Are Larrivee guitars better built than most...?

[Dotneck]

I think that except for Gibson, all of the North American big makers build guitars to similar very high standards.  

??? except for gibson all the builders have high standards ???  What a crock.

When I toured the Gibson facility I could see the care that went into building the guitars...and I saw the pile of guitars that were cut in half and thrown on the scrap pile because they had defects. After seeing that you know that the above comment is ludicrous and just plain wrong.

Any generalizations about brands are wrong. Guitars need to be evaluated as individual samples. And you really can't declare one is better than another without having some kind of objective criterion to evaluate.

You can say you like one better than another and you won't get an argument from me...but I find comments like the one above absurd.

[eded]

??? except for gibson all the builders have high standards ???  What a crock.

When I toured the Gibson facility I could see the care that went into building the guitars...and I saw the pile of guitars that were cut in half and thrown on the scrap pile because they had defects. After seeing that you know that the above comment is ludicrous and just plain wrong.

Any generalizations about brands are wrong. Guitars need to be evaluated as individual samples. And you really can't declare one is better than another without having some kind of objective criterion to evaluate.

You can say you like one better than another and you won't get an argument from me...but I find comments like the one above absurd.

I'm glad you like them.  The ones I've seen aren't up to the same standards as other manufacturers.

To each their own.

Ed

[Danny]

??? except for gibson all the builders have high standards ???  What a crock.

When I toured the Gibson facility I could see the care that went into building the guitars...and I saw the pile of guitars that were cut in half and thrown on the scrap pile because they had defects. After seeing that you know that the above comment is ludicrous and just plain wrong.

Any generalizations about brands are wrong. Guitars need to be evaluated as individual samples. And you really can't declare one is better than another without having some kind of objective criterion to evaluate.

You can say you like one better than another and you won't get an argument from me...but I find comments like the one above absurd.

I think Dotneck makes a valid point.  I'd say a very high percentage of guitar players don't know that much of the history and build of Gibson guitars. They do make some extremely fine ones and some duds. But don't they all? Martin and Gibson are the most copied makers there is. Gibson didn't get that honor by making trash.

[Dotneck]

They do make some extremely fine ones and some duds. But don't they all?

Sure...I bet you can find bad examples of any brand. But to say Gibson builds to lower standards than all other N.A. brands is just silly.

[jeremy3220]

   I think Dotneck makes a valid point.  I'd say a very high percentage of guitar players don't know that much of the history and build of Gibson guitars. They do make some extremely fine ones and some duds. But don't they all? Martin and Gibson are the most copied makers there is. Gibson didn't get that honor by making trash.

Yeah but having a respectable history doesn't mean they'll always make top quality product. In fact they haven't, I've played Gibsons from the 70's that were terrible. I mean campfire guitar terrible. And by campfire guitar I mean kindling.

[Danny]

That is part of their history.But only part of it.

[Denis]

Yeah but having a respectable history doesn't mean they'll always make top quality product. In fact they haven't, I've played Gibsons from the 70's that were terrible. I mean campfire guitar terrible. And by campfire guitar I mean kindling.

I owned a couple of those 70's Norlin era Gibson, not very good to say the least.  I try new Gibsons every now and then when I'm in a store.  Some are good, some not so good but no matter which, I find them expensive. 

[jeremy3220]

That is part of their history.But only part of it.

My point is history doesn't mean they make good guitars now.

[Michael T]

Wood will freely absorb moisture from the atmosphere until it reaches equilibrium. Even then it is in a state of dynamic equilibrium where water molecules are continually absorbed and released.

From the Larrivee site;

Very few people really understand the care required by a high-end instrument (a category which all Larrivee Guitars fall into). The way you care for your instrument greatly affects its appearance, sound, and length of its life. With proper care a new guitar will last for more than a century. 

http://www.larrivee.com/features/humidity.php

Just a reference note. 

[Danny]

Yup, my 73 year old Martin looks like it will make it.

[eded]

Sure...I bet you can find bad examples of any brand. But to say Gibson builds to lower standards than all other N.A. brands is just silly.

The difference I find is that with most brands it is possible to find random duds amid the gems, with Gibson it is the random gems amid the duds.

Ed

[Danny]

.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[prof_stack]

Martins are quality guitars, from their cheapest laminates (some which sound pretty darn good) to the hide-glue highest end models. 

I, too, have not been impressed by most new Gibsons I have tried over the past 8 years.  But there have been some newer nice ones, so I think they have dealt with QC issues.

My Larrivee JV-05E had fret issues (ouch!) and bridge pin hole issues (not cut uniformally).  It's gone.  But the Forum IV is a WOWSER guitar as is the SD-60BZ. 

They're all good, folks.  But some are gooder than others.   

[LarriDave]

Getting back to the original post, there has to be an explanation. In a controlled climate room there must be some air circulation taking place. Perhaps the air source is blowing directly on the martin causing the more severe condition. Just hypothesizing. Or, the top of the Martin had a bit more moisture in it when it was put together. I doubt that martin would be using inferior wood, but there may have been a mix up during construction.
I wouldn't trade my Larrivees for any of the Martins I have played, which have been very few. I think quality is very important to the Larrivee enterprise, whereas Martin does do some low end stuff.

Like I said in my original post, the humidity in store was probably lower than 40% even though they had humidifiers. Now, the two guitars were held next to each other on the wall, and I've seen them on several occasions over the past weeks in the exact same spot, next to each other. Now, of course, I don't know the full history of these but a good guess is that they have not left the store and these spots for several weeks.... I could be wrong but that seems very reasonable to me.

