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

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by BluesKing777

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.

I do have a shop about 20 minutes down the road which carries Gibsons. But I am not sure my opinion would be worth much. There are only a handful of people out there such as JT whose take on this or that guitar for me is good as gold and whose opinion is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

I do hear you when it comes to the 2 3/8" string spacing at the bridge. To me that would be a major selling point for the Murphy Lab instrument. What I also would be looking for in a guitar though is one having its own voice which is not to say it has to come off as a dead bang sound alike for my '32 L1.

My take on Gibson is that even though they can build instruments with a precision Kalamazoo could only have dreamed of, they always seem to get something wrong when it comes to their attempts to recreate guitars from past catalogs. This can range from ignoring a period correct number of tone bars, going with their standard modern string spacing at the bridge and nut width rather than what the guitar originally sported, or simply the angle of the script logo. But I rack that up to Gibson just being Gibson.

[Mr. Jelly]

I here of new Martins having issues all the time. Yet Gibson has the reputation of being inconsistent. Lifes not fare.

[pcf]

Originally Posted by ZeroFretWear

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...

You missed the point about ‘23 guitars. But the great thing for your angst in this topic is that this is not a zero sum game. Gibson making great ML or Historic acoustic and electric guitars today doesn’t take anything away from their vintage counterparts. Btw, as someone who has owned dozens of 1925-1960’s Gibsons of nearly every model I can empathize with your fondness of old Gibsons, but I have also played recent Gibsons I would rather own than their vintage counterparts bc they sounded and played better. I can say the same thing for Martin.

[Jdogblues]

FWIW I’ve owned both and like the Murphy Lab better. Totally subjective. I’d like to hear the opinion of someone like Mark Stutman who knows the Gibsons inside and out.

IMG_1704297853.600654.jpgIMG_1704297893.687548.jpg

[fazool]

Originally Posted by brencat

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.

And they can do that without deliberately making them look crackled and aged. Lowden does a phenomenal job with this, as one example.

[Mr. Jelly]

I'd also like to hear more about comparisons with the MS-00 IRIS guitar Mark help design.

[Creekside Guitar]

Originally Posted by Jdogblues

FWIW I’ve owned both and like the Murphy Lab better. Totally subjective. I’d like to hear the opinion of someone like Mark Stutman who knows the Gibsons inside and out.

Attachment 102398Attachment 102399

How is the neck angle and saddle height on your ML L-00?

[Creekside Guitar]

ML L-00 specs:

nut width:
PXL_20240103_171138349s.jpg

string spacing at bridge 2 5/16
PXL_20240103_171226490s.jpg

[Creekside Guitar]

neck shape at first fret and 12th fret
PXL_20240102_195644784s.jpg

high saddle
PXL_20240102_184418164s.jpg

[Jdogblues]

Originally Posted by Creekside Guitar

How is the neck angle and saddle height on your ML L-00?

Saddle does look a little tall. Not sure if I have a proper straight edge to check neck angle.

[ZeroFretWear]

Originally Posted by pcf

You missed the point about ‘23 guitars. But the great thing for your angst in this topic is that this is not a zero sum game. Gibson making great ML or Historic acoustic and electric guitars today doesn’t take anything away from their vintage counterparts. Btw, as someone who has owned dozens of 1925-1960’s Gibsons of nearly every model I can empathize with your fondness of old Gibsons, but I have also played recent Gibsons I would rather own than their vintage counterparts bc they sounded and played better. I can say the same thing for Martin.

