Any love for the Loar arch tops

[gmr]

Hello to all. I am a bit partial to arch top guitars. Not because I’m any sort of arch top player, but because my Father’s played a Gibson ES 125 from ‘51 until he died in ‘69. He bought it new in ‘51. He did not play jazz. He was a country guy, in the vein of Mother Maybelle, Little Jimmy Dickens, Charlie Pride, Jim Reeves… that sort of stuff. I have that ES 125. It was a gift from my stepmother some years after he died. I never really learned to play guitar as a kid. I just had it. It lived in its case mostly. I did buy another guitar as a twenty something kid. Tried to teach myself. Learned a little about guitars and guitar maintenance. I discovered the old guitar had many issues. But I didn’t have the heart to change anything. I finally decided to do what needed to be done to make it enjoyable to play again in the last few years. I kinda dig it. It still has its tell tale age problems… my stepmom did not store it well when she had it. But the action is useable and the old P90 sounds very good. Acoustically, I guess it sounds like an old laminated arch top.
Now to my question: I play it more acoustically than plugged in. I am considering getting a Loar LH600 or LH 700 eventually, but I don’t see a lot of commentary on these. Sweetwater now carries them, so I feel a bit more confident about a possible purchase of one.
Any advice is appreciated. Truly. Just not sure if I just need to keep playing my old ES acoustically or get a new Loar.

[Steve DeRosa]

It's wonderful when an instrument can get passed down from generation to generation within a family, creating a living legacy - a number of years ago I did some work for our church with a nonagenarian WW II vet, who owned an uber-rare early-1958 Les Paul goldtop/darkback with PAF's (worth $150K+ today) that went to his grandkids when he passed just short of his 100th birthday - and I'll share my thoughts in that vein:

• First off, I'd do whatever needs to be done - whatever the cost - to make the guitar playable: you have a good instrument from what many consider one of Gibson's finest periods of production, and as a matter of principle alone it deserves to be restored for future generations to enjoy...
• In the postwar days, when even the smallest venues had live music 4-5 times a week (and you could make a decent living teaching during the day and playing out at night), it was common for savvy local players to buy a dual-purpose instrument like the ES-125 that could serve in both acoustic and electric roles. FWIW the manufacturers understood this, building their journeyman electrics lighter and more acoustically resonant than later versions, and it was well-known then (and recently rediscovered) that a good ES-125/ES-150 (the 17" non-cut single-pickup electric) or its Epiphone Zephyr counterpart could rival their all-carved L-4/L-7 or Spartan/Triumph stablemates for tone and volume. BTW upright bassists have known for years that all-laminated construction has a less-deleterious effect on tone than with a flattop instrument: many older all-laminated basses ('40s-60s Kay, '30s-50s Epiphone - the reason Gibson bought the company in the first place - and early Engelhardt, among others) are still eagerly sought by players for their tonal qualities, and the major postwar makers all had some fine-sounding laminated all-acoustic archtops in their lineups (Gibson L-48, Guild A-50 and, unbeknownst to many, nearly the entire pre-1960 Gretsch line) - with the proper repairs (your mention of "useable" action suggests to me it needs a neck reset - FYI neck geometry is extremely important to archtop tone, and I think you'll notice a significant improvement once it's done) Dad's old guitar will continue to deliver for another 75 years or more...
• If you're looking for a reasonably-priced 16-incher with a major Gibson vibe, the all-solid/all-carved Loar LH-Series is the only act in town - unfortunately the rumors that Epiphone was preparing to replace the ill-conceived 2010's Masterbilt lineup with historically-accurate, all-carved archtops priced to compete with Loar and Eastman didn't pan out (although the Zephyr Deluxe Regent - a fairly close rendition of a mildly-modified circa-1953 New York original - did in fact make it to the 150th Anniversary Series) - and they've definitely become more widely available than they were 15-20 years ago when they were introduced. That said, there are a couple of caveats: when they're good they're very good, but when they're not they're a real pain in the kiester - the necks are a beefy, authentic 1920's deep-V shape with a 1-3/4" nut width (which was an absolute dealbreaker for me - if they had a more '50s-60s profile and 1-11/16" width I'd own an LH-700 right now), and neckset angles have historically been inconsistent (I haven't played any of the current ones, but based on my experiences in the early-2K's you might wind up kissing a lot of frogs before you find your true love )...
• Finally, if you're OK with stepping outside the Gibson mold I'd recommend giving the similarly-priced Eastman 600-Series archtops (also all-solid/all-carved) a good look. One you might find of particular interest is the AR610, a 17" non-cut designed by the late vintage Epiphone expert Jim Fisch: in essence a modern-day rendition of the rare postwar Epiphone Devon with its mahogany sides/back, it incorporates Benedetto-style construction influences to offer a mellow yet projective tone that stands in marked contrast to the Loar's traditional midrangey cut and punch, with a more player-friendly neck profile (including a modern Gibson-style 1.72" width on more recent production) and none of the QC issues that plagued the Loar. It's long been considered an ideal crossover/first archtop among flattop players, as well as acoustic archtop aficionados who aren't primarily jazz players - and if you share Dad's musical tastes/preferences it could be the ideal tool for your style..

