Played a Few Murphy Lab Gibson Acoustics Yesterday/Today -- My Thoughts

[BluesKing777]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

The problem is none of us know what those Gibsons from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s sounded like when they were brand spanking new. I dare say they were not born with that parched dryness they have acquired over the decades.

Zomb is here!

We have a little mission for you.

I tried to get JT to find the new L-00 Murphy Lab 33 Reissue to play and report on these new L-00s versus our oldies......he couldn’t do it because of previous mistreatment.

So Zomb, it is up to you......get on the Tool and search for the nearest shop to you with the Murph L-00 and go test drive it! (Not the other Murphs, just want to hear about the L-00).

No pressure though, how about going today?

I just feel that Gibson Acoustic may have finally listened to my plea for a L-00 with 1 3/8” nut and 2 3/8” bridge space over a V neck! Yes, I feel a bit responsible ....ha ha. So if they really made it for me, well, I better get a look in. Absolutely none here near me! None.


BluesKing777.

[ZeroFretWear]

Originally Posted by pcf

They aren't building anymore 2023 guitars either. Just bc a manufacturer is making exponentially more guitars today versus the 30's to 50's doesn't mean they are of lower quality, sound worse or will be less favorable in the future. We are doing more with less by the day in all aspects of life. (Get ready for drones to Uber you around by air instead of cars by asphalt.)

I don't know why 2023 Gibsons would be considered any more special than 2022 or 2002 or 1992 Gibsons.
In fact, in the 1990s, you had Ren Ferguson, Kevin Kopp, and John Walker, amongst others, working on the Gibson acoustics. And those guitars are 20-30+ years old now. Yet no one values them anywhere near the good vintage ones from the 1930s and 1940s. Scarcity is a thing. The vintage ones are scarce, the Bozeman ones are not. Is this a controversial opinion? Sometimes it feels like the twilight zone in here...

[Jwills57]

I don't know about all the back and forth here regarding Gibson guitars, but I will say pre-Covid I drove to Sweetwater and got to play the Historic Collection 1934 Jumbo. I have played literally hundreds and hundreds of new guitars over the years, from solo luthiers to small shop builders to the big guys. The 1934 Jumbo was in the top five of new acoustics I have ever played, just dripping with that dry, punchy, vintage vibe and tone so many of us seem to be looking for, at least to me. The sunburst, I thought, was absolutely killer. So if the Murphy Lab acoustics are even a small step above the Historic Series, those guitars must be pretty incredible. I'm really anxious to try one, for sure.

[Creekside Guitar]

Spent some time sober today (thanks to a NYE binge) with the ML L-00. A few specs seemed off to me. The saddle looked high so I took some measurements. The saddle is sitting 8mm above the bridge, definitely high. I also ran a straight edge down the fretboard and it hits at the top of the high saddle. Under-set neck? These issues could choke the guitars tone and the string angle pressure on the front of the bridge doesn't seem good for longevity. I'm curious now if this is a one off or not. I might go look at another one locally to compare.

[fazool]

I never found wear-and-tear to be attractive ....its just damaged.

for me, the only thing worse is fake wear-and-tear.

its like smashing a new car with a shopping cart and scraping the paint so it rusts, then saying "its full of mojo!"

[brencat]

Originally Posted by fazool

I never found wear-and-tear to be attractive ....its just damaged.

for me, the only thing worse is fake wear-and-tear.

Faux wear is not for everyone. I don’t care either way but do believe the ultra thin finishes offered on the Aged versions of Martins, Gibsons, and other boutiques do offer a sonic benefit over the thicker finishes on their non-aged models. Pre*War Guitars was onto something with this and now everyone wants in on the action.

[dilver]

Originally Posted by Jwills57

I don't know about all the back and forth here regarding Gibson guitars, but I will say pre-Covid I drove to Sweetwater and got to play the Historic Collection 1934 Jumbo. I have played literally hundreds and hundreds of new guitars over the years, from solo luthiers to small shop builders to the big guys. The 1934 Jumbo was in the top five of new acoustics I have ever played, just dripping with that dry, punchy, vintage vibe and tone so many of us seem to be looking for, at least to me. The sunburst, I thought, was absolutely killer. So if the Murphy Lab acoustics are even a small step above the Historic Series, those guitars must be pretty incredible. I'm really anxious to try one, for sure.

