-
Not sure if i should buy this 1969 florentine cutaway L5CES. I once tried it out a few years, the sound was typical for the florentine model not as fat as i like it to be, but if i would get it for a good price it might be a reasonable investment. It's in almost mint condition, frets not worn. Everything seems to be original (except for the pickguard i guess...)
These are a bit rare to find so it's hard to get information about a realistic price to pay. What would be the approximate value in the US, England, Germany?
-
05-24-2016 06:58 PM
-
Do you actually find a sound difference between Venetian and Florentine cutaways?
Kenny Burrell played a Super 400 Florentine, I'm fairly certain, and he sounded plenty fat with his sound. Course that's a different instrument.
-
Never buy a guitar as an investment.
-
I saw that for sale last year, I was very interested in buying it, but the site that it was on was hard to navigate, it didn't seem I could get in touch with the owner. As for prices that is a tough one. There was one that looked similar but blonde in a London shop for £8000 but I think that is steep. I think a realistic price in the UK would be £5000 give or take a bit.
-
The florentine models from the sixties were made with plywood backs. I think that makes the sound difference.
Originally Posted by goldenwave77
-
I just discovered that the scratch on the bass side is not just an illumination on the foto. Will have to check if this is cosmetic only ....
-
It sure is beautiful. I don't think that the Flor. cut. should matter. I know players who love theirs.
-
You can tell at a glance whether the back is ply or solid--look to see if it is a one-piece back, i.e., if the grain pattern goes right across the back. The one-piece backs are laminated. The two-piece, bookmatched backs are carved. Most of the Florentine cutaway L-5 and Super-400 instruments from the 60s had the one-piece back, but not all of them--especially the last ones.
That is a magnificently beautiful L-5CES. I sure would be happy to play that one, let me tell you. A 17" Kenny Burrell-style guitar.
When I was a teenager, I was a big fan of the Gary Burton Quartet. It featured Burton on vibes, Steve Swallow on bass, Roy Hanes on drums, and Larry Coryell on guitar. Coryell played a Florentine cutaway Gibson Super 400. It looked great and sounded great. When I see that L-5 it reminds me of Coryell's big, sunburst 400 with the sharp cutaway.
-
That is beautiful
One of the worst sounding Gibson archtops I've ever encountered was an early 60s Super 400 ... extremely thin sounding .... also a Florentine cutaway
It also had an uncomfortably thin neck
That guitar put me off 60s Gibson archtops .... I'd have to play before I pay for a 60s Gibson archtop
Hopefully this is a better guitar and sounds as good as it looks .... it sounds like you've had your paws on this one and liked it
There's a 60s sunburst L5 on Reverb asking $9500
-
keep in mind that it has the narrow 1 9/16" nut width if that's an issue for you.
-
Yep...noticed the nut width in the picture. It never bothered me, but there are lots of players who shy away from the narrow neck, late 60s Gibson archtops.
-
I always found it interesting that we guitarists can see that 1/8" difference right away, visually, even in a photo. Shows how obsessed we are Originally Posted by Greentone
-
I guess we see the width in relation to the so familiar Gibson headstock which makes it easy to detect. Originally Posted by Woody Sound
-
will have to find out .... . I sure liked the xtra wide Johnny Smith i played recently, so this time it's the other extreme. Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
Yep. It's a headstock-to-neck width proportion thing. I have played plenty of late-60s Gibsons with the narrow neck diimension. Although I personally prefer 1.75" nut width and a front-to-back neck depth of 1" at the first fret, I have never had an issue accommodating the narrow neck.
Heck, I played a B-neck (admittedly, 1/16" fatter than the Gibson width), 7.25" radius Fender Stratocaster, then a Telecaster with the same specs for years. Both guitars were the cat's whiskers.
If you can't make the jump from a big to a small neck guitar, then how would you play mandolin, violin, banjo, etc? My tenor banjo has a hella small neck width with narrow string placement.
In a way, I sort of hope that the professed distaste for the 1-9/16" width necks gets reflected in vintage prices to the point that I can get myself a great L-5 and a Super 400 before it's all over and done with.Last edited by Greentone; 05-26-2016 at 11:04 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Woody Sound
I always found it interesting that we guitarists can see that 1/8" difference right away, visually, even in a photo. Shows how obsessed we are
Now that you mention it .. it does kind of leap out at me .....
I could probably deal with the narrow neck if the tone was there ...... but my experience with 60s Gibson archtops has not been very encouraging and would prevent me from buying one without playing it first
I think I'd rather get one from the 70s or 80s Norlin era than a 60s .... there's relatively good bargains still out there from those years for L5s and even Super 400s
-
..and there it is, lol Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
'60-'64 ish were flat neck profiles. Got fat again but than narrow nut came into play about late '65.
Wonder if the pickups were changed in the one you played. PAFs aren't thin sounding, but are often taken out of their hosts.
Originally Posted by Bluedawg
-
well if I didn't mention it, you guys might think I'm slipping.... Originally Posted by HeyNow
there are great ones and dogs from all eras, but the 2 best L-5CES models I've owned are 60's models, one a florentine and one a venetian.
-
Originally Posted by HeyNow
in my experience, late 1960-'62 are flat tapeworm necks, but they get rounded '63-mid '65.
-
Neck Sizes and Profiles | The Gibson ES-335 Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
Originally Posted by HeyNow
Scavenged PAFs could explain why it sounded so bad. I thought it was a '62, but I can't be sure. The neck was uncomfortably thin.
The 2 Super 400s I've played in the last year or so were very nice. The one I played a 2 weeks ago was absolutely heavenly ... but it was black, had a Bigsby, and they are asking over $10K ... which I think is nuts for that color and configuration
-
sizes are general of course, many '63's I've seen are pretty hefty considering it's the 1960's. Originally Posted by HeyNow
lots of 335 players look for '63 models for that reason. I saw a '63 ES-335 @ a guitar show last year w/ a Louisville Slugger for a neck.
my '63 Super 400 is pretty hefty too, my '64 L-5 is also rounded, but thinner front to back.
-
Not that I have the money to do so anyway, but I would not be smitten by the need to have "vintage" (I agree with Gilpy about guitars NOT being an investment) when there are excellent newer custom shop L5's which abound. Find a nice newer one, and take care of it, and you won't be throwing money away.
-
PAFs were all over the place in terms of tone. One of the most inconsistent production pickups. Typically they are bright sounding and are coveted for that. That was due to the fact that the bobbins did not match in winding count, which cancelled hum less but also made for a brighter pickup. I personally would not consider them ideal for jazz, but again, it depends on the day of the week they were made.
Reply With Quote
The Guitar In Jazz - Jazz Guitar Radio Documentary
Today, 06:02 PM in The Players