

 

"Decent action" implies to me that it is playable, but might benefit from a neck re-set. However, it looks like it still has a bit of saddle left in the photos, so I may be reading too much into this.

 

As far as price goes, this looks like a fair but maybe slightly high price if it needs a neck re-set.

[j45nick]

 

On the rectangular bridges it might be a fig newton of my imagination but I swear at least those on the LG-2s have a slightly thicker bass side than treble. J45Nick, Tom, JT and the rest of you guys who know about such things - any insight on this.

 

 

That would not surprise me at all, since the LG-2 was the small-body successor to the L-OO, which definitely has a tapered rectangular bridge.

 

Here's the bridge on my L-OO Legend, which is a repro of a 1937 L-OO. The taper of the bridge may not be so obvious in the photo, but when you look at the height of the saddle on the treble side, it is readily apparent.

 

As a reference, the top of the bridge (not the saddle) at the low E pin is about 8mm above the soundboard, and is about 6.5mm at the high E. (For us Americans, the bridge is about 1/16" taller at the low E pin than at the high E pin.)

 

By the way, I really like the sharp break angle you get over the saddle with these small-footprint rectangular bridges--the saddle is very close to the pins--but I also think that makes them a bit more vulnerable to splitting because of the additional shear loads applied to the bridge by the saddle.