1938 Epiphone Olympic - info wanted!

[Bluesbreaker]

Hi all,

I've just bought this 1938 Epiphone Olympic and keen to know more about it. I've googled the model and know that it was the cheapest in the Masterbilt range but can't find mind much more info about them? I believe the top is carved spruce and the back and sides Mahogany, is this correct?

I searched the serial number and it comes up as 1938 even though it was advertised as a 1939, can anyone clarify? The label inside reads Epiphone Masterbilt Instrument No: 12609.

It has a nice voice and lovely natural reverb but the neck needs resetting and the bridge has been sanded down low to compensate, so the break angle is shallow. I think it will sound much better when my luthier has reset the neck to the correct angle and made a new bridge with a steeper break angle, what do you think?

Unfortunately, the previous owner cut into the pickguard as he had a pickup attached, and there are a couple of small holes drilled in the side of the neck which I will get filled in. I will probably end up playing this without the pickguard anyway. One reason I bought this is that unlike my 1950 Gibson L-4 it has the floating neck extension so I can put in a Dearmond monkey on a stick which I may end up doing. Though I'm kind of in two minds about that!

Here are some pics...



this pic shows the bridge and break angle...

[ThatRhythmMan]

Felix Wiedler has amassed a lot of information on Epiphones. His website is a great resource. Interestingly, his database actually puts your guitar at 1937.

NY Epi Reg - The Unofficial New York Epiphone Registry

The “Unofficial NY Epiphone” Group on Facebook is also a great resource with a small, but knowledgeable membership.

[Bluesbreaker]

Felix Wiedler has amassed a lot of information on Epiphones. His website is a great resource. Interestingly, his database actually puts your guitar at 1937.

NY Epi Reg - The Unofficial New York Epiphone Registry

The “Unofficial NY Epiphone” Group on Facebook is also a great resource with a small, but knowledgeable membership.

Thanks Rhythm Man, it's funny you should post that as I'd just been looking on there and saw that mine was registered as a 1937!

Will check out his other info.

[campusfive]

If you're going to take the pickguard off, but put a "monkey on a stick", and you've already got the holes drilled for a neck rod, why not just go with a neck rod mount? The pickguard usually plays a role in keeping a stick-mounted pickup in place. And then the stick-assembly is a constant source of rattles, and other issues. A neck rod is also, just a better, stronger, mounting option.

If you're planning to play it acoustically, only occasionally plug it in, then I can relate, and that's why my 1932 L-5 doesn't have a neck-rod mount. I play it acoustically all the time, and don't want anything impeding that, but between 2-3 gigs a year, I need to electrify it, so that's when I get out the FHC on a stick.

[Bluesbreaker]

If you're going to take the pickguard off, but put a "monkey on a stick", and you've already got the holes drilled for a neck rod, why not just go with a neck rod mount? The pickguard usually plays a role in keeping a stick-mounted pickup in place. And then the stick-assembly is a constant source of rattles, and other issues. A neck rod is also, just a better, stronger, mounting option.

If you're planning to play it acoustically, only occasionally plug it in, then I can relate, and that's why my 1932 L-5 doesn't have a neck-rod mount. I play it acoustically all the time, and don't want anything impeding that, but between 2-3 gigs a year, I need to electrify it, so that's when I get out the FHC on a stick.

Hi Jonathan,

It's funny you should reply, I've literally just been watching your Norm's vid where you play Picking For Charlie on the Emperor. Great stuff!

Thanks for your input and that's a good point about the pickguard and neck rod mount. If I do decide to go with the pickup I will likely do that, I certainly wouldn't want it to impede the acoustic quality. And that's the point really, I'm in two minds whether to just keep this purely as an acoustic instrument, I don't think I would plug it in very often and if I use it live I will either mic it (I have no experience of micing an acoustic archtop - only flat tops). Or, the other option is go with some sort of transducer like a K&K. I had one of these in an old Kay archtop that I had a few years ago and was quite impressed. I generally tend to prefer the sound of a mic though, but I would imagine archtops are trickier to mic than flat tops?

On a separate note, what do you think of the Epiphone Masterbilt guitars from the 30's? How do they compare to the Gibsons in your opinion? I have a Gibson L-4 though that is a later 1950 version. It sounds quite different, I would say the Gibson sounds woodier and has a bit more low end, the Epiphone has a sort of honky mid range but seems to have more natural reverb than the Gibson. I'm actually really enjoying the acoustic sound so I think I may keep it as it is. It's currently with my luthier having the neck reset, a new bridge made and a full refret so I'm sure it will sound even better when I get it back!

[campusfive]

Cheers, and thanks.

I'm not a fan of transducers - they often fail to capture the essential sonic elements that make an archtop sound different than a flattop, thus making an archtop sound more like a plugged-in flattop. Also, if you've a guitar with a less than full acoustic voice, say like a Kay or the pressed-top Gretsch acoustic archtop I started on, they sound relatively accurate, but when I upgraded to a carved-top, non-cutaway Eastman, it still sounded as junky my previous guitar. I don't mean to belittle anyone's gear, but there's a pretty significant difference between a proper, pro-grade 30's-40's acoustic archtop, and the other things.

