Played a great older C-09 yesterday.

[djsonovox]

Really fantastic ax. Older, but do not know year.

I found the serial number incised into the heel block. Something like 11101. Rosewood binding with two stripes on side, two stripes in top. Sort of a Navajo pattern rosette. A headstock plate of rosewood instead of the black Lexan or some plastic with MOP brand name  on headstock. Neck was WIDE at the nut---unlike my LC-09. Brian Trepanier would know...The sound? Awesome. Even with the oxidized old strings on it. Wow!

I told the guy dealing it to eBay to get new ones on so I can really assess its tone. Now, if I have a way to raise $1200, I WANT THIS GUITAR!!! Case?? Deluxe. Not even a scuff on the archtop case.

I have a master guitar repairman who we will take this guitar to soon, and have him render a full and bona fide assessment. The neck obviously needs readjusted, since this poor guitar has sat in a closet for like a decade or so, and it needs trussed back. Fret wear minimal--it just was not played much. A local high-end guitar store (nameless here...you know these guys!) offered $850 for it, which means they will sell it for double that, around $1700.

When this goes onto eBay, I will let all of you know. It will go to someone who loves it, I am sure.

This was a special day for me, since I'd never actually gotten my fingers on a real older C-09 until this walked into Norm's Music in Mountain View, California. Someone is going to end up with a classic. Today I will A/B test this nice old C-09 against my LC-09, and maybe get to photograph it. It's up to the dealer who is selling this for a non-guitar playing owner.

Can anyone inform me if the necks really were wider when they first made C's? The body seemed a little heftier than the L model, too. Could be just imagination....seldom have I seen prettier rosewood back and sides, though! IF ever. Maybe on a Goodall Jumbo...I gotta stop gushing like this!


DJ

[Ratishna]

You probably mean the serial number is around 11,000 which, along with the mosaic soundhole ring, puts it in early 1990s.

E. Shoaf

[Randy_R]

the neck should not be wider, unless it was a custom neck...

fitness1 will want this one I know, if the neck is wider.

Actually, the necks around serial 11,000 were somewhat thinner than they are now. At least on my C-19's from that period they are thinner (but same width).

[sixpickn]

My '93 C-09 measures exactly 1.75 inch nut width, same as the '03 L-03, but the neck is thicker by about 0.05 inches.  Overall I would agree that it is more heavily built than the newer one.  They are very nice guitars, so gush away.

[Randy_R]

My '93 C-09 measures exactly 1.75 inch nut width, same as the '03 L-03, but the neck is thicker by about 0.05 inches.  Overall I would agree that it is more heavily built than the newer one.  They are very nice guitars, so gush away.

I guess we can say then that there was more variation than there is now.  I've definitely got a couple with thinner necks from that time frame.

[ronmac]

I would suggest contacting Larrivee CS to get the exact age. My 1984 (confirmed age by Larrivee) L has the serial number 103191.

[djsonovox]

Right-ho. Larrivee will provide the real scoop on this. The man acting as dealer for the owner needs to get the real data from Larrivee, and I will pass it on. I  know this is a fine guitar, that suits me well. My LC-09 is prettier, and I think the neck is a bit thinner and not as wide as the early '90's C-09.

Next time I will have a steel rule and spec it out.

DJ