All the best...

[stevo58]

If I may add my humble experience to the ever-wise words of Steve -

I owned an LH-700, which I bought used to replace a Godin Fifth Avenue. Any issues it may have had had been corrected by the original owner. Neck angle was good, the frets had been dressed, and so on. I really liked that guitar. The neck is huge, with a pronounced V, but even with my small hands I got along fine with it and actually preferred it to the flatter neck of the Godin. But you should try one before you buy if you can, it is probably very different than anything you are used to.

I only sold it because I came upon a 1950 Epi Devon, needed to finance it, and I don’t “need” two acoustic arch tops at home. The Devon was exactly what I was looking for, sound-wise. It has that big band comping sound in spades. The Loar would have been better, I think, if I were capable of doing solo chord melody stuff. If I had kept it, I probably would have installed a CC pickup in it and turned it into a sort of ES-150, which would have been a shame.

The Devon, incidentally, has a wonderful neck, which I like more than any other neck I’ve played. Substantial, but not huge; I suppose it is a C profile, it fits my hand perfectly and I suffer no fatigue, regardless how long I play. If I ever order a custom build, I want this profile on it.

So try to play an acoustic Loar if you can to check the neck profile (the electrics have a different profile). If you can’t try the specific instrument you buy, make sure you have a good return policy. If the neck angle is wrong, forget about it, you won’t be able to do anything about it economically.

Steven

[Robin, Wales]

I think that I'd be inclined to put the $1000 for a new Loar from Sweetwater into getting your Gibson sorted by a good luthier.

And ask Steve DeRosa (above ^^^^) what set-up he would recommend for it if you are going to play it mainly acoustically for Carter style country/bluegrass stuff.

I played a fairly new (2023) Loar 600 a month or so back. It felt and looked like any other AXL brand (recording king etc) instrument. And the one I tried had major neck geometry issues.

[gmr]

Thanks for all the great advice, guys!

[RLetson]

I think it's really, really important to play a guitar before buying it, especially with brands that do not have a reputation for a very high degree of consistency--unless you have access to a remote dealer whose taste, knowlegdeability, and return policy you trust.

As for Loars--I have a 600 I bought off the wall because 1) it spoke to me immediately and 2) was very attractively priced. It's not my first-choice archtop, but I'm spoiled in that department. The Loar has been a perfectly decent summer-workshop guitar: good voice, good playability, and sturdy enough for the challenges of air travel and general dragging-around. With the addition of a custom pickguard and old Sekova single-coil pickup, it's fine for an electified gig, too, at least if the room isn't an RF nightmare. (If it were my only archtop, I'd have a humbucker on it.)

BTW, I agree with Steve above--the Gibson is definitely worth getting restored. My late playing partner had a battered '50s ES-135 (missing the bridge pickup) that was his main non-rock electric, and it had a wonderful voice. But a modern archtop is also worth having, and I'm happy to be able to choose which to take out. My '46 Broadway was my first and for quite a while my only archtop, but it was nice to add a modern, replaceable (and affordable) guitar to the collection.

[gmr]

Thanks again for all the advice. I’ve had my Gibson looked at before. After a lot of thought, I had a fret job done last year. It was a hard thing to do. Those first five frets were worn so badly, it was very difficult to get a clean tone down in the “Cowboy chord” zone. But, all that fret wear, oddly, had a lot of sentimental value to my mind. I guess I mis spoke a bit when I said “useable”. It’s now actually very playable, and doesn’t seem to show any of the dreaded neck issues. It’s had an easy life, since it came into my hands. I have the bridge saddle set pretty low, with no problems. As I understand it, a higher action produces a more traditional arch top tone character (I may be mistaken on that), but the lower setup works to my satisfaction. I’m not likely to ever be banging out punchy swing rhythms at my level of ability. I do like the traditional aesthetics of the Loar models. But the couple of Eastman that I’ve seen were pretty spectacular. A local shop used to have one or two of their arch top variants in stock. They never had a pure acoustic model. But the ones with pickups played very nicely and sounded interesting acoustically. I agree that my best option is to seek out some arch tops to test drive, for sure. I think Sweetwater has a good return policy but I would not look forward to the process.

[THart]

I'd love to try before I buy, I was able to with my smaller Weber Bitterroot & Gibson L-2 but sometimes it's just not possible. I bought a LH-700 VS from Sweetwater in November looking for a little different archtop sound. Bigger body and with maple back & sides. I think it worked out well. I'm happy with the guitar and the experience buying from Sweetwater (1st time for me). No neck angle issues. From what I've read it seems like that was a bigger problem 10 years ago but maybe it still happens. The "sales engineer" I worked with was very helpful. I didn't ask but maybe he could have confirmed the neck angle if I had. I did get pictures of my guitar before I made up my mind. I did replace the bridge and am thinking about replacing the tuners but over all it sounds good and plays well. Good volume and the distinctive archtop sound for a pretty reasonable price. No regrets.

