Florentine vs Venetian: which one is better?

[Marty Grass]

The original Heritage builders told me Florentines are harder to make and have more breakage in the process. Obviously the Florentine gives a little more fret access. But is there a difference in stability or tone? Why aren't all archtops the same in the cutaway design?

[dconeill]

Of course there are differences. In physical objects everything matters. The question is, how much difference is there?

My guess (based on background, I haven't tested any of this) is that there are differences due mostly to the geometry of the enclosed volume. The sharply defined areas of the pointy cutaway enclosed volume (Florentine or Venetian, I don't remember which is which at the moment) could be a little more resistant to air velocity and pressure changes than the curvy cutaway enclosed volume and so effectively contain less air [added later: available to affect the resonant frequency] than a curvy cutaway body of the same physical volume, which could possibly effect the tuning of the enclosed space (like a bass-reflex speaker cabinet). So I would guess that the resonant frequencies of a pointy cutaway body and a curvy cutaway body, by geometry enclosing the same volume of air, might be a little different. But I also would guess that the effects would be down in the decimal places of resonant frequency, i.e., not that great.

I think this would be very hard to test. It would be difficult to make two bodies of exactly the same enclosed volume to test the effects, and there would be so many other variables in play (inhomogeneities in the materials, water content of the woods involved, internal shape differences apart from the cutaways, smoothness of the interiors, and so on) that you'd have a hard time narrowing the causes of any differences down to a particular factor. Could spend a lot of money chasing this down.

But with the tendency of many guitarists (though not Marty Grass, so far as I've noticed) to make mountains out of molehills, this would be great topic for irresolvable battles about which is better. Anyone?

[Jim Soloway]

I have no opinion on tonal difference but the access difference is enough for me to wish that my Ibanez had a Florentine cutaway. I've lost some things on that guitar that are important to me.

[deacon Mark]

A great thread and interesting topic. Sound wise I hear little difference between venetian and sharp cutaways. To the point though for best acoustic sound a non-cutaway that is carved all the way up on both sides is usually superior acoustically. More sound and more vibrating top surface. Not many real acoustic sharp cutaways are ever made that tells us something. Obviously, they are harder to make and too easy to break bending for sure. High fret access certainly is better or can be better but for me that is nothing I am chasing. I like the mid cello register of the guitar beyond fret 14-15 is rare.

But to the real issue for me and it seems to go against all the market and value. I hate the looks of a sharp Florentine cutaway. I don't like visually the symmetry that is gone compared to venetian. To my eyes it looks cheap the best venetian cutaways to me were made by D'aquisto. If you look they have a perfect symmetry that look great against the full bass side of guitar. Gibson L5's and Super 400 are really almost as good if not on par. Campellone also does this well he is in the Gibson wheelhouse.

The vintage market though clearly with Gibson shows much more money especially for early 60's Florentine L5's and Super 400's. In fact, it seems a Super 400 Florentines from 1960's command the hugest price tags. Well for me this great because I don't care for them at all not a one will I own.

[lawson-stone]

The best one is the one you haven't got a great example of. Or the one that you only have a few of.
Just to confirm my heretic status: I think the few examples I've seen of the pointy cutaway on the L5 looks weird and off balance. The curve is too shallow?

[customxke]

When speaking of L-5s and Super 400s, I believe that a Florentine cutaway guitar will have a larger neck-block than a Venetian cutaway guitar, as well as typically having a laminated back. This makes for a different sounding and acting guitar. My experience is that Florentine L5s are less prone to feedback, and less lively than their Venetian cousins. YMMV, of course, and there aren't really hard fast rules. The concept of "better" doesn't really apply here. I prefer Venetian cut guitars, but if I was playing in a loud ensemble, I'd probably prefer Florentine.

[Archie]

I’m confused as to why the Florentine would cause more breaks? Surely the inner radius of the Venetian is greater because it has to do more bending?
Of course I’ll bow to those in the know but could someone explain it? A florentine is already broken being as it's two pieces?
The Florentine would certainly be harder to make in terms of more work? Extra internal bracing, extra bits of binding etc..

[Hammertone]

The original Heritage builders told me Florentines are harder to make and have more breakage in the process. Obviously the Florentine gives a little more fret access. But is there a difference in stability or tone? Why aren't all archtops the same in the cutaway design?

Florentine vs Venetian: which one is better?
Whichever cutaway is on any given archtop I'm selling on this forum is better, of course.

[wintermoon]

Florentine cuts were already around w the intro of the ES-175 but it was Kenny Burrell that got the ball rolling on them w/ Super 400's, L-5s and the short lived Switchmaster florentine cut.



a cut from an interview w/ KB...

