Waterloo Guitars

[skittles]

I haven't seen too much discussion of these here given our general proclivity for archtops, though a few members own(ed?) them. I played a WL-14 Scissortail and WL-S this morning. Some impressions:

They are very different sounds with some commonality, like blood orange and grapefruit if a traditional dreadnought is a pumpkin. Both have a very snappy response that would work well for chunking out rhythm chords. Both have a sweet, mellow-leaning clarity on single note lines. There's a wide dynamic and timbrel range on these instruments, likely due to their light construction. And both are very comfortable: due to back issues, I cannot play with my current guitars resting on my right leg. These felt right at home there.

The Scissortail has a spruce top with maple back and rims. This is X-braced. It is a tad brighter, but in a clear not strident way. You can really hear into the harmonies, each separate component. The 14th fret neck joint did not require much adjusting to coming from an archtop. The neck is a huge baseball bat sized V but was very comfortable. I was surprised that I did not need to adjust to it at all.

The WL-S has a 12th fret neck joint, spruce top, and cherry back and rims. This one is ladder-braced. The sound is more integrated than the Scissortail, almost like a nylon string: just warm and full. The lack of upper-fret access was a bit harder to adjust to. I played through a few arrangements that have voices that hit the 13th fret on the E string. These were hard to articulate clearly. The neck was super comfy, the body a tad smaller than the Scissortail.

All in all, I think either would be a nice instrument for chord melody with the range to do other styles as well. String choice could definitely help refine the voice of either instrument toward this end.

I'm not smitten but interested and would love to hear other's experience on these instruments if any.

It's the first weekend of porch weather here. If you can't tell.

[m_d]

No experience with those, but very interested as well. A guy who works for Collings has a number of clips on YouTube with several models doing standards and Latin American tunes. Very convincing to me, I know I'd be happy with one. And I find those those little Waterloos to be just gorgeous.

[Longways to Go]

I've been thinking about the Waterloo's for a while myself.
Hard for me to figure out which model would be best.

I got the chance to play a few in Oklahoma City a while back.
They were pretty cool, but paled in comparison to the Collings I was drooling over.

[skittles]

Hard for me to figure out which model would be best.

The two models that I wrote about spoke most to me. I kept going back and forth between them thinking they do things differently enough that someone (not me) getting both would be justifiable and logical. I may lean more towards the WL-S but I say that with minimal confidence.

I didn’t look at anything further upmarket. Why upset the apple cart? Flattop makers clearly were shrewd in their choices as that’s a much larger market to cater to as a provider of bespoke, “luxury” items than what buyers of archtops could support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Longways to Go]

I'm pretty sure Julian Lage is into them -- maybe even an endorser?
There's some video out there with him singing (and playing) their praises.

Also, It must be mentioned that apparently there is a Waterloo archtop in the prototype phase . . .

[archtopeddy]

I have a Waterloo WL 14 X-brace and it was my main singer/solo gig guitar for about 200 shows. It sounded great acoustically or amplified via K&K pickups through a Bose system. I liked it so much I decided to get an original 1930's Kalamazoo. I eventually bought a 1933 Kalamazoo K-11 (a bit stouter in body size than the WL 14) and now it has more or less taken the place of the WL 14. It's not that the Kalamazoo's a better guitar because it's not; it's more the case that as an 86 year old instrument it just has a cool, funky, old-soul sound. Getting the Kalamazoo gave me a greater appreciation of how true the Waterloo is to the idea of a depression-era "non-Gibson" Gibson. Hat's off to Collings for making the Waterloo line. In a word, they're just fun to play!

[campusfive]

I fell in love with the Waterloo WL-14's the minute I played one (I can't recall what bracing that first one was). And each Waterloo I played I dug.
It was funny, on a visit to Gryphon Strings in Palo Alto, I was there to check out a 30's DA-Style B, and the WL-14 and especially the WL-S Deluxe were way more exciting and inspiring.

After that trip, I talked to a friend who's a dealer about ordering a WL-S Deluxe. He was offering me to get it at cost, which was such a nice offer, I didn't really pester him about it, so wasn't sure what the time table was.

A month later, at the NAMM show I played through the whole line again, and despite the fact that the WL-S deluxe was my previous favorite, the din of the NAMM show really showed the superior projection of the WL-14, but specifically the ladder braced one. Plus, the utility of the 14 fret neck to my style was made very apparent.

Then a couple weeks later, I realize my friend never got around to ordering the guitar, and some friends at a local shop took in a used WL-14L (so lightly used, that they almost mixed it up with the new one they had in stock), and they gave me a solid deal on it, so I picked it up.

Anyway, I used it on my recent solo guitar CD to record a 1928 Roy Smeck tune. In 1928, Archtop's hadn't quite taken over (the jazz world) yet, so I figured there was a good chance Roy probably wrote it something more like the Waterloo than an L-5.

I can't really play fingerstyle to save my life, but because the Waterloo is so sensitive and lively I end up messing with it more. Also, it's the perfect "lullabye" guitar for my 2.5 year-old, since I can play it very lightly and it's still speaks nicely. (FYI, a super punchy 1939 L-5 is a terrible choice for that job)

Anyway, I love playing it around the house, though I haven't had the kind of gig where I might use it yet.

