Gibson L-0/L-1...

[BuckMahoney]

I have an el cheapo Jay Turser in that body style



Being a cheap guitar it needs some work but sounds great:http://www.soundclick.com/bands/defa...songID=9688518
I found this one on ebay,discontinued model.Washburn is offering the same body style in their black knight series,the wpj5sb model.Haven't played it but my guess is it doesn't sound as good as the Tursers rosewood b/s compared to the washburn's Mahogany b/s.
Just for anyone wanting the L-1 body and not the hefty price of having one built

[Idaho John]

Originally Posted by fatt-dad

I'd really like to play the current issue of Gibson "Robert Johnson" model. I have a 1930 L-1, which I love. I just wonder how the new issue sounds compared to the original.

Have you tried the Gibson Robert Johnson?

f-d

fatt dad: I know about that L-1 and everytime you post that pic, I drool like Homer Simpson does over day old doughnuts and convenience store hot dogs. I have not had the privilege of playing the gibson reissue. There has not been one in our area.

The design is what intrigues me. It would be interesting to see how luthiers have tweaked them slightly. And to hear what those changes sound like - something along the line of what Howard is talking about with the change in the lower bout.


john

[Brackett Instruments]

My "W" body is loosely based on the old Gibson "L" body. I vary the depths, and I make them in 12, 13 and 14 fret configurations.
Here's an all Koa 12 fret W body.


My Fundamental model is the same size and shape. They're all 14 frets. This one is Sitka/ African Mahogany.


Here's a couple sound clips.

All Koa 12 fret W body
Fundamental Model, Sitka/ African Mahogany

[mercy]

I had the 1928 version body Gibson Nick Lucas made by a builder which expanded the lower bout to 14 1/4, thinned the depth to 4 1/4 and put on a 14 fret neck. I also thinned the neck shape a bit and had it X braced. Somehow that allows the bridge to be right in the middle of the lower bout if you use a 25" scale. It is amazing how much sound it puts out and I wont say for a small guitar. The tones are just wonderful. I used to want a Martin 00 but no more.

[kbrooks]

How about James Einolf's work? He seems to be making replicas of the 1926 L-0 and L-1.
I've not played one but they look interesting ....

jameseinolf.com

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by kbrooks

How about James Einolf's work? He seems to be making replicas of the 1926 L-0 and L-1.
I've not played one but they look interesting ....

jameseinolf.com

Not only do they look interesting, but they are incredibly cheap.

I love his clarity, especially on the, er..... warranty page:

"My guitars sound the way they do because they are very lightly constructed. They're meant to be played until they eventually self-destruct. They're not built to be passed down to your grandchildren. If you treat your guitar well, it may last 80 years or more - just like some (very few) of the original Gibson L-series guitars. On the other hand, it very well may not - again, just like most of the original Gibson L-series guitars."

He makes it plain that they are sold "As is" with no warranty of any kind, but he does offer a 2 week approval period with the buyer paying shipping both ways.

Very, very fair, for sure.

HE

[Taylorplayer]

Originally Posted by kbrooks View Post
How about James Einolf's work? He seems to be making replicas of the 1926 L-0 and L-1.
I've not played one but they look interesting ....

jameseinolf.com

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

Not only do they look interesting, but they are incredibly cheap.

I love his clarity, especially on the, er..... warranty page:

"My guitars sound the way they do because they are very lightly constructed. They're meant to be played until they eventually self-destruct. They're not built to be passed down to your grandchildren. If you treat your guitar well, it may last 80 years or more - just like some (very few) of the original Gibson L-series guitars. On the other hand, it very well may not - again, just like most of the original Gibson L-series guitars."

He makes it plain that they are sold "As is" with no warranty of any kind, but he does offer a 2 week approval period with the buyer paying shipping both ways.

Very, very fair, for sure.

HE

His guitars look really good to me, and the pricing really is very fair.

[mercy]

In reading thru this thread it seems appearant that there still is a misunderstanding about the NL guitars. His guitar was made in the 20's, is small and has a round body. The 30's models that have his name on them are larger and have flat bottoms like a Martin. I have never seen a picture of NL playing a 30's model so in a sence they arent NL guitars. If you have seen a pic of him playing one of those please correct me.

[Idaho John]

in another thread...Paul Hostetter posted a bit of information along with Tim McKnight and some other luthiers about the differences in the two NL guitars from Gibson.

Up until that point, I was ignorant about the differences. This thread is not so much about the original Nick Lucas guitar as it is about guitars that are like the Gibson L-0/L-1...much like the so called "Robert Johnson" Signature Gibson L-1. I believe (and am willing to be wrong) that there are differences between the original Nick Lucas and the Gibson L-0/L-1.

Regardless, I find this body style to be very intriguing.

john

[sfden1]

Originally Posted by Idaho John

Mary Flower uses an L-00 gibson (not unlike the greven you had Dennis)

and...

One of the only pictures of Robert Johnson shows him holding an L-1 (or an L-0) Gibson

It would be the latter guitar I am asking about.