"Earlier, you had a Gibson ES-175 and then a custom L-5 CES with a Florentine cutaway. That was years before the Florentine cutaway on the L-5 and Super 400. How did it come about?
Gibson made me an L-5 with a deep cutaway in the late ’50s. They did it reluctantly. I played that guitar for a while, but it was too heavy. It had a much bigger block; they thought the body wouldn’t hold the neck with the deep cutaway otherwise. The 175 was too small and always felt clumsy; I couldn’t grab it comfortably with my arm. The Super 400 feels perfect for me."

personally I think a florentine cutaway is more practical from a player's perspective, it's just easier to play high up on the neck.
but in the vintage Gibson market pre 1969 when talking about value, venetian cut Supers and L-5s command higher prices where humbucker equipped guitars are concerned . some people think they sound better in general but that's subjective. They're certainly rarer being made for less than 3 yrs, late '57-early '60.

[ThatRhythmMan]

Aesthetically, it’s Venetian for me without a doubt. Overall, I just prefer a non-cut, and that includes for electric.

Deacon Mark, I think the reason Florentine L-5 and Super 400 CES seem to command a higher price is because there are so few Venetians with humbuckers prior to the onset of the Florentine. The PAF loaded Venetians are the highest value examples of those models. There are so few though that they aren’t often seen for sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluejaybill]

A great thread and interesting topic.
(snip)

The vintage market though clearly with Gibson shows much more money especially for early 60's Florentine L5's and Super 400's. In fact, it seems a Super 400 Florentines from 1960's command the hugest price tags. Well for me this great because I don't care for them at all not a one will I own.

Me neither. But I think you will find that the '58-'59 Venetian s with PAF's are the biggest ticket items!

Extremely hard to find.

[jim777]

When George Benson updated his GB200 to the LGB300 he had them add a Florentine cut.

[deacon Mark]

When George Benson updated his GB200 to the LGB300 he had them add a Florentine cut.

Never in all my days have i ever wanted a George Benson Ibanez of any kind. The only thing I could use from George is his chops. I am not even envious because with those chops, I probably focused on the wrong things

[ThatRhythmMan]

Me neither. But I think you will find that the '58-'59 Venetian s with PAF's are the biggest ticket items!

Extremely hard to find.

But I know where a ‘58 can be found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Litterick]

Taylor says: 'A Florentine cutaway comes to a sharp point, creating a horn-like shape. It is more complex and labor-intensive to craft than the Venetian because the guitar is initially built as a non-cutaway, after which a section of the treble-side upper bout is sliced out.'

Acoustic Guitar says: Venetian and Florentine refer to the actual shape of the cutaway: Venetian describes the rounded cutaway and Florentine the sharp, pointed form. The original use of these terms can be traced to early Gibson nomenclature in advertising material and catalogs. Orville Gibson's early instruments show a very strong stylistic influence derived from 19th-century Italian guitar and mandolin makers, particularly from the work of makers such as Calace, Guadagnini, and Vinaccia. Gibson likely chose these terms to reflect the Italian influence and lend some old-world credibility to his new instruments; there isn't any evidence that these cutaway styles actually came from Venice or Florence.

Gibson first used Venetian cutaway in reference to the Super 400P, an acoustic archtop introduced in 1939, and Florentine cutaway first described Gibson's O style guitars in 1902 and a series of mandolins appearing at the same time. However, the historical origin of the pointed cutaway can be traced back as far as 19th-century French maker Georges Warnecke. One of his instruments can be seen in The Steve Howe Guitar Collection (Backbeat Books).

[RJVB]

Florentines are better to hang your fretting hand in during breaks or pure right-hand practise bouts.

Other than that I doubt there's any meaningful effect on acoustic sound (and even less on electric). My Loar has a Florentine cut but the point isn't entirely hollow so there are no weird/sharp corners or pockets inside.

Common consensus on a big acoustic guitar forum is that you there is no systematic sound difference in practice (and in general) between cut and uncut versions of the same guitar.

I also recall reading on here that there is no difference in practise between a top that was cut after having been carved and a top that was carved taking the already made cut into account. That's probably because there's very little sound-producing top-vibration going on in the shoulders anyway.

[2bornot2bop]

Taylor says: 'A Florentine cutaway comes to a sharp point, creating a horn-like shape. It is more complex and labor-intensive to craft than the Venetian because the guitar is initially built as a non-cutaway, after which a section of the treble-side upper bout is sliced out.'

