Question on the old Gibson L-00 and L-1 series

[Matthew Lau]

I hope to build a 1920's L-1 replica for my next guitar project.

However, I can only find the GAL 1920's L-0 plan and the GAL/MIMF 1920's L-00 plan.
The bracing looks radically different on the L-0, as is the body shape.
After some googling, I've found that the L-00, L-0, L-1, and L-2 were supposed to be all the same guitar with differing body shapes (largely due to Gibson quality control, I guess).

Has anyone played/repaired these guitars?

I'd like to hear your thoughts, as well as why you think that it might work.
I'm considering between the two plans for my next build for a bluesman/rockstar fellow dentist friend.
If I build the L-00, I'll probably convert it to 12 frets ala Norman Blake.

Please let me know what you think!

-Matt Lau, dentist

[Mark McLean]

Matthew
We had a discussion about a number of things relating to L-00 and L-1 style guitars recently. This was after I posted some stuff about the 13-fret L-00 that I built. Paul Hostetter posted a bit about 12 vs 13 vs 14 fret design, and he is the expert there. If you haven't seen it, here is the link:
http://fretsnet.ning.com/forum/topics/nick-lucas-l00

The L-1 is a beautiful curvaceous shape. I have not seen plans for it anywhere. John Steele in California posted pictures of one he built here:
http://www.anzlf.com/viewtopic.php?t=2229&highlight=walnut

He might share the plans he used if you ask him.
They were mostly ladder braced and (allegedly) didn't sound as good as the X-braced L-00 models. But you could build an X-braced one. If you are interested in L-00 style I strongly recommend the Nick Lucas model specs (deeper body) and I think the 13-fret design is cool.

cheers
Mark

[R.J. Fulton]

I have a 1920's L-1 on my bench right now. As long as you compensate your brace placement for the placement of your bridge you should be fine.
I say this because the L-1 I'm working on has paralel bracing and you want the feet(or on a flatop the ears) of the bridge to land directly on top of the braces for vibrational transference, structural stability etc.
So you might need to place the braces in or out dependent on the width of your bridge. My guess would be in a little since your bridge will be moving further back on the soundboard.
I'm actually here to ask a few questions about this old girl myself.
Hope this helps. Take care.
R.J.

[Mark McLean]

RJ
That is very cool!
Can you post a couple of pics of her?
Even better, any chance of making a rough outline plan - just an external outline traced on paper and some basic dimensions, location of bridge & soundhole?. Bracing pattern would be a bonus.........
Like Matthew, I am keen to build a slightly adapted version of the L-1
Mark

[John Evans]

Mark

Have you seen my posts? Did you build one?

John

[John Evans]

Matt

I have loved these 1920´s L0´s and L1s for some time. I own a 1929 L1 and I was so inspired by the sound of it that I started making replicas myself. I was interested to see what a new version of the same guitar model would sound like. I used the Ted Davis GAL plan which you mentioned. This has the body with the rounder lower bout. The scalelength is very short - 24 1/4" which means that it is more comfortable to play because frets are closer together. There is also less string tension which means banding strings is much easier. What you may not realise is that three different bracing patterns were used on the tops, the "H" style (as shown in Ted Davis´ plan), the "A" style and the "X" style now an industry standard. They each give different sound. The plan shows a guitar without a truss rod, mine has a truss rod (standard 1/4" Gibson with a hex nut).

All are loud and very very light in terms of weight. The veneers were cut very thinly, far thinner than later Gibsons. Many early guitarists wanted a light instrument to carry from town to town. The braces are thin on my original (about 1/4" wide and 1/2" high). They are not scalloped in the middle (i.e. are the same height all the way along) and rounded slightly at the top. They are scalloped at the ends and tucked underneath the kerfing.

I have quite a few pictures of my replicas on my website if you want to see them www.handmadeguitarsinspain.com. They sound like my original in terms of volume (loud) and bark! The Adirondack Spruce top helps there! If anything they have even more bite than my original too as they have not mellowed for 80 odd years. They are great sounding guitars. I reckon because they were so lightly built player loved them but they did not last long and Gibson then made later models much heavier. I have a 1994 L2 reissue which weights almost three times what my 1929 weights yet does not sound as good. The crucial thing is built the top and back and sides to the same thickness exactly as the 1920s guitars and brace lightly as they were. The woods used were not especially pretty, that is why they used a dark brown cremona stain on the front. Adirondack is not so pretty as Sitka. My original has wide grains (2-3 mm apart) on the Adirondack top yet sounds fantastic.

It is no surprise that great guitarists like Norman Blake and Robert Johnson chose these guitars. I am completely hung up on them. They are the best instument for playing early acoustic blues on. Very responsive yet loud and they have a really "woody" tone. If you want more info please ask.

John

[John Evans]

Matt

Here are a couple of pictures of 1929 Gibson L1 replicas. The last one is a fancy one for a customer who wanted Abalone inlay around the top and soundhole.I used Vintage tuners from StewMac which look just like the originals and even have faded cream buttons!

John

[John Evans]

Matt

There is a great picture of a 1929 Gibson L1 in this month (September´s) Acoustic Guitar magazine at the back page. It even has an X ray shot which shows the "A" style bracing which I mentioned. The example shown has a truss rod like mine. Perhaps Gibson made some low end versions without them as the one Ted Davis created the plan from.

John

[John Evans]

Matt

Go for the L1 not the L00. The rounder shape produces a far less conventional sound. Also, the circular lower bout is acoustically better than the pear shaped L00. Norman Blake said that the original L1 have the bridge in the best place, i.e. at the widest point of the lower bout.

John