[Dennis D]

Thanks a lot Jonathan. As an archtop player, do you seen the need for a fingerest pickguard ?

And keep your eye out for their Waterloo archtop, pls. I think they'll be 14 inches. too. They're not shipping yet, but not sure, did someone say August ?
I'll be real interested to learn what you think about those as well.

[bohemian46]

I have played 2 of the Waterloo flat-tops.

My opinion is that they were crude and poor value compared to other Collings models I have played

[Alter]

Weren't they also at a much lower price point though?

[archtopeddy]

Comparing a Waterloo to a Collings is like comparing a 1930s Kalamazoo to a same period Gibson. In the 1930s, a Gibson L-00 was significantly more expensive than the Kalamazoo KG-14. And that was by design. The Kalamazoo's were no-nonsense, depression-era guitars without the finer finishing points of the Gibson but still built to get the job done by the same luthiers who built the Gibsons. Same idea applies for Waterloo vs Collings.

I don't have the information here, but maybe somebody else does: It would be interesting to see how much a 1930's Kalamazoo KG-14 retailed for vs a same period Gibson L-00 or L-0 14-fret. (Note: One of the price cutting points with the Kalamazoo models is that they didn't have truss rods like their Gibson counterpart.)

Here's an article in Premier Guitar that examines the thinking about current "depression-era" guitars. Acoustic Soundboard -- Turning the Boutique Movement On Its Ear

Acoustic Soundboard: Turning the Boutique Movement on Its Ear | Premier Guitar

[omphalopsychos]

"Crude" is one way of describing the Waterloo sound. I think of them as having character, tons of it. It's not a sound that's for everyone but it's completely unique and absolutely wonderful to my ear.

[joe2758]

I played a waterloo parlor expecting some sort of magic (more room for dynamics I guess). I found I barely liked it better than my $150 gretch parlor

[bohemian46]

"Weren't they also at a much lower price point though? "

Yes,
I am not speaking of price but "value"....I suppose I should have said "over valued".

I made no mention of the sound being "crude".. the workmanship was crude.

I have a 1929 Stromberg Voisinet that was an inexpensive guitar when new that has.. in my opinion, better design, materials , workmanship, playability and tone.

I very much like Collings guitars, not the 2 Waterloo I played.

I have played many of the upper line of Collings guitars and while expensive, a better value than many of my Martins.

[mr. beaumont]

I like my $150 Recording King. Great combo of "sounds cheap, was cheap."

But I think the Waterloos are damn cool.

[archtopeddy]

I like my $150 Recording King. Great combo of "sounds cheap, was cheap."

But I think the Waterloos are damn cool.

Agree. No doubt Collins are great guitars. And Waterloos aren't for everyone. But those of us that like 'em can't quit grinnin' while playing 'em -- they're just plain fun and worthy of a thumbs up!

[skittles]

Thanks for the discussion.

I understand what’s meant by crude, but for some, the character that engenders that reaction is endearing, for everything it is and isn’t.

I decided to order a WL-S. I’ll play with strings for a while (silk and steel, nickel bronze, maybe TI Plectrums) to get a sense of where it’s voice is most appealing—to me. (String recommendations welcome.)

I think this is one of the videos mentioned. If I capture a similar sound, I’ll be happy enough:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rob taft]

Collings has finally put some details about this guitar. Looks great. A bit pricey for some but not too bad.

Waterloo WL-AT Archtop Acoustic Guitar| Waterloo by Collings Guitars

[skittles]

So around $4k street new it seems.

I was super interested in this when they were announced at NAMM. Then I tried a few of their other guitars (preliminary research I thought) and really liked them. Now that I bought a new WL-S for about half that price, I’d be unlikely to spend twice as much on the WL-AT. Had the price point been lower, I might have kicked myself for not waiting.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deacon Mark]

To me an overpriced guitar with little to say. No binding, small, cheap as you go tailpiece, and if someone wants one buy it. Farthest thing from an archtop I personally am looking for. Not a lot of work in one to complete.

[Hep To The Jive]

I like the sound and the look, but 1 3/4 nut and V-profile? This is terrible!

[Longways to Go]

I'm going with nope all around.

$$4K ???? WTF ? 1 3/4" nut? tiny body, flat back. I'm just not gassin'
I'd be more likely to buy one of their flattops used at less than 1/2 the price.

Sorry, but I'm happy to stick with my '34 L-7 which was cheaper and kicks A$$ in every way.

[Jim Soloway]

I like the sound and the look, but 1 3/4 nut and V-profile? This is terrible!

I like those specs but given my taste, that may be the kiss for death for a lot of people. It is an awful lot of money for what it is bit I have a hunch I'd really enjoy it.

[Hep To The Jive]

I like those specs but given my taste, that may be the kiss for death for a lot of people. It is an awful lot of money for what it is bit I have a hunch I'd really enjoy it.

Of course someone might prefer those specs, but I don't understand why wide nut on a guitar designed for strumming. I personally can't stand wide necks and especially in mix with V profile- instant fretting hand fatigue.

[Bahnzo]

Can I show my ignorance and ask why a 1 3/4 nut is frowned upon?