I mic mine with a clip-on condenser mic, and have a system super dialed-in for doing it without feedback. But it requires being very specific about the positions of the guitar and monitors, which once you understand, isn't to hard to make happen. I've got a whole blogpost about my setup if you're interested. Considering how well it works, and importantly, how faithful it sounds, I just would never bother with a transducer at this point.

I'm not sure to the extent that a Gibson post-1950 is that reflective of the 30's-40's ones, but I would say that honky mid-range is definitely accurate for Epiphone. To my mind, Gibson's tend to be a bit more sensitive and responsive, and I associate natural reverb with that trait. Also, I notice the ebony board tends to give L-5's a bit more "zing" in the high end. From what I can tell that honky midrange is what really had Epiphone winning the guitar wars through the middle 30's, because Gibson's x-braced advanced guitars had scooped mids and thus disappeared in a band. It wasn't until Gibson went back to parallel bracing (which Epiphone had always used) and adopted Epi's longer scale that Gibson started winning again at the very end of the 30's.

[Bluesbreaker]

Cheers, and thanks.

I'm not a fan of transducers - they often fail to capture the essential sonic elements that make an archtop sound different than a flattop, thus making an archtop sound more like a plugged-in flattop. Also, if you've a guitar with a less than full acoustic voice, say like a Kay or the pressed-top Gretsch acoustic archtop I started on, they sound relatively accurate, but when I upgraded to a carved-top, non-cutaway Eastman, it still sounded as junky my previous guitar. I don't mean to belittle anyone's gear, but there's a pretty significant difference between a proper, pro-grade 30's-40's acoustic archtop, and the other things.

I mic mine with a clip-on condenser mic, and have a system super dialed-in for doing it without feedback. But it requires being very specific about the positions of the guitar and monitors, which once you understand, isn't to hard to make happen. I've got a whole blogpost about my setup if you're interested. Considering how well it works, and importantly, how faithful it sounds, I just would never bother with a transducer at this point.

I'm not sure to the extent that a Gibson post-1950 is that reflective of the 30's-40's ones, but I would say that honky mid-range is definitely accurate for Epiphone. To my mind, Gibson's tend to be a bit more sensitive and responsive, and I associate natural reverb with that trait. Also, I notice the ebony board tends to give L-5's a bit more "zing" in the high end. From what I can tell that honky midrange is what really had Epiphone winning the guitar wars through the middle 30's, because Gibson's x-braced advanced guitars had scooped mids and thus disappeared in a band. It wasn't until Gibson went back to parallel bracing (which Epiphone had always used) and adopted Epi's longer scale that Gibson started winning again at the very end of the 30's.

I do know what you mean about transducers, I don't think they come very close at all in capturing the true acoustic voice of a guitar, archtop or flattop. I used the Kay as a slide guitar and played it through a valve amp and it worked well for that purpose, but obviously a very different sound and nothing like the natural tone of the guitar which is what I would want for this Epiphone. I think I will stick to the mics.

A clip on condenser mic certainly sounds like a convenient way of doing it, I will look into that and certainly check out your blogpost, thanks.

I'd love to compare this Epiphone to say an L-4 or L-7 from the 30's. I think my 1950 model is built very similar to the 30's ones (someone correct me if I'm wrong), carved spruce top with solid maple back and sides and parallel bracing. It has a slightly fuller sound than the Epiphone (maybe due to the slightly larger body size - the Epi is under 16 inch) and it does have nice natural reverb, just not quite as pronounced as the Epi. It does feel more responsive as you say. I would imagine the difference in scale lengths will no doubt be a big factor in the differences in tone, too.

The Epiphone has a really nice voice and I'm very happy with it, the natural reverb is lovely, and the high E string particularly just rings beautifully. Interesting about the honky midrange, I can see that being a big advantage when cutting through a mix. I don't dislike that aspect at all, it's just different to what I'm normally used to.

I'm looking forward to hearing how it sounds after the work has been done.

[nopedals]

I would say that an olympic would be considered a student model and shouldn't sound as good as an L4. I had an olympic and never thought of it as a high quality acoustic guitar. It had a pickup and was solidly built, worked fine plugged in.

Early small bout olympics are sought after due to a celebrity player connection.

[Bluesbreaker]

I would say that an olympic would be considered a student model and shouldn't sound as good as an L4. I had an olympic and never thought of it as a high quality acoustic guitar. It had a pickup and was solidly built, worked fine plugged in.

Early small bout olympics are sought after due to a celebrity player connection.

True, I appreciate that the Olympic was considered a student model at the time, but it's a very well built guitar and the construction, solid woods and carved top can't be that dissimilar to an L-4? I think if people played my Olympic and L-4 side by side most would prefer the L-4 but the Olympic has a unique tone that I really like. I'm sure they vary between guitars like any other.

Yes, Dave Rawlings has indeed pushed prices of the earlier, smaller body version up. I have a 30's Gibson L-30 which is the same size as Rawling's Olympic and that sounds great.

