Sadowsky Jim Hall vs. Gibson ES-175

jerryt · #1 11-09-2010, 06:45 AM

All,

I'm in the market for a laminate archtop and have whittled down the list to two candidates: The Sadowsky JH and the classic ES-175. I'm absolutely in love with the Gibson, but only hear outstanding things about the Sadowsky. In fact, several people have told me that if I'm considering an ES-175 that if possible I should spend the few extra bucks and go for the Sadowsky. Unfortunately, I don't live in an area where I have access to demo the Sadowsky in person. How does it compare sound wise? From what I can hear on YouTube, etc., the tone sounds more acoustic, but listening through computer speakers isn't a good true indicator. Can the Sadowsky dial in that classic 175 tone if need be, understanding that its normal tone is more acoustic (?) than the 175?

Furthermore, I'm assuming that the craftsmanship, neck, etc. are all superior to the 175, which is why this is a tough decision. I just love that 175 sound, though.

Thanks,

Jerry

Bill C · #2 11-09-2010, 07:25 AM

I've played a couple of Sadowksy JH's and a few 175's over the years.

The JH is still a laminate sound but does have an acoustic/airy edge, whereas the 175 has a distinctively mellow "tubby" sound to my ears. A defining factor may be that the JH has more sustain. Also the JH has a maple neck with an ebony board instead of the *usual* 175 spec of rosewood board on mahogany.

The workmanship on the two JH's I've played was simply the best I've ever seen. The 175s were mostly older instruments so it's hard to compare that aspect.

Flat · #3 11-09-2010, 09:14 AM

I'm lucky to own both a Sadowsky Jim Hall and a Heritage H575--which is a fairly close clone of the ES-175 (and as you probably know, built by some of the old Gibson guys in the old Gibson factory in Kalamazoo, MI after Gibson moved away.)

I agree with Bill's summary completely.

The Sadowsky has a somewhat cleaner, more articulate sound, perhaps a little bit closer to an acoustic archtop sound. A bit more dry. More airy. Maybe a bit more sweet.

But maybe the thing I like best about the SJH is simply the *precision* of the whole thing. The fretwork is magnificent. The fit and finish are flawless--which I suppose is just a cosmetic issue, but speaks to the general quality of the instrument. But everything is level, even, consistent. No dead spots anywhere on the fretboard. And the notes seem to bloom very nicely, almost surprisingly, even when I'm just playing acoustically around the house.

That "tubby" sound Bill mentioned is a good description of the H575. And it's a sound I like a lot. More electric sounding. Might take better to sound processing (delay, a touch of overdrive--if you like).

The H575 probably has a broader range of sounds. It can handle bluesy jazz. Maybe even a bit of country or rockabilly inflection on the bridge pickup.

When I bought the Sadowsky, I thought I'd sell the Heritage. I thought of the Sadowsky as a "step up" -- and in many ways it is.

But so far the Heritage is sticking around. It's just a fantastic guitar!

(BTW, be sure to take a look at Heritage. They aren't laminate though. All solid wood. Mine is all maple. But a few have spruce tops or mahogany back/sides.)

Hope this helps. Good luck in your quest!

-Flat

wizard3739 · #4 11-09-2010, 10:24 AM

I am the proud owner of a Sadowsky "Jim Hall" signature model. Over the past 60 years (I am 73) I have owned and played many, many guitars (most were vintage acoustic electric Gibsons and even a great old D'Angelico). The bottom line for me is: the Sadowsky is the highest quality, best sounding guitar I have ever owned bar none for too many reasons to list here.

wiz

Drifter · #5 11-09-2010, 10:38 AM

If you're in love, I mean really in love, I don't see any reason why you should follow a different path. I'd say get the 175, you can always get the Sadowsky later.

docbop · #6 11-09-2010, 12:41 PM

If it was me I would be looking at new Sadowsky or Heritage or used 175. I just read too many posts about the current Gibson ES line the quality very inconsistent, so I would go used for a Gibson the other I have a better feeling about purchasing new. I own a Sadowsky bass and his work and customer services are fantastic. I would have no problem buy a Sadowsky without trying one. I would contact Sadowsky and chances are good you'll end up talking to Roger himself. Sadowsky has a small forum now so another place to talk to Sadowsky owners and Roger.

M-ster · #7 11-09-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drifter

If you're in love, I mean really in love, I don't see any reason why you should follow a different path. I'd say get the 175, you can always get the Sadowsky later.

This is an answer that guitarists can love!

jazzuki · #8 11-09-2010, 02:07 PM

No Contest! The Gibson ES.175 is the jazz guitarists workhorse and by the way even in recession times they still rise in value.

NSJ · #9 11-09-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzuki

No Contest! The Gibson ES.175 is the jazz guitarists workhorse and by the way even in recession times they still rise in value.

Sorry, you clearly have not played a Sadowsky. It is a beautiful guitar, stunning in fact, and essentially costs the same (and possibly even less) than a new ES-175. It is no contest the other way--workmanship is immaculate, non-plugged in acoustic tone for a laminate is incredible. Plugged into the right amp--beautiful.

New ES-175s do not rise in value, mind you. Nor do they retain their value, too Gibsons from the past 30-40 years generally do not cost nearly that much. It is the initial buyer that will take the 30-40% hit on the price when it comes to re-sale. I would venture to guess that a Sadowsky retains more of its value than a new ES-175.

A 1950s to 1960s Es-175 is a different matter, of course. These were much better guitars than the comparable ones Gibson puts out today.

Jim Hall still has his old ES-175, of course. He says he still pulls it out, once in a while. But when he gigs, he plays his Sadowsky. He himself A/Bed it against his D'Aquisto, and the Sadowsky won out.

msr13 · #10 11-09-2010, 06:45 PM

Another Sadowsky fan. I have the Jimmy Bruno, but compared it back and forth with the JH. Sadowsky is making some unbelievable guitars. I have a 175, but since getting the JB (admittedly a different animal), I haven't picked up the 175 much. I kind of stopped gassing for archtops after bringing the JB home, and think the same would have been true with the JH. Also, Sadowsky has a one week return policy. So, if you are unhappy, you can return it. And, if you call the shop, more than likely you will talk with Roger. The only downside is I think it is a 2-4 month wait depending on which color you want.

jazzuki · #11 11-10-