difference between a Gibson L-7 & L-50?

[guildmann]

i'm thinking about buying one of the two Gibsons shown above, Does anyone know the difference between the 2. i know the L-7's are a lot more money. Aren't they both solid spruce and maple?

Rob

[zombywoof]

Both these models went through a number of changes so much will depend on what year instruments you are looking at.

While I have played archtops I never been able to make peace with the f-hole variety so am far from expert. As a starting point though, the L-50 had a 16" lower bout while the L-7 had a 17" lower bout. The L-7 has an elevated fingerboard extension while the L-5 does not which will come into play if you ever wanting to attach a floating pickup to the guitar.

Based on the guitars I have played the L-7 has a bigger voice and is just all the way around smoother sounding. The way I have heard it said is the L-50 is the guitar if you want to play some thumb brush Carter family style tunes while the L-7 is what you want if you are going to play some jazz or sock rhythm guitar. But I know guys who play both models and love 'em although most of the archtop freaks I know tell me you will find a lot more variation in the L-50s running from just so so to excellent sounding guitars.

Coincidentally I have a 1938 Gibson L-12 a friend dropped off for me to goof around with which is pretty much an L-7 in art deco clothing.

[mr. beaumont]

Zomby, I think you might be mixing up L5 and L50.

L50's a budget box. L7's a much nicer guitar, better everything.

Play both. I wouldn't buy an L50 sight unseen, some are in terrible shape.

[Archtop Guy]

Like has been said, L-50's changed many times over the years, so be careful. Start here:

http://home.provide.net/~cfh/gibson2.html

L-50's were always budget guitars compared to L-7's, and therefore were often not cared for well. Many that have survived are in terrible shape, sound ****ty, and are unplayable. Some are great.

L-7's have always been L-5 like with simpler trim, i.e. solid carved maple back, solid carved spruce top, elevated fingerboard.

L-50's have various combinations of wood and construction, but seldom carved tops, never carved backs TMK. Many are all lam. Many have flat backs. Also usually not elevated necks.

I know some blues guys who really like a good L-50, but no jazz guys. Like Mr. B says, I would never buy a L-50 sight unseen.

And BTW, Mother Maybelle played a 16" L-5, closer to an L-7, and no relation at all to an L-50.

[guildmann]

thanks for the info guys.... now the search for a nice L-7

Rob

[Silly Moustache]

Neck extensions and carved tops and woods are the most important factors.
Very generally, the single numbers (L-5, L-4, L-7 etc.) are higher quality than the double numbers.

I refer to acoustic archtops - when they turned them into electric guitars all bets were off. It doesn't much matter about carved tops or necks when they are simply boxes for electrics.

[good_hillbilly]

Originally Posted by guildmann

i'm thinking about buying one of the two Gibsons shown above, Does anyone know the difference between the 2. i know the L-7's are a lot more money. Aren't they both solid spruce and maple?

Rob

I don't know, I care passionately about the sound of a good acoustic archtop, but I think you can do much much better than the modern L-7's. I'm sure the vintage ones are a whole different story, but the modern one I played, while very well set up, just didn't have much volume or complexity. Of course I am generalizing based on playing only one. But the guitar felt physically heavy and dead compared to other archtops I've played, and the sound is much too midrangey. I'm not totally sure whether the top is pressed or carved on a modern L-7; it must be carved, but maybe not. Cool looking guitar but IMHO far too costly for the sound you get.

[Archtop Guy]

Originally Posted by good_hillbilly

I don't know, I care passionately about the sound of a good acoustic archtop, but I think you can do much much better than the modern L-7's. I'm sure the vintage ones are a whole different story, but the modern one I played, while very well set up, just didn't have much volume or complexity. Of course I am generalizing based on playing only one. But the guitar felt physically heavy and dead compared to other archtops I've played, and the sound is much too midrangey. I'm not totally sure whether the top is pressed or carved on a modern L-7; it must be carved, but maybe not. Cool looking guitar but IMHO far too costly for the sound you get.

For comparisons with L--50's, I was assuming the OP was interested in vintage guitars.

Nevertheless, I've played some very nice modern L-7's, and some that were not so inspiring. I believe the modern ones all have a 24 3/4" scale, which IMO subtracts from their tone compared to the vintage ones. All of them are carved tops and backs.

[rpguitar]

The original 16" L-7 had a 24.75" scale, just like the early L-5. The recent L-7C is also unique because it is X-braced like models from the second half of the 1930s. Since cutaways coincided with the return of parallel braces, the modern L-7C is really a hybrid of historical features rather than being a true copy.

I haven't actually played a newer one... just the old ones, 16", 17", X, and parallel variants.

[Archtop Guy]

Originally Posted by rpguitar

The original 16" L-7 had a 24.75" scale, just like the early L-5. The recent L-7C is also unique because it is X-braced like models from the second half of the 1930s. Since cutaways coincided with the return of parallel braces, the modern L-7C is really a hybrid of historical features rather than being a true copy.

I haven't actually played a newer one... just the old ones, 16", 17", X, and parallel variants.

Understood and all correct. My understanding was that they went to long scale with the "Advanced" 17" body? So the new L-7's are hybrid in that respect too, a 17" body with a short scale?

[rpguitar]

Actually, the X-braced 17" bodies from mid '34 through some time in '39 were 24.75" scale. I had a '35 L-12 non-cutaway that was short scale. It was in '39 that the big changes came - cutaway option, parallel bracing, and 25.5" scale length.

So I guess the newer ones are just unique with respect to the cutaway, which as far as I know was not available with the shorter scale or X-braces.

[good_hillbilly]

Originally Posted by Archtop Guy

For comparisons with L--50's, I was assuming the OP was interested in vintage guitars.

Nevertheless, I've played some very nice modern L-7's, and some that were not so inspiring. I believe the modern ones all have a 24 3/4" scale, which IMO subtracts from their tone compared to the vintage ones. All of them are carved tops and backs.

I agree with this. For electrified playing, scale length arguably doesn't matter so much, but for an all-acoustic guitar, I think an archtop benefits massively from having a full-length scale. It just gives it substantially more oomph from the considerably greater string tension.

[johndwapa]

Originally Posted by guildmann

thanks for the info guys.... now the search for a nice L-7

Rob

there is a nice 1940 L-7 at Maple Street Guitars in Atlanta. Sounds fine and in above avg condition.

[artb]

Very interesting to me L7 discussion. Recently obtained an old one shows age of maybe 1940 (serial number on sticker faded) but with no cracks and perfect alignment condition. Fine blond no cutaway. Truly a fine acoustic and electric with original De Armond p.u. I have experienced the best of archtops starting with a loaned 1939 EPI EMPEROR aged 17 in 1946. Have Schaefer's best, 1932
Martin C2(really poor), several very fine lawsuit Japs, several fine customs. None superior to the old L7 electrically, even close acoustically. That is why they are expensive. Have no experience with newer ones. Best local jazz player Dave Snyder confirms for me. I am not a jazz player. Got started and stayed with Country and the old L7 super for both. However, no gurantees by me all old L7s are.

artb

[FloridaGull]

The difference is, quite simply, 43...

Sorry - couldn't resist...