Clear as mud?

john

Hi John, sorry I didn't see this before. I don't think I can help (I'm just as intrigued to find out more as you are), but wanted to make a few comments. Greven's LOOv, as I think you already know, was primarily based on Mary Flower's guitar, which John had in the shop for work and fell in love with.

On the Robert Johnson guitar, there's always been a lot of discussion about whether or not that was actually his guitar, or if someone lent it to him for the photo.

Irregardless, I agree the Gibson L body guitars are very intriguing. The SC H body (courtesy of Paul Hostetter) is of course based on the Nick Lucas. I'm not aware of anyone building guitars based on the Robert Johnson style L, but would like to know if anyone is.

As a caveat, I've played a number of guitars purportedly based on early Gibson body styles, and none of them, imo, come close to the originals in terms of tone, with the exception of Greven's LOOv. .

The difficulty of replicating an 80+ year old guitar tonewise aside, most makers I think, can't resist the temptation to improve upon what they hear as the weaknesses of the originals, and the guitars end up sounding far more modern than their predecessors. That's what I think is wrong with SC's versions of the Nick Lucas and 1940's J-45. Beautiful guitars, no doubt, but far too sophisticated tonally. Same with Collings C-10.

When Greven was making his version of Mary Flowers LOO, I thought he had something very interesting to say about it. If you looked at the inside of a Martin guitar of the same period, it's as clean as a whistle, to use an old fashioned phrase. No visible glue squeeze out, all braces finely sanded to eliminate any tool marks or signs of roughness. Just as nicely finished inside as outside.

Gibson's, on the other hand, were (and to this day often are) completely the opposite, with lots of excess glue squeeze out (John Thomas likes to joke that Only a Gibson is Glued Enough) and very rough finished braces. Apparently, Gibson wasn't wasting any time trying to make the inside look pretty.

Greven, having learned his trade repairing vintage Martin's, said that at first he was a bit offended by the quality (or lack of) of Gibson's finish work on the inside. But when he did his first prototypes, they didn't sound anything like Mary Flower's guitar. Too nice, not nearly as funky. It wasn't until he made one that was similarly rough on the inside to the early Gibson's that he felt that he had nailed the tone. Whether that's true or not, Greven was convinced. For me, that LOOv was as close as I'd come in a modern guitar to the vintage LOO's that I'd played up to that point.

I know that doesn't really address your query, but thought it was interesting to the discussion. As a final comment, I've found the original L bodies to be very comfortable guitars to play, and surprising loud. A very cool guitar, and I agree, it would be interesting to find out what modern luthiers are doing with this shape.

Dennis

[Idaho John]

thanks Dennis...

You are well within the ballpark.

john

[mercy]

The difference between a L0/1 and a Nick Lucas is only the depth of the body. The width, length, neck and frets clear were the same. Of course there is more bling on the NL and different woods sometimes as this was a custom build rather than the standard factory L0/1 that came out of the production line. The difference between the L0 and L1 is that the 1 had a spruce top and the 0 had mahogany. There was a variety of bracing during these years as Gibson was trying to find its way.
As far as builders I was thinking that Dave in Texas builds them. There are a couple of other guys that specialize in them but I dont remember their names.
Ah, you might try [email protected] as he used to build them very economically but I dont know if he still does or he still uses that address.

[warnerjh]

Hey guys,

Ran across this post doing some research for an article I'm writing, oddly enough about James Einolf's L-0 replicas. If you're interested in seeing some of his recent work, I spent some time in the last few weeks photographing both his instruments and his workshop. I'll include a few images below, but if you'd like to see more, there is a quick rundown of guitar images here:

http://jeffwarnerphoto.blogspot.com/...-replicas.html

And a brief selection of images from the workshop photoessay here:

http://jeffwarnerphoto.blogspot.com/...f-luthier.html

Both blog posts have links to more comprehensive sets of images if you are interested to see more. I also photographed his vintage 1926 Gibson L-0 if you want to see some images of an original:

http://jeffwarnerphoto.blogspot.com/...ic-guitar.html

It's my impression that James is trying to keep true to the L-0/L-1 design, not intending to 'improve' upon it, but rather more to duplicate (preserve?) its character. And speaking of character, James is quite the character, and thus the wry humor (as noted above) sprinkled throughout the text of his website.

Cheers,

Jeff
Jeff Warner Photographic

[Kitchen Guitars]

Jeff, looks like you have some dead pixels there. Or huge dust.

[warnerjh]

Originally Posted by Kitchen Guitars

Jeff, looks like you have some dead pixels there. Or huge dust.

Would you care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you are referring to.

If, however, you are referring to the first frontal image of what is essentially an L-1, the top is made from a Colorado Engelmann Spruce. Anyone familiar with the Rocky Mountain region is probably aware of the rather widespread and ravaging beetle-kill event that is currently underway, and has been for the last 5+ years. It's actually a pretty interesting guitar, and has a very unique look (the beetle provides for a fungus that essentially stains the wood blue-ish in certain areas).

Here's one more of the front: