Gibson LG-1, 2, or 3?

[JZG]

I'm looking to find a vintage, small-bodied Gibson acoustic. I understand there are differences in the bracing on the LG models, but is there anything else I should look out for? Does one model outperform the others?

[Robertito]

I might be wrong, but the way I understand it, the only difference between the LG2 and LG3 is that the 2 is sunburst and the 3 is natural. The 1 is a little less ornate. Having said that, the finest acoustic guitar I've ever played is an LG2 from the early 50s. Good luck!

[zombywoof]

The LG-1 is Ladder Braced and the LG-2 and LG-3 are X-Braced.

The LG-3 is, as the previous post notes, esssentially a natural finish version of the LG-2.

I would stick with guitars made before 1961 to avoid the adjustable and the later plastic belly bridges.

The 1955 to 1959 models had 20 frets while earlier models have 19 frets.

I prefer the LG-2's cuz I like the burst.

[Jahn]

The LG-1 also has a thicker top in addition to the ladder bracing. So, no X-brace and thicker top=more restricted vibration, at least the ones i've tried. The LG3 supposedly uses better woods since they couldn't hide crappier wood behind a sunburst, but obviously i couldn't say if that was true since the LG2 is covered in a burst, heh. I'd definitely go LG2 or LG3 over a LG1.

[jpfeiff]

If you can afford it, I'd also consider a 30's L-00. They are killer tone monsters in a small body

[johneeeveee]

The LG-1 is Ladder Braced and the LG-2 and LG-3 are X-Braced.

The LG-3 is, as the previous post notes, esssentially a natural finish version of the LG-2.

I would stick with guitars made before 1961 to avoid the adjustable and the later plastic belly bridges.

The 1955 to 1959 models had 20 frets while earlier models have 19 frets.

I prefer the LG-2's cuz I like the burst.

I think Zombywolf said it all very well. I have a few and may actually be selling a very clean '59 LG-2 if the OP is interested.


If you can afford it, I'd also consider a 30's L-00. They are killer tone monsters in a small body

Couldn't agree more, and you are correct, they aren't cheap. I have one and can't really afford to keep it and the LG-2, so one unfortunately has to go. We'll see.

These are great little Gibby's for sure - jv

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l38/johneeeveee/b2f6_3.jpg

[Dave Orban]

I might be wrong, but the way I understand it, the only difference between the LG2 and LG3 is that the 2 is sunburst and the 3 is natural. The 1 is a little less ornate. Having said that, the finest acoustic guitar I've ever played is an LG2 from the early 50s. Good luck!Ditto on the LG2s and LG3s. I've got a beater '56 LG-2 with cracks in the top and back that plays and sounds as good as anything I've ever played. Outstanding guitars...! :dude

The LG-1s are not quite as good...

[jackaroo]

Here's my LG-1

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6776695

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/jack_devine/65%20Gibson%20LG-1/IMG_1889.jpg

[westrock]

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x144/westrock76/lg3001.jpg

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x144/westrock76/lg3025.jpg

1959 LG-3

[sharpshooter]

Was not there also an LG-0 model in natural finish?

[in a little row]

Was not there also an LG-0 model in natural finish?

yes...and most were all mahogany