Gibson LG-1, 2, or 3?

Discussion in 'Acoustic Instruments' started by JZG, Aug 22, 2008.

  1. JZG

    JZG Member

    Messages:
    1,045
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Location:
    Michigan
    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?
     
  2. Robertito

    Robertito Member

    Messages:
    981
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Location:
    On the road
    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!
     
  3. zombywoof

    zombywoof Member

    Messages:
    4,176
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  4. Jahn

    Jahn Listens to Johnny Marr, plays like John Denver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    27,318
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    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.
     
  5. jpfeiff

    jpfeiff Member

    Messages:
    720
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Location:
    The Last Frontier
    If you can afford it, I'd also consider a 30's L-00. They are killer tone monsters in a small body
     
  6. johneeeveee

    johneeeveee Member

    Messages:
    1,613
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    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.


    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

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2008
  7. Dave Orban

    Dave Orban Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    16,861
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Trenton, NJ
    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...
     
  8. jackaroo

    jackaroo Member

    Messages:
    3,549
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
  9. westrock

    westrock Member

    Messages:
    90
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Location:
    South East Michigan
  10. sharpshooter

    sharpshooter Member

    Messages:
    3,355
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Was not there also an LG-0 model in natural finish?
     
  11. in a little row

    in a little row Member

    Messages:
    379
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Location:
    Memphis, crime capital of the South
    yes...and most were all mahogany
     

Share This Page