Why do archtops cost so much?

[ewalling]

Some interesting replies here! My second question would be, whatever use they once had, do you think archtops have been "reduced" to being now just a variation in body shape/feel/sound for an electric guitar? I don't hear anyone raving about the acoustic properties of any archtop, and the main market seems to be electric guitarists who want a softer sound for styles like jazz and blues. I once bought an Ibanez archtop (AF105) as an electric guitar to use for fingerstyle. It was a nice guitar but no way could it have satisfied anyone as an acoustic.

[wierdOne]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Some interesting replies here! My second question would be, whatever use they once had, do you think archtops have been "reduced" to being now just a variation in body shape/feel/sound for an electric guitar? I don't hear anyone raving about the acoustic properties of any archtop, and the main market seems to be electric guitarists who want a softer sound for styles like jazz and blues. I once bought an Ibanez archtop (AF105) as an electric guitar to use for fingerstyle. It was a nice guitar but no way could it have satisfied anyone as an acoustic.

It all depends on what the guitar was designed to do... There are some archtops that are, to me, MUCH sweeter sounding than any flat top..... but... they cost upwards of 30 g's..

like this one..

Doug Wamble playing a Ken Parker Archtop

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by wierdOne

It all depends on what the guitar was designed to do... There are some archtops that are, to me, MUCH sweeter sounding than any flat top..... but... they cost upwards of 30 g's..

So would you say that for normal purposes ie. 99.99% of the guitar-buying population, the archtop is redundant as an acoustic alternative to the flattop?

[wierdOne]

Originally Posted by ewalling

So would you say that for normal purposes ie. 99.99% of the guitar-buying population, the archtop is redundant as an acoustic alternative to the flattop?

No... not at all... The ones that are 30 g's are AMAZING instruments... but.. that doesn't mean that you have to pay 30 g's to get an amazing archtop...

I've actually played quite a few budget archtop guitars that were awesome instruments... and really took on a flat top characteristic when played with phosphor bronze strings.... Obviously earlier we were talking about Eastman guitars.... their non cutaway archtops are beautiful....

check out Archtop.com to see a wide selection of archtops that are very affordable... the really vintage ones cost a pretty penny...

but...

Archtop guitars are, by design, VERY versatile guitars.... there are easy things that we, as players, can do to change up the sound of our own archtops entirely... if you have flatwound strings, the guitar is really mellow.... if you put phospher bronze on it comes alive..

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by wierdOne

yup... my cousin is an archtop luthier... the vast majority of luthiers that use laminate tops are producing VERY respectable instruments.

I build archtops, and that sure is news to me.

[drive-south]

I was under the impression that Eastman was using CNC machines to do the bulk of the carving, then having their craftmen do the final carving and tap tuning.

drive-south

[wierdOne]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

I build archtops, and that sure is news to me.

Bill Moll, Linda Manzer, Dale Unger come to mind right off the bat...

notice I said "luthiers" not companies....

[Howard Klepper]

From what I can see, all these builders make laminated top instruments for electric rather than acoustic play, and sell them at a lower price than their carved guitars. Moll in particular is a bit apologetic about it, saying he had to be converted, and "it's not really plywood."

Laminated tops, especially laminated maple, have long been popular among jazz performers, precisely because they are less responsive acoustically than carved spruce tops. They feed back less and sustain more. They also have been on less expensive instruments that the performer doesn't mind subjecting to the rigors of the road. The Gibson ES-175 is the model for this style of guitar.

But I will grant that these builders' laminate guitars are very respectable instruments. I may have mistakenly taken you to have been saying they are as respectable as carved guitars.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

From what I can see, all these builders make laminated top instruments for electric rather than acoustic play, and sell them at a lower price than their carved guitars. Moll in particular is a bit apologetic about it, saying he had to be converted, and "it's not really plywood."

Laminated tops, especially laminated maple, have long been popular among jazz performers, precisely because they are less responsive acoustically than carved spruce tops. They feed back less and sustain more. They also have been on less expensive instruments that the performer doesn't mind subjecting to the rigors of the road. The Gibson ES-175 is the model for this style of guitar.

Would it thus be accurate to say that the Martin CF1 & 2 are essentially hollow-bodied electric guitars with nothing to distinguish them in kind from a guitar like the ES-175?

[wierdOne]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Would it thus be accurate to say that the Martin CF1 & 2 are essentially hollow-bodied electric guitars with nothing to distinguish them in kind from a guitar like the ES-175?

NO... The CF1 and 2 guitars, while being laminate guitars, are MUCH more acoustically alive than any ES-175 i've ever run into..


As far as I understand it, Martin uses the same laminated tops that Dale Unger uses in his archtops..

[wierdOne]

Good video that allows you to hear a martin CF-1... it's plugged in, but you do get the idea of how alive the guitars are

[cameron]

I don't plug-in. Used to believe I did not really like archtops guitars. Then I played a 16",sunburst, non-cutaway,acoustic, Eastman AR605 (Fisch) mahogany B&S. It was about $1200 when I bought it two years ago.

I've had some nice guitars(Collings D3 Braz.,Lowden O-38c Braz.,some Martins,CA guitars etc.

I don't think most pickers realize that Eastman has been carving violins,violas,cellos for many years. They use old-timey methods,*outstanding* quality of wood(solid). IIRC,animal hide glue;and they use a varnish that is then lightly coated with nitrocellulose lacquer.

What a beautiful,lap-friendly guitar I got for such little money! It is a killer to play and to hear. To say I am thrilled with it would be a gross understatement.

I have sold most of my flattop guitars(kept the Lowden). Maybe I will never find another Eastman archie that I like as much as the one I have;but,I feel like I won the lottery with this one. It is equally at home finger-picking or flat-picking. I mostly flat-pick. (Blue Chip).

David Rawlings did get me looking at and trying out archtops. I had the usual "buy American" prejudice as baad as anybody. Please,if you are thinking about an archtop,try out a couple of Eastmans. I've seen no other archtop guitars that can touch them;even much more expensive ones.

[Haans]

Mandolin builders get a lot of flak about price too. After all it's sooo small, how can it cost so much.
One part of the answer is trying to get tone out of that small instrument.
Here's another part of the answer...try this with your binding router...

[mellowman]

I think acoustic archtops have a tone that is significantly different than flat tops and are especially well suited to swing comping or lead playing where you're looking for that midrange bark. Unfortunately, it does seem that you need to pay more for a decent acoustic archtop than you would a decent flat top. That said, you can find a very nice sounding new Eastman or vintage Gibson or Epiphone in the $1,500 to $3,000 range.

[Coke_zero]

How many hours are we looking at for a professional luthier to carve an archtop?