Is there any difference between the gibson l5 James W. "Hutch" Hutchens signed and th

[Jazz1984]

Is there any difference between the gibson l5 James W. "Hutch" Hutchens signed and the l5 manufactured after 2009?

[vinnyv1k]

No - it is just a signature. The only difference I have seen is they started pleking frets in 2006-7 and they can at times be pleked on the low side. The build quality on Culbertson signed archtops is also excellent. They do carve the tops a little thicker then the Hutch era.

[Hammertone]

Concur. All pretty much the same since @2003 and even earlier. The only consequential variation is weight, which is related to plate thickness.

[hotpepper01]

I like to believe there is a difference. The obsious difference is that there is an extra inside label indicating something like it is a "master model" saying that the top, back, tone bars etc were made, tap tuned, tested and approved by...."
James was a master at Gibson's and I like to believe not just "one of the many masters", but THE master in his time. I do not know if what I am saying here really is fact or believe. I think I am biased here.
However, my own 2002 L5CT Hutch and myselve have not met a single better sounding, or better playable l5 guitar yet.
The attention to detail of the Hutch is very, very good. Of course I assume there will be other non Hutch L5s that are possibly better, I have not met them yet. Where I live, in the Netherlands, there are not so many L5 Hutch guitars or even regular L5s around. But, the difference will be in the region of very, very good to extremely good..something like that.

[wintermoon]

the only folks that think there's a difference are ones that own them or are trying to sell them.

[omphalopsychos]

I've got 4 modern L5s: 2 hutches and 2 culbertsons. They're the exact same. Some dealers ask for a premium for the hutch ones. From a fundamental value perspective, the hutch premium is fictitious. However, imperfect information and collector ignorance could mean that the hutch ones will sell for more on average. IMO makes no sense.

[wintermoon]

The only signature written on a label by a Gibson employee in a Gibson guitar that would make me take notice is Lloyd Loar. His moniker actually carries some weight.
I'm sure "Hutch" was a fine, respected employee but I know of no significant innovations he came up with during his tenure @ Gibson unlike Loar whose contribution to carved top instruments is still used by almost every builder, not just Gibson.

[QAman]

James Hutchins " Hutch" is associated with a period in time where excellence was restored to Gibson guitars. He is considered by Gibson to be one of the most accomplished and dedicated luthiers within the history of Gibson. He spent 45 years at Gibson. He made a name for himself while working at the Kalamzoo location, before transferring to Nashville. Henry J let Hutch buy the best woods and instill excellence throughout the entire facility.

Gibson said he worked every job, throughout his tenure , from maintenance to pattern making with an unflinching attention to detail. Gibson has stated he helped define part of its legacy.

He was the plants liason for artists who wanted custom instruments. Henry J said" Hutch was a remarkable man, with talent all his own and his light will shine forever through every corner , every hall, and with every team member of the company".

His passion, influence and unwavering commitment to quality will never be forgotten by those who knew " Hutch".

Companies are only as good as the individuals who run them, and the reverence for "Hutch" is well deserved. He established and maintained a culture of excellence which many of us experience through ownership of a " Hutch " signed guitar.

This is not to say his predecessors are inferior, but rather to shed some light on why "Hutch" is highly regarded by owners and dealers.

His name is symbolic with excellence.




Sent from my SM-P610 using Tapatalk

[jads57]

I think of all the L-5CES model guitars I’ve had the pleasure of playing throughout the various years. And Hutch and Culbertson as well as Phillip Wharton were definitely my favorites!
I think it just comes down to the individual instrument and what speaks to you!

[andrew]

I know this has been discussed before, but I never fully grasped why some instruments had Hutch signatures while other examples of the same year/model did not. I have two archtops from the Hutch era (both from '98) including an L-5, but neither of them have any signature.

