Solid or laminate?

[bleumax]

I'm looking at a guitar right now that's a discontinued model. The specs have disappeared from the manufacturer's website. The 1997 version (2nd picture) definitely has laminated back and sides. Sister models of this guitar from 1998 are known to have solid back and sides, but there's some confusion as to whether this model is laminate or solid.

Would it be safe to assume that this guitar (1998 model) has a solid back?



This is the 1997 version:


Thanks for any input.

[Bryan T]

What model is it?

[Fliss]

My first thought is - have you tried contacting the manufacturer to ask?

If they can't tell you, can you tell anything by looking at the grain pattern of the back wood on the inside and outside to see if they match?

Fliss

[Wade Hampton]

It was only the least expensive models of the Gibson CL Series that had laminates used in their construction: there was a CL-20 and perhaps a CL-10. It's been a long time since I thought about those, and I never owned any, just played them in music stores. But it seems to me that the very cheapest one had laminated sides and back, the next one up had laminated sides but a solid back, and all the models above that were all solid.

The CL-40's in rosewood were definitely all solid wood, and I believe the next model down was all solid, as well.

The top of the line was the CL-45, which was a rosewood cutaway guitar: again, all solid Indian rosewood and Sitka spruce.

If this picture shows the interim "Songwriter" model, then it's all solid wood, as well.

I've forgotten which CL models were mahogany. I know that one of the cheaper ones was, and there was a bubinga model, as well. If I remember correctly, the least expensive CL model had an arched laminated back.

Sorry I can't be more specific than that. Perhaps someone who's more Gibson-oriented than I am can give us more detailed information.

For example, I know there was a CL-30 model, but don't remember for certain what wood the back and sides were made of. And so forth...

Anyway, one of the finest-sounding new guitars I've ever played in my life was a Gibson CL-40. It was one of those deals where if I'd had the money to spend, I would have bought it.


Wade Hampton Miller

[rlouie]

looks like a Gibson Songbird, made before the Gibson Songwriter Deluxe and if it is it definitely is an all solid wood guitar.....

[PWoolson]

The fact that it's braced and has a center seam spline would indicate that it's solid. Though it could be plywood that is traditionally built like a solid piece (bookmatched, jointed, glued and braced). If I had to guess I'd say 75% sure that it's solid. Can you take good close-ups of the outside and inside in the same location? That would give an idea of grain patterns for us to look at.

[Wade Hampton]

Okay, I went back and looked up a few things, just to be sure of the chronology.

Unless it's a very clever and exceptionally well-executed Asian-made knockoff, the guitar in the photo that Bleumax posted is, in fact, a Gibson CL-40, as I guessed. You can tell by the combination of that bridge with those fingerboard inlays.

The mistake I made in my post was in saying it might be an "interim Songwriter model," when, in fact, the current Gibson model using that body shape is called the Songwriter. The interregnum model was called the Songbird.

First came the CL series. This was an attempt to market an entire series of guitars based on this new, modernized dreadnought body shape designed and developed by Ren Ferguson. As I stated, there were CL models in a variety of tonewoods, at different price points.



Gibson CL-40

The CL series never sold well, even though the lower-priced models were inexpensive and an attempt to compete directly with the then-new Martin D-1. Rather than scrap the entire body style, Gibson continued to make the best-sounding of the CL guitars, the CL-40, but renamed it the Songbird.

The Songbird featured the original CL-40 abalone fingerboard inlays, but combined them with a reverse belly bridge



Gibson Songbird

The Songbird eventually morphed into the Songwriter - again, it's basically the same guitar, and it's got the same bridge as the original CL-40. But either they ran out of the original CL-40 abalone fretboard inlays or decided to go with a more typically Gibson approach, because the guitar as it's now manufactured has double parallelogram inlays:



Gibson Songwriter

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[bleumax]

Sorry that I didn't provide more specificity to the model numbers and better pics. Both models are Gibson CL-20s. The first guitar is a 1998 version and the second guitar is the same model, but from 1997. The CL-30 and CL-35 were Bubinga and the CL-40, CL-45 and CL-50 had rosewood back and sides. I know for certain that the 1997 version of the CL-30 had laminate back and sides, but the model was changed in 1998 to solid back and sides. I'm just not as certain that this was the case with the CL-20s. The backbrace in the interior of the 1st guitar leads me to believe that the back is solid since you rarely see laminates with back braces and the laminates that I've seen with back braces have the braces running horizontal, not vertical in the middle of the back.

Unfortunately, the pictures are the seller's, so I don't have access to better pictures at this time. I'll pass on this guitar if it's laminate, but may purchase it if it's solid - it impacts the price too. I was hoping that any Gibson experts or guitar experts might be able to help me out...

So, just for a little more history, the CL series became the Songbird series, which became the Songwriter Series. I have also have an all-solid WM-10, which is the working man edition of the Songbird/Songwriter/CL. It's a 1998 model.

[Wade Hampton]

The person you ought to talk to is Fred Shrimer. He's a serious collector of modern Gibsons, and if anyone would know, he would.

I'll send him an e-mail and suggest that he look in on this thread.


whm

[SongwriterFan]

I agree with Paul. Given the bracing and center-seam splice on the upper picture (and the lack thereof on the lower picture), I'd say that it's fairly likely that the upper picture is of a solid back, rather than laminate.

[bleumax]

Thanks, everyone. This is a little reassuring. It makes no sense to me that Gibson would add the center seam to a laminate model. As many of you know, the records at Gibson can be spotty.

[bleumax]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

The person you ought to talk to is Fred Shrimer. He's a serious collector of modern Gibsons, and if anyone would know, he would.

I'll send him an e-mail and suggest that he look in on this thread.


whm

Wade, thanks for all the additional insight. Also, thanks for contacting your friend. Hopefully, he'll know for sure whether the back and sides are solid.

[Eracer]

I'm sure it's just a trick of the light, but darned if I can see the center brace in the 2nd photo.

[winstonian]

My apologies if someone has already suggested this....have you tried looking at the top wood in cross section at the soundhole? You should be able to see the grain lines running all the way through the thickness of the topsheet if it's solid. If it's laminate, you won't see this. You'll see either nothing, or layers that are parallel to the top sheet.

[J185-4Me]

The CL-10, CL-20 and CL-30 were all supposed to be laminated sides and back, with an arch, and with no back bracing, as seen in the second photo. Once these models were rebadged Songbirds or Songwriters (or whatever they became), in 1999, they were built with solid b&s, as I understand it.

It looks like the first example in the first post may be a darker wood, possibly chechen. The CL-20s were *supposed to be* built of "Tslan", Chechen or Machiche woods -- your guess which was selected when -- probably chosen on a "what's available today" basis.

The upper shot is of b&s wood that is a little darker, which Wade may have thought resembled the r/w of the CL-40, but the label says "CL-20 Standard Plus", so it might be the chechen wood.

But with Gibson, where exceptions often rule, even if the spec sheet says it should be laminated, it may well be solid, or vice-versa. Those back braces and probable (?) lack of a back arch may indicate solid woods, as someone else noted.

Hope that helps,
Fred