[gmr]

Thank you for that insight oh the LH 700, and Sweetwater, Sir. I have had mostly good experiences with my purchases from there, with one exception. Oddly, it was some aggravating minor issues with a very pricey J200. Nothing that was cause for return, but things that shouldn’t have been neglected or overlooked during their “ 55 point inspection”.
Looking at other archtop possibilities in the same price range, are the Guild Savoy or the D’angelico EXL 1 model B good acoustically? I’m thinking those have floating type pickups. My apologies for the thread slippage here..

[RJVB]

I have the electrified version of the LH600, the LH650, which I absolutely love despite a small hump over the neck join on the bass side and a high fret or two. I plan to sort out the remaining issues soon but in the meantime she sounds to me like a steel-string should sound. The immediacy and clear sound of a small guitar with the depth of a 16". More or less what I had hoped to get from my mini-jumbo (which was roughly the same size and shape) but never got. And that subtle "internal reverb" that you hear mentioned in a number of videos of the original L5, well, it's there. Probably more subtle than on an L5, but so much nicer than the cathedral echoing that goes on in those big flattops!

[bfm612]

If people don't mind, I wanted to piggyback on this thread and ask what people thought of the Loar LH 600 in comparison to the Eastman AR405e. I'm interested in an acoustic archtop, which makes the Loar the more obvious choice, but is the Eastman electric if unplugged a contender? Will the Loar be much louder than an unplugged Eastman? EDIT: I have a Gretsch G5420T...would the projection unplugged be similar to the unplugged Eastman AR405e or the Loar LH 600?

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by bfm612

If people don't mind, I wanted to piggyback on this thread and ask what people thought of the Loar LH 600 in comparison to the Eastman AR405e. I'm interested in an acoustic archtop, which makes the Loar the more obvious choice, but is the Eastman electric if unplugged a contender? Will the Loar be much louder than an unplugged Eastman? EDIT: I have a Gretsch G5420T...would the projection unplugged be similar to the unplugged Eastman AR405e or the Loar LH 600?

There's a lot of "stuff" fixed to your Gretsch that's going to stop it working well purely as an acoustic archtop. And the body is not particularly deep. Also the bridge, Bigsby and string set up that make it great as a hollow body electric are working against it being great purely acoustically. The Eastman would be better "dual purpose" but again your set up would make a big difference. You may want 13s for the guitar to work acoustically but that heavy a string set may not be your favourite choice when you plug it in.

[Silly Moustache]

Back in 2006/7 I had three Loars, The first on an LH600 I think, was playable but unimpressive. I sold it on in months.

The second was an LH700 from Thomanns that arrived in a disgusting shape - covered in greasy fingermarks, and beer stains - it went straight back. A third LH700 from elsewhere was cleaner but so poorly finished, that I returned it.
I got an Eastman AR805e. which was great but for some strange reason I ordered the electic version, so I traded it after a while.

I now have an Eastman AR805 in sunburst

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by bfm612

If people don't mind, I wanted to piggyback on this thread and ask what people thought of the Loar LH 600 in comparison to the Eastman AR405e. I'm interested in an acoustic archtop, which makes the Loar the more obvious choice, but is the Eastman electric if unplugged a contender? Will the Loar be much louder than an unplugged Eastman? EDIT: I have a Gretsch G5420T...would the projection unplugged be similar to the unplugged Eastman AR405e or the Loar LH 600?

Both will absolutely blow away that Gretsch acoustically.

And the Loar will be quite a bit more robust than the Eastman. If you want volume and projection, a solid wood archtop with parallel bracing is going to be hard to beat...I owned a Loar 600 for a while, and it was very loud...strident almost, if you didn't control it. Eastman makes very nice archtops, but they have a somewhat more modern sound--even the non-cutaway P-90 model 405...Eastman borrowed heavily from the Benedetto book in their designs...They'll have a little less bark--many people might find them more versatile. I prefer the old school sound and just use my hands to control the tone.

I got rid of my 600, begrudgingly...I just wasn't playing it, and the problem was the rather hard V shaped neck. If I had wanted it just for use as a rhythm guitar, it would have been great, and I probably should have kept it for those purposes...the problem was, everything sounded good on that guitar-- I wanted to play up the neck, solo pieces, all of that, and the neck just flat out hurt my hand for that type of playing.

[RJVB]

Also, if that 405e has the controls in the top (or even a set PU) its acoustic tone will suffer.

My LH650 can bark and be strident, but if you learn to coax the velvet out as they said back in the day (I do that by using bare flesh and silk-and-steel strings) it can also have a surprisingly warm and deep sound.