[nopedals]

My memory is coming back. My Olympic was a '44. I also briefly owned a late 30s L4. I liked the Olympic, but it was not in the same league acoustically with the L4. IIRC the nut was 1 5/8" instead of the standard 1 11/16".

[Bluesbreaker]

My memory is coming back. My Olympic was a '44. I also briefly owned a late 30s L4. I liked the Olympic, but it was not in the same league acoustically with the L4. IIRC the nut was 1 5/8" instead of the standard 1 11/16".

Interesting, I don't know whether the later Olympics were built differently, or used different wood than the 30's ones. I'll have a better idea of how my two compare once it's had the work done and I can compare them both with a decent set up.

That's one thing I did notice straight away with the Epiphone, the nut is narrower than the Gibson, felt a bit awkward at first as I'm used to 1 11/16th but I think I'll get used to it.

[daverepair]

Nice looking Olympic, congratulations! As someone who has repaired and owned numerous vintage Epi archtops, of all sizes, I find them to have a (mostly) consistently great tone: distinctive, and different- not better or worse- than Gibsons. All 'NY' Epi acoustic archtops had carved tops, and solid, carved tone bars: many mid-and lower Gibsons did not, instead having 'kerfed' tone bars(a labor and time saving manufacturing step) which, IMO, contributes to their different sound. Both your L-4 and Olympic have laminated backs, and while the Olympic was priced as, and considered, an entry level model, the build quality is every bit as good as a '50 L-4, or a late '30's comparable Gibson. I recently did extensive 'maintenance'(neck reset, refret, and new bridge) on a '39 Olympic, and afterwards it was a delightful instrument, the mahogany b&s giving it a subtly different sound than walnut or maple. For myself, I find the 1-5/8" very comfortable, because of the heft & shape of the carve(30's Epiphones have a distinctly more modern neck carve, as opposed to the often hard 'v' of Gibsons and other brands). The pickguard is not original on your guitar: it would not have been bound, and would have been a different shape.
As noted above by That Rhythm Man, Felix Weidler's website is the most comprehensive source available for info on these wonderful instruments. His 'database' usually dates instruments a year or so earlier than other sources.

[Bluesbreaker]

Nice looking Olympic, congratulations! As someone who has repaired and owned numerous vintage Epi archtops, of all sizes, I find them to have a (mostly) consistently great tone: distinctive, and different- not better or worse- than Gibsons. All 'NY' Epi acoustic archtops had carved tops, and solid, carved tone bars: many mid-and lower Gibsons did not, instead having 'kerfed' tone bars(a labor and time saving manufacturing step) which, IMO, contributes to their different sound. Both your L-4 and Olympic have laminated backs, and while the Olympic was priced as, and considered, an entry level model, the build quality is every bit as good as a '50 L-4, or a late '30's comparable Gibson. I recently did extensive 'maintenance'(neck reset, refret, and new bridge) on a '39 Olympic, and afterwards it was a delightful instrument, the mahogany b&s giving it a subtly different sound than walnut or maple. For myself, I find the 1-5/8" very comfortable, because of the heft & shape of the carve(30's Epiphones have a distinctly more modern neck carve, as opposed to the often hard 'v' of Gibsons and other brands). The pickguard is not original on your guitar: it would not have been bound, and would have been a different shape.
As noted above by That Rhythm Man, Felix Weidler's website is the most comprehensive source available for info on these wonderful instruments. His 'database' usually dates instruments a year or so earlier than other sources.

Thanks Dave for all that info, very interesting and great to know that the Epiphones have solid, carved tone bars. I agree with you completely, the build quality on the Olympic seems excellent, and every bit as good as my L-4. The mahogany back and sides are one of the things that attracted me to this model, I'm glad it sounds different to my Gibson and like I said earlier, the tone is lovely, and will no doubt be even better once all the work has been done. I was already getting used to the nut width before I gave it to my luthier, and I only had it a day, so I'm sure that won't be a problem, and for chords where I wrap my thumb over I actually prefer it. The neck feels super comfortable and like you say, it feels like a more modern shape compared to my L-4, and slimmer too.

Thanks for the info re the pickguard, I thought this probably wasn't original as it didn't look like other Olympics I'd looked at. I'll probably keep it off the guitar anyway.

That's interesting about Felix Weilder's site, guitarhq.com list it as 1938 whereas Weilder lists it as 1937.

[daverepair]

Bluesbreaker, if you're interested, and are on Facebook, I have a page, David Richard Luthier, where I've posted photos and videos of numerous vintage Epis, and a few Gibsons, that I've repaired or 'resurrected'.

[Bluesbreaker]

Bluesbreaker, if you're interested, and are on Facebook, I have a page, David Richard Luthier, where I've posted photos and videos of numerous vintage Epis, and a few Gibsons, that I've repaired or 'resurrected'.

Hi Dave, thanks for letting me know, I've just been watching some of your videos, great stuff! And the work you do on these old guitars looks fantastic. I loved the rendition of San Fransisco Bay Blues on the 30's L-00, I have a 1935 model 14 fretter and love it for that style of blues fingerpicking, just a wonderful guitar.