Regarding the quality of Larrivées, I certainly agree based on my (limited) experience and what I hear people say. I also heard Jean Larrivée say that when he was building a guitar, it was very important to them to make sure the wood are of the highest quality but also that the wood of the guitar is allowed to "rest" before the actual guitar is built. He moreover said that he believes a well made guitar should last 100 to 150 years at least! That leads me to think they go for quality of built as much as quality of sound, and that sounds right to me. After all, 100 years is not that much when you think about it, Stadivarius violins have been around for 300 years and they are still some of the best musical instruments available today!

[LarriDave]

Agreed.  I think Martin's breadth of offerings might make one believe Martin guitars are not as high on quality.  But comparing like models with similar appointments they are pretty much the same.  Martin has been in business since 1833.  A company won't last that long without offering quality products. 

Yes and no... I'm sure early Martins were very well made, and possibly better made than today's Martins ( ), which is necessary for a company to build a good reputation but things may have changedto ome degree since the early days of Martin. I'm not saying they don't make quality products, but maybe they are more focused on mass production and making money than they were 50 and 100 years ago. It's difficult to say but generally big names will make you pay A LOT more for the same quality product than smaller companies with a lesser name. I've seen some Martins for over a $1000 which felt and sounded like toys compared to some less known brands for about the same money. I've also played some Martins which I really enjoyed and which seemed well built but they were 3x more. Oops... I may have started something now. Whether you agree or disagree with the Martin statement (which is just my opinion anyway), I think we'll all agree that Larrivées  are well made guitars and worth the money. Peace.

[Danny]

                                                                                               

[unclrob]

Larridave was the guitar sitting under a spot light or anyother type light to hihlight in the display.I know that even though GC {I know there not the store we're talking about} has a seprate acoustic room that suppose to have a humidifer also has these 150 watt spot lights hanging all over some right on top of guitars and those guitars are in the worst shape in that room.

[broKen]

Larridave was the guitar sitting under a spot light or anyother type light to hihlight in the display.I know that even though GC {I know there not the store we're talking about} has a seprate acoustic room that suppose to have a humidifer also has these 150 watt spot lights hanging all over some right on top of guitars and those guitars are in the worst shape in that room.

Indeed another possibility Rob. Dave's account is certainly reliable, so there must be a logical explanation. Perhaps the climate control system at the Martin facility went down for a week, but to halt production for a week or two would be financially painful, so,,,the show must go on. Then glue that top that has a high moisture content to the body....just imagine.

I bought a Norman B-20 some time ago. The top was terribly sunken, but not cracked, nor were the braces damaged. All appeared to be intact. So I put the guitar in the bathroom/shower room and left it there for a couple weeks closed up. Showering there every day kept the room very humid. At least 75%RH. Don't get the wrong idea, it was not a like a sauna. Anyway, it helped some but the top never flattened out entirely. It remained obviously sunken for the year or more that I kept it. Other than the sunken top, the guitar was fine. Even the bridge was intact. Here it is       

I love mysteries.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[madoclake]

Larridave was the guitar sitting under a spot light or anyother type light to hihlight in the display.I know that even though GC {I know there not the store we're talking about} has a seprate acoustic room that suppose to have a humidifer also has these 150 watt spot lights hanging all over some right on top of guitars and those guitars are in the worst shape in that room.

I saw that happen to a beautiful Morgan rosewood dreadnaught. It was less than a foot from the bulbs.

As for the Martin vs Larrivee bracing and sound and sturdiness comparison, I think Larrivee guitars have a tighter, more precise sound. And that would lead us (probably incorrectly) to assume that they are made from thicker, heavier wood that will therefore last longer but not be as responsive. But perhaps they were simply made in a design that intentionally makes them respond more precisely.  I have a Martin and a Larrivee. They do not sound the same same. But they both respond well. The Martin resonates more "widely" and allows the notes to "blend" and overlap to create a wide wall of sound. The Larrivee is focused and more exact to create a beam of sound. Think of flood lights versus spot lights. Both are bright, but they light up a room differently. That to me is the difference in the sound between Martin and Larrivee. I like them both. Martin is probably more foregiving of weaker playing and easier to sing along with because it creates that fullness of sound - like strumming in open G or droning in drop D. Whereas Larrivee guitars will give you exactly (that's exactly) what you played - hope you got it right.  Over time, I think the Larrivee tends to sound better to the player in the same way that you can only stand so much of one thing. For instance, I like the Celtic DADGAD sound, but not all the time and only for so long. Larrivee guitars can be made to have any sound the player wants. So over time they win out to someone who owns both a Martin and Larrivee - except when playing songs that genuinely suit the Martin fullness of sound (which is a lot of songs).

Apperenty my new years resolution to make shorter posts has failed. Thanks for staying awake through all that...

[unclrob]

Dotneck I have play pretty much all era's of Gibson and over the years there has been one rule for me and this apply's to there acoustics only and that is you either get a good one or a bad one.I know that when I went on a Gibson hunt a few years ago I played 50 before I found one that was amazing.It was a 96 Vintage AJ.Now I'm not saying that there poorly made because there not and someone else might not have to go thru what I did but for me even when it came to vintage modals you could play it in one room and then move to another and just the work would cause all sorts of neck and tuning issue.
As for Martins again I have played probally played thousands and can pretty much count on one had the one's that I own and there not all vintage.
I was a Guild man for years and I'm still a fan but when I found Larrivee it was coming home.I equate Larrivee's and Guilds to the only electric guitar to own and that's a Tele,too me true work horse with versatile tone.I Will say this the best acoustic archtops I have ever played are Gibson's.