That, Certainly, is a beautiful instrument. Most especially, for a 1934 vintage. It looks almost new. I think Gibson was the one to perfect the sunburst finish and still does it perfect today.
Hi, i don't think it has been used a lot frankly, but still had to replace the frets as the Seattle dealer filed them down to nothing. sunbursts ? Yes I believe gibson did introduce them, and not sure when Martin first used them.
I have always had a fascination with acoustic archtops but I can't find a company that still makes them and I could never justify the price tag that the original come with. Very nice guitar (and playing!). Keep up the good work.
Hi George. that was quick! There are two current makers of archtops (real archtops) - one beng "The Loar" - I've had two and didn't care for them, and Eastman, and I will be updating a video on my Eastman AR805 in a few days. It is truly a dream, but a more modern approach compared to my Harmony and my Gibson.
Back in the 40's, most of those cowboy bands were, indeed, playing archtops. Check out the old movies and photos. I suspect (very personal opinion), it was because they incorporated a lot of jazz sounds in their music. That Is where country swing came from and jazz was big, at that time. Well, just checked on the Sons of the Pioneers, and they started in 1933, so they are not in the 40's grouping I'm thinking of.
That is quite a guitar for 34, SM, despite the irritation of the fretwork, which should have been disclosed. Great cat noise at 1.50 and I love the way you pronounce your handle (bar) 'moustoshe'. Cheers
I have a guitar very similar, a 1940 Gibson ES150, with original P93 (bridge), same lower script logo as yours at the head-stock, mine has no binding; the same people who built yours could very well have built mine.
Your Gibson Gibson arch-top, reminds me of the acoustic guitar's common here in NZ which was growing up, they were the Hofner & Framus, and interestingly they all had zero Frets, so That's why I do the same to mine, Sonically that maintain's the 'twang'.Probably because back in the day strings were ( in some parts of the world) a bit difficult to get,kind regards Don from Hamilton NZ 😊😊😊
Hi Don, In the '50s and early/mid '60s archtops from Germany and Sweden were the main acoustics in the UK too. They were made post war, for big /dance band use, as ye "great folk scare hadn't really caught on yet. They were based on the Gibson archtops of the 1920s .
@@SillyMoustache Thank you very much for that, I just recall my Cousin having one, an I' was probably 13-14 yrs. old, just new to acoustic guitar then & he was a few yrs. older than me and it had flat/wound strings, which contributed to a ' dull sound ' but now I recognize that was the jazz sound prevalent at the time, my Luthier had 1 recently with Ph/ Brz.strings on it and it was Very impressive, thanks again and kind regards Don
I had a '35 L 4. Best axe I'd ever had at the time ('66-'68). It was well played, beat up with some guy's name carved in the top. Traded it to my teacher who had it refurbished.
Hi Nature, mine has a scratch along the top which has been seemingly "inked out" and a small impact dent/crack on the back - but nothng worth cleating, but I'm 18 years young than this guitar and in a far worse state so as long as we can both play! (Actually, I'm sure it will remain playable far longer than I'll be playing!)
What a beautiful piece of history that Gibson is. You should be a very proud custodian of such a fine instrument. Is that the guitar you were playing during our blues Zoom lesson a couple of weeks ago?
@@SillyMoustache: Looking around the web, it seems the "advantages" are mostly preferences. They are stated as slightly muted tone, finger comfort and no squeak, when changing positions.
It is quite prettey isn't it, one level down from the L-5 which I would love but according to my one time jazz guitar teacher, who owned an L-5 from the same year it sounded and felt the same.
@@SillyMoustache there is plenty of stuff out on RUclips. Just enter Freddy Green chords and many will come up. These are really easy fingerings, but with that Gibson, they will really sound good!
@@SillyMoustache I would be happy to oblige, but Zoom! in my area experiences bad latency, so the success of that would be marginal at best. If you want to try anyway, I'd be happy to oblige!
Prior to 1935, this exact guitar would have been marked as an L-7. There is absolutely nothing different between a 1935 L-4 and a 1932-1934 L-7. In 1935 the L-7, just like the L-5 became an X-braced 17" model. At that time and for a while they simply started labeling guitars that would have been L-7s as L-4s. Even the inlays are the same. The tailpiece looks era appropriate, but the bridge appears to be a replacement.