Acoustic Guitar says: Venetian and Florentine refer to the actual shape of the cutaway: Venetian describes the rounded cutaway and Florentine the sharp, pointed form. The original use of these terms can be traced to early Gibson nomenclature in advertising material and catalogs. Orville Gibson's early instruments show a very strong stylistic influence derived from 19th-century Italian guitar and mandolin makers, particularly from the work of makers such as Calace, Guadagnini, and Vinaccia. Gibson likely chose these terms to reflect the Italian influence and lend some old-world credibility to his new instruments; there isn't any evidence that these cutaway styles actually came from Venice or Florence.

Gibson first used Venetian cutaway in reference to the Super 400P, an acoustic archtop introduced in 1939, and Florentine cutaway first described Gibson's O style guitars in 1902 and a series of mandolins appearing at the same time. However, the historical origin of the pointed cutaway can be traced back as far as 19th-century French maker Georges Warnecke. One of his instruments can be seen in The Steve Howe Guitar Collection (Backbeat Books).

I’ve often wondered where those labels came from. Venice and Florence Italy! Duh! It never occurred to me.

[wintermoon]

I’ve often wondered where those labels came from. Venice and Florence Italy! Duh! It never occurred to me.

I never use those terms unless I'm eating at an Italian restaurant and ordering chicken florentine.
all these yrs later when speaking to my friends about guitars it's still sharpcut or roundcut.

[Gilpy]

I don't know if one is better than the other, but I like the extra access to higher frets on my Campellone EP.

[Gitterbug]

I always believed Florentines are easier to make, but then I read from Taylor's web pages that they start from a traditional symmetrical body, literally cut away a section and then add the concave sheeting. Complex. Yet, is this how cutaway bodies got started? No need for dedicated molds. OTOH, it's hard to believe that Gibson has done thousands and thousands of ES-175s etc. starting from a non-cutaway body. Was there ever a 16" laminate, non-cutaway Gibson? If Venetian is cheaper to make, why did ES-125 come with a pointed horn?

[Archie]

I always believed Florentines are easier to make, but then I read from Taylor's web pages that they start from a traditional symmetrical body, literally cut away a section and then add the concave sheeting. Complex. Yet, is this how cutaway bodies got started? No need for dedicated molds. OTOH, it's hard to believe that Gibson has done thousands and thousands of ES-175s etc. starting from a non-cutaway body. Was there ever a 16" laminate, non-cutaway Gibson? If Venetian is cheaper to make, why did ES-125 come with a pointed horn?

From what I've gathered, Gibson made a cutaway but they made it in the ‘proper’ way, so no extra binding to make up for gaps between the arch. Then D’Angelico made a cutaway but couldn’t be bothered to remake his moulds (to the chagrin Of D’Aquisto), and so filled the gaps with thicker binding.
Gibson then trying to copy D’Angelico, changed their cutaway to copy D’Angelico with the extra binding.
So in a way, the Gibson cutaway style post 1955 (ish) til present, is in fact the D’Angelico style, although it is synonymous with Gibson.

[ThatRhythmMan]

I always believed Florentines are easier to make, but then I read from Taylor's web pages that they start from a traditional symmetrical body, literally cut away a section and then add the concave sheeting. Complex. Yet, is this how cutaway bodies got started? No need for dedicated molds. OTOH, it's hard to believe that Gibson has done thousands and thousands of ES-175s etc. starting from a non-cutaway body. Was there ever a 16" laminate, non-cutaway Gibson? If Venetian is cheaper to make, why did ES-125 come with a pointed horn?

FWIW, the original ES-125 is a non-cut, 16”, laminate body guitar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AKA]

The original Heritage builders told me Florentines are harder to make and have more breakage in the process. Obviously the Florentine gives a little more fret access. But is there a difference in stability or tone? Why aren't all archtops the same in the cutaway design?

I will have an opinion very soon. This one is being built to be played purely as an acoustic instrument.

AKA

[ccroft]

I don't know which one's better. My pref's always been the look of the curve so that's all I have. Lately I've liked the Florentine look on the wider Gibsons and AK's Wilkie. Not so much the tight C of the 150.

RE KB's: isn't that a deeper cut than the typical one that came on later L5's?

As a woodworker who's never built a guitar they both look very difficult. I don't see one being 'easier'. The radiuses on a Venetian sometimes look as tight or tighter than a 150, and you don't have to make an internal block to support the point. Or make the joint at bindings and rim on the outside of the point.

It'd be great to hear from some of the archtop builders around here. Calling Campellone!!

[wintermoon]

RE KB's: isn't that a deeper cut than the typical one that came on later L5's?

It is