Are the Murphy Lab guitars a step above the Historics, or, just aged?

[BluesKing777]

Originally Posted by Creekside Guitar

Spent some time sober today (thanks to a NYE binge) with the ML L-00. A few specs seemed off to me. The saddle looked high so I took some measurements. The saddle is sitting 8mm above the bridge, definitely high. I also ran a straight edge down the fretboard and it hits at the top of the high saddle. Under-set neck? These issues could choke the guitars tone and the string angle pressure on the front of the bridge doesn't seem good for longevity. I'm curious now if this is a one off or not. I might go look at another one locally to compare.

Ya kidding?

Why I keep saying I would never buy online- 10 seconds in my hands at a shop and I know everything I need to know! Not really, but I would check neck, check braces, check sanding, check bridge, bridge plate, bridge alignment holes, tuners, check nut, check saddle for the famous leading skinny saddle....after that I would concern myself with the finish....

But it appears Gibson Acoustic Quality Control is a room of accountants in the Finance Department. Still. Attitude is what they can get through....regardless.

Disappointing but no surprise to me. (I have a rack of Gibson acoustics).

My Waterloos are faultless from Collings, my Lowdens are faultless AND I could get another beautiful Lowden S AND another used Waterloo for the price of the L-00 here! Your loss, Gibson...should not let those wobblies through...

I will still try one here in the flesh. See for myself.

BluesKing777.

[00045]

I had the chance to play 2 of the Murphy Lab acoustics, a J-45 and a Southern Jumbo. I really liked them both, they sounded great and I also liked the aging.

What really bothers me with these Historic and Murphy Lab series, they are supposed to be vintage correct, but yet they miss the tapered headstock. Gibson Montana did this on the Legend series and on the Limited Edition series in 2013 with the AJ and OJ. Yes this is only cosmetics. But if I spend that much money, I want them as vintage correct as possible.

[bobster7]

Are these likely better than my J-45 2013 1942 JT project banner reissue?

[00045]

Originally Posted by bobster7

Are these likely better than my J-45 2013 1942 JT project banner reissue?

Better is subjective, these Murphy Lab acoustics are very nice. At least the two I played. They feel worn in and I like how they looked and sounded. I need to check out that 1957 J-200 ML.
My current Gibson's are great sounding as well, no need to let them go for a Murphy Lab. However, I might add this J-200 ML in the near future.

[Shortfinger]

If I was a paying member, I'd put up photos of my '72 Martin D-18, to show how Murphy'd the finish on the top got by my neglecting it and storing it in an unconditioned uninsulated attic in Indiana for two years.

It's as perfect a crackle finish as anything Gibson has done on the Murphy Lab models. I love it.

But here is the diff. A genuine crackle effect, at least on my Martin, is only on the top. The finish on the mahogany back and sides is lightly distressed, but does not have the cracked glass look the top does. I've watched the video reviews of the Murphy'd acoustics, and on them, the crackle is everywhere on the bodies and uniform.

The small nicks and wear-offs on my D-18's headstock are perfect Murphy.

So, is mine worth $2K more now?

[srick]

Originally Posted by Shortfinger

If I was a paying member, I'd put up photos of my '72 Martin D-18, to show how Murphy'd the finish on the top got by my neglecting it and storing it in an unconditioned uninsulated attic in Indiana for two years.
.

Shortfinger - Maybe this is a perfect time to become a charter member of AGF.

The ability to easily post pictures is certainly a nice perq, but also, you will help support the forum. Someone's got to pay for those servers!

And FYI - the moderation staff are all volunteers.

Happy New Year.

Rick
AGF Moderator

[skouri1]

i havent played the murphy lab. I did play a J45 which had a strong odor. (hide glue?) It played beautifully and sounded outstanding. My #1 is a reimagined 00018. But if you are comfortable with body size, I think the J45 is also incredible. tough to beat for a standard american guitar. I know people can critique Gibsons QC. However the examples I have seen have been top notch, great set up too. I dont really see what the murphy lab would offer over a regular gibson. I would just look for a nice standard J45 , SJ etc and save the money.

[Creekside Guitar]

Originally Posted by BluesKing777

Why I keep saying I would never buy online
BluesKing777.

It's really not a big deal. Most onilne purchases can be returned for free and shops give you anywhere from 14-30 days to return. This guitar will get sorted out.

I got some other measurements on the L-00 I'll post up later.