Hi Chuck, thanks for this. I'm told that this guitar was a late '34 build but a '35 model L-4. I cannot see inside to check bracing, but one of the feet of he bridge has "L-7" written in pencil. The tailpiece certainly looks correct although I would have expected a diamond on the cross bar. Thanks for your input.
@@SillyMoustache the 1934 L-7 I’m referring to is 91889, which according to Joe Spann would date both serial numbers to 1935. 91889 has a 1934 FON. To my understanding that would mean it was made in 1934 and shipped in 1935’ (entered into shipping ledgers). The guitars don’t appear to be separated much in time at all, but as you can see we’re given different model names.
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
That, Certainly, is a beautiful instrument. Most especially, for a 1934 vintage. It looks almost new.
I think Gibson was the one to perfect the sunburst finish and still does it perfect today.
Hi, i don't think it has been used a lot frankly, but still had to replace the frets as the Seattle dealer filed them down to nothing. sunbursts ? Yes I believe gibson did introduce them, and not sure when Martin first used them.
I have always had a fascination with acoustic archtops but I can't find a company that still makes them and I could never justify the price tag that the original come with. Very nice guitar (and playing!). Keep up the good work.
Hi George. that was quick! There are two current makers of archtops (real archtops) - one beng "The Loar" - I've had two and didn't care for them, and Eastman, and I will be updating a video on my Eastman AR805 in a few days. It is truly a dream, but a more modern approach compared to my Harmony and my Gibson.
@@georgewarrilow3421 me gusta el aechtop guitar
Really nice to see all the guitars! Another reason to pay you a visit again :) cheers from Holland!
Hey Aart Great to hear from you! Send me an email - let's chat!
You have some fine instruments my friend. And you play them well.
Thanks Ditch, always good to hear from you!
Very nice!! Notes emanating from it remind me of the Sons of the Pioneers and early cowboy songs.
Well, it about the right era !
Back in the 40's, most of those cowboy bands were, indeed, playing archtops.
Check out the old movies and photos.
I suspect (very personal opinion), it was because they incorporated
a lot of jazz sounds in their music. That Is where country swing came from
and jazz was big, at that time.
Well, just checked on the Sons of the Pioneers, and they started in 1933, so
they are not in the 40's grouping I'm thinking of.
It would be cool to see a quick look at your flat top collection, even if it's just a clip of each one with a little bit of info on each
Brian, all done, please go to my channel and check out my other videos.
@@SillyMoustache cool!
That is quite a guitar for 34, SM, despite the irritation of the fretwork, which should have been disclosed. Great cat noise at 1.50 and I love the way you pronounce your handle (bar) 'moustoshe'. Cheers
Aha! That cat is the noisiest animal we've EVER had! My 'tache seems to be getting a lot of comment lately. Thanks for watching.
I have a guitar very similar, a 1940 Gibson ES150, with original P93 (bridge), same lower script logo as yours at the head-stock, mine has no binding; the same people who built yours could very well have built mine.
Possible Mike,
Your Gibson Gibson arch-top, reminds me of the acoustic guitar's common here in NZ which was growing up, they were the Hofner & Framus, and interestingly they all had zero Frets, so That's why I do the same to mine, Sonically that maintain's the 'twang'.Probably because back in the day strings were ( in some parts of the world) a bit difficult to get,kind regards Don from Hamilton NZ 😊😊😊
Hi Don, In the '50s and early/mid '60s archtops from Germany and Sweden were the main acoustics in the UK too. They were made post war, for big /dance band use, as ye "great folk scare hadn't really caught on yet. They were based on the Gibson archtops of the 1920s .
@@SillyMoustache Thank you very much for that, I just recall my Cousin having one, an I' was probably 13-14 yrs. old, just new to acoustic guitar then & he was a few yrs. older than me and it had flat/wound strings, which contributed to a ' dull sound ' but now I recognize that was the jazz sound prevalent at the time, my Luthier had 1 recently with Ph/ Brz.strings on it and it was Very impressive, thanks again and kind regards Don
Gorgeous.