[yebdox]

I know this has been discussed before, but I never fully grasped why some instruments had Hutch signatures while other examples of the same year/model did not. I have two archtops from the Hutch era (both from '98) including an L-5, but neither of them have any signature.

I'm in the same boat: my '97 has no signature, yet is a thing of beauty. Oh, well. Not planning on selling it, so the provenance/history is of little use to me.

[Sleeko]

My 2002 L4CES is a Hutch. It has that piano zing that folks are always crowing about and nothing else in my stable can touch it.

[Chris236]

I know this has been discussed before, but I never fully grasped why some instruments had Hutch signatures while other examples of the same year/model did not. I have two archtops from the Hutch era (both from '98) including an L-5, but neither of them have any signature.

I'm in the same boat: my '97 has no signature, yet is a thing of beauty. Oh, well. Not planning on selling it, so the provenance/history is of little use to me.

I have a ‘99 Legrand that also has no signature. Maybe that was a thing in the late 90’s?

[omphalopsychos]

James Hutchins " Hutch" is associated with a period in time where excellence was restored to Gibson guitars. He is considered by Gibson to be one of the most accomplished and dedicated luthiers within the history of Gibson. He spent 45 years at Gibson. He made a name for himself while working at the Kalamzoo location, before transferring to Nashville. Henry J let Hutch buy the best woods and instill excellence throughout the entire facility.

Gibson said he worked every job, throughout his tenure , from maintenance to pattern making with an unflinching attention to detail. Gibson has stated he helped define part of its legacy.

He was the plants liason for artists who wanted custom instruments. Henry J said" Hutch was a remarkable man, with talent all his own and his light will shine forever through every corner , every hall, and with every team member of the company".

His passion, influence and unwavering commitment to quality will never be forgotten by those who knew " Hutch".

Companies are only as good as the individuals who run them, and the reverence for "Hutch" is well deserved. He established and maintained a culture of excellence which many of us experience through ownership of a " Hutch " signed guitar.

This is not to say his predecessors are inferior, but rather to shed some light on why "Hutch" is highly regarded by owners and dealers.

His name is symbolic with excellence.




Sent from my SM-P610 using Tapatalk

Steve I had responded but gave my response further thought. What you are saying is valid. I.e. hutch's presence marked a renewal of excellence at Gibson. However the OP is asking about Hutch vs later models and signed vs not signed. My understanding is that hutch wasn't building his "signed" models end to end, he was stamping that the body met his QA criteria. There are Gibson guitars made during the hutch period that are not signed by him. Does this make them inferior? Collector lore and market forces will probably dictate that they have a lower sale value. IMO these guitars are no different from the ones signed by hutch.

Additionally, all your comments reflect a comparison between hutch and his immediate predecessors. The OP was asking about post-hutch models. Your point that Hutch is symbolic of a period of excellence (probably unintentionally) implies that the post-hutch archtops are inferior. I personally haven't plaid enough to say with quantitative certainty but in my limited experience, the statement that post hutch archtops are not as good, is false.

So yes, the hutch signature is a symbol of excellence. But that level has been maintained in parts of the gibson org. The attention to detail on custom made archtops from Gibson is as good as any small-batch luthier I've dealt with. Much better than some.

[QAman]

Juan,
I appreciate your comments....to a point, and not sure we need a quantitative analysis. The purpose of my post was to shed light on "Hutch" period guitars. Not to stir, or create a bias.....just the facts. People can draw there own conclusion regarding value etc. Additionally, I never said post 'Hutch" guitars were inferior, or implied such a perception - that is your own bias. In fact, others have already commented about the great quality from post "Hutch" period builds. I own several post "Hutch" period builds are they are fine instruments.

Also, my comments about "Hutch " representing a period of excellence was in indeed intentional, not unintentional as you noted.

The name "Hutch" is held with great reverence. He gave Gibson 45 years of his life, and to this day is highly regarded by Gibson and many dealers ........thats an undisputed fact.