You were saying that these new Gibsons will be the vintage Gibsons of the future, but they won't be, due to the difference in scarcity.
Anyways, I always compare a good vintage example to a good modern example. No point in comparing dogs.
I did own a very nice J-45 Legend built by Ren Ferguson and crew, which I gifted to my son-in-law.
It didn't rival a similarly nice vintage example, but was the best modern J-45 I've played. And unlike the new Historics I've tried, it didn't have a cheap tacky finish and intentional holes in the bridgleplate.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by ZeroFretWear

You were saying that these new Gibsons will be the vintage Gibsons of the future, but they won't be, due to the difference in scarcity.
Anyways, I always compare a good vintage example to a good modern example. No point in comparing dogs.
I did own a very nice J-45 Legend built by Ren Ferguson and crew, which I gifted to my son-in-law.
It didn't rival a similarly nice vintage example, but was the best modern J-45 I've played. And unlike the new Historics I've tried, it didn't have a cheap tacky finish and intentional holes in the bridgleplate.

I was wondering what the hole was for! I had the bridge plate hole plugged in mine but had no idea how it got there. (Bought mine used). lol. Any idea why they do that?

I had one of the first Legends Ren built with his son in his living room. Weighed a ton (4lb 10oz) and sounded like it. It didn't last a week in my house. But the guy I bought it from and the guy I sold it to both love it. Go figure.

I agree the Historic series finish could be better. I like that it's super thin, but they don't level it well, so you get all that orange peeling around the body. I actually don't mind that, but I do think something like what small shops are doing, or like what's on the aged Authentic series, is a better looking finish.

"Tacky?" I've played maybe half dozen Historics. Never noticed anything tacky about the finish. Bren didn't mention that in his reviews either.

[Br1ck]

Woah be the guitar manufacturer who had a twenty or so year bad patch. Takes a long time to overcome. But even Norlin cranked out a gem now and then. I view my 65 Texan as the twilight of a golden time for Gibson, 60 to 65 still producing, if not legendary, very good guitars. Even the earlier years are inconsistent, just inconsistently great.

I can't say I've played a bad Boseman built guitar. But they have captured the glory years to about the same extent as Martin has with Authentics. Like Martin, they profit from the name, much like a lot of brands. I filter out much of the product coming from both companies, but they need it. Not a fan of cheaper US built product just for the sake of it. Hit or miss, but I'm not in that market.

As always, play, like, and buy.

[imwjl]

I checked these out with others during a bunch of recent shopping at great stores. It was interesting having been GAS-free for so long. For others that was some Martins and smaller builders in same price range.

The Gibsons in general and especially electrics were better that 10 or so years ago. For this $5000+ range it still seemed like your best chance for super responsive guitars comes from the small builders like Santa Cruz and Collings but the Gibsons and Martin's can be great too.

What I really disliked was the pre-aged and this relic stuff now jumping from electrics to acoustics. That is my hangup for thinking it is so poseur but I know others love it.

It is easy to believe there is something to the trying for pre-aged wood. Though my SCGC was bought new it was made from old wood stash and I think that is part of why it has always been so stable.

One way or another, it seems like someone totally loyal Gibson brand has better made stuff these days.

[BluesKing777]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

I do have a shop about 20 minutes down the road which carries Gibsons. But I am not sure my opinion would be worth much. There are only a handful of people out there such as JT whose take on this or that guitar for me is good as gold and whose opinion is the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

I do hear you when it comes to the 2 3/8" string spacing at the bridge. To me that would be a major selling point for the Murphy Lab instrument. What I also would be looking for in a guitar though is one having its own voice which is not to say it has to come off as a dead bang sound alike for my '32 L1.

My take on Gibson is that even though they can build instruments with a precision Kalamazoo could only have dreamed of, they always seem to get something wrong when it comes to their attempts to recreate guitars from past catalogs. This can range from ignoring a period correct number of tone bars, going with their standard modern string spacing at the bridge and nut width rather than what the guitar originally sported, or simply the angle of the script logo. But I rack that up to Gibson just being Gibson.

20 minutes down the road?

Are you back yet?

All of the what you said above is why we value your opinion, ZW!

Err, for the people that think the new L-00 Murph sounds better than a real vintage Gibson L-00, well...really? You think it would sound better than my 1937? Ha ha ha ha ha .... (but I would take the new one out of the house and my oldie, hmm, nope)....




BluesKing777.