Thanks Gary - kinda looks like an archtop ought to doesn't it?
I had a '35 L 4. Best axe I'd ever had at the time ('66-'68). It was well played, beat up with some guy's name carved in the top. Traded it to my teacher who had it refurbished.
Hi Nature, mine has a scratch along the top which has been seemingly "inked out" and a small impact dent/crack on the back - but nothng worth cleating, but I'm 18 years young than this guitar and in a far worse state so as long as we can both play! (Actually, I'm sure it will remain playable far longer than I'll be playing!)
What a beautiful piece of history that Gibson is. You should be a very proud custodian of such a fine instrument. Is that the guitar you were playing during our blues Zoom lesson a couple of weeks ago?
Hi Shawn, Not sure, don't think so.
I have a '52 L7, natural finish, sounds very much like your L4. Are you using round wound strings, if so have you tried flat wound?
Hi Ken, I've used basic nickel wound strings - not flatwound. What would be the advantage?
@@SillyMoustache it's worth a try on the flats, especially if you are serious about jazz..
@@kenschachsieck1357 Ok, maybe, but don't understand what advantage they would give.
@@SillyMoustache: Looking around the web, it seems the "advantages" are mostly preferences.
They are stated as slightly muted tone, finger comfort and no squeak, when changing positions.
@@SillyMoustache there isn't so much an advantage as just a different, i.e. new, tonality which you may prefer..most of the jazz greats used them.
This is one Beautiful guitar !
It is quite prettey isn't it, one level down from the L-5 which I would love but according to my one time jazz guitar teacher, who owned an L-5 from the same year it sounded and felt the same.
@@SillyMoustache , archtops have their own sound . This one is special ! Remarkable condition for it's age !!
great video!
Thanks, Glad you enjoyed it
That is s keeper! Learn some Freddy Green three note voicings. That should really make it sing! Flatpicked leads should cut beautifully! Enjoy!
Maybe you oughta give me some zoom lessons!
@@SillyMoustache there is plenty of stuff out on RUclips. Just enter Freddy Green chords and many will come up. These are really easy fingerings, but with that Gibson, they will really sound good!
@@joelgevirtz6181 Cop out ! I thought you might give me a FREE ZOOM LESSON!
@@SillyMoustache I would be happy to oblige, but Zoom! in my area experiences bad latency, so the success of that would be marginal at best. If you want to try anyway, I'd be happy to oblige!
Me gusta la música del archtop guitar
Hola, yo también, gracias por mirar.
Beautiful! ;)
Thank you! Cheers!
Did you ever sell this??
No, still on the wall, looking splendid.
@@SillyMoustache out of curiosity, how much are you trying to get for her?
Prior to 1935, this exact guitar would have been marked as an L-7. There is absolutely nothing different between a 1935 L-4 and a 1932-1934 L-7. In 1935 the L-7, just like the L-5 became an X-braced 17" model. At that time and for a while they simply started labeling guitars that would have been L-7s as L-4s. Even the inlays are the same. The tailpiece looks era appropriate, but the bridge appears to be a replacement.
Hi Chuck, thanks for this. I'm told that this guitar was a late '34 build but a '35 model L-4. I cannot see inside to check bracing, but one of the feet of he bridge has "L-7" written in pencil. The tailpiece certainly looks correct although I would have expected a diamond on the cross bar. Thanks for your input.
@@ChuckNicholsonTRM Thanks for that link. S/n - 92074.
@@SillyMoustache the 1934 L-7 I’m referring to is 91889, which according to Joe Spann would date both serial numbers to 1935. 91889 has a 1934 FON. To my understanding that would mean it was made in 1934 and shipped in 1935’ (entered into shipping ledgers). The guitars don’t appear to be separated much in time at all, but as you can see we’re given different model names.
I'm assuming this sold?
No, I still have it. I haven't tried very hard to sell it, or anything else really.
that is a darling guitar. NEVER sell it!
Can't help feeling that it deserves a better player than me, but thanks.
@@SillyMoustache never mind what IT deserves...YOU deserve that guitar. Play it and love it. That's what it deserves.
@@freddymclain Thanks Freddie, appreciated.