My comments on this forum are meant to provide insight and information. Hopefully you and others can benefit
from such information.

[omphalopsychos]

Steve, I don't know if you read my post as argumentative. It was only meant to be an affirmation of your post plus a statement that Gibson has continued to build great archtops since hutch. I'm a little lost by the tone of your latest response and I don't follow which part you agree/disagree with.

[Stringswinger]

In my view, the only advantage of a Gibson archtop built during the "Hutch" years and those that came later is that the woods on the earlier guitars, like fine wines, have had more aging time.

I have three custom shop Gibson archtops built during the Hutch era and only one has a signed Hutch label. The other two are every bit as good. I played a recent Custom shop Gibson archtop that belongs to forum member Vinny and it was every bit as good as my Hutch archtops.

Hutch deserves all of the accolades that QAman's post points out, to be sure. Regarding quality and value, my thought is that every era of Gibson archtops has great guitars and not so great guitars. Each guitar should be judged on it's own merit. A signed label inside a guitar confers neither sound, playability or any cosmetic improvement.

[QAman]

Juan,
I see that you've edited out some paraphrased statements in your last response, and respectfully speaking, I will do the same with this response.......its been edited.

I conduct myself with the upmost integrity - and those who know me will likely agree.

Juan ........ have a nice day.

[wintermoon]

In 1990 I purchased 2 brand new Hutchins signed blonde L-5CES models, an '89 and '90.
I bought them as investments because they were local and priced very low, I knew I'd be able to parlay them into something else down the road and sure enough there was a letter in my mailbox from Mandolin Brothers the day I got home from buying the '89 that Gibson was planning a 35% increase in carved top guitars. I went back the next day and bought the '90 and shortly afterward consigned it to MB's.
They were well made, good instruments as are most L-5's but I moved them both within a year, they just didn't touch my vintage ones tonally.
I respect omphalopsychosis, Vinny and SS's assessments because they have dogs in the race but are unbiased and know there's really no difference.

Getting back to the OP's question I think the answer is no.

[vinnyv1k]

I have said this many times but the best Gibson archtop I ever owned was a Norlin 1978 S400.

Unless there is a signature by D’Angelico, D’Aquisto, or Campellone inside the F-hole any other name doesn’t mean too much to me.

Every year has greats, goods, just ok, and a few turds too.

Actually guitars are very much like women. You have blonde bombshells, plain Janes, and some baby frighteners.

[Jabberwocky]

There are differences and the differences are cosmetic. The late era, circa 1998 to 2005, James Hutchins sunbursts were warm cognacs instead black blue. The sunburst had finer gradation, not a hard gradation. The figure of the maple showed a distinct fiddleback pattern with no bald spots and looked clean. When Mark McGuire took over the maple had wilder tendrils of flame, wider flames, bald spots and mineral streaks or flecks. The sunburst looked bluer and had harder gradation. The Natural maple finish had a darker tint. Then came Philip Whorton and it was a bit of both Hutch and McGuire. Vinny said that Hutch-era tops were carved thinner and I believe that to be true.

When people mention Hutch-era they are talking about the cosmetics of the archtops that are associated with his tenure as Shop Supervisor. There are Hutch-era tells. You could almost spot a Hutch-era L-5CES without looking at the label just by looking at the figure of the maple and the sunburst. They are rather distinctive.

But other than cosmetics, they are no more special than the ones that followed. Traders try to make it out that there is some special magic about Hutch-era archies. Other than looks, I don't think so.

[Chris236]

Apologies if I missed it - Any intel on the labeling? My ‘99 Legrand has a single oval orange ‘Gibson Custom’ sticker inside.

[omphalopsychos]

This thread is incomplete without pics.

Guitar A

Guitar B

Guitar C

Guitar D



Which one's your fave?

[garybaldy]

D followed by A

[deacon Mark]

A no doubt, but I will take any of them if you want to part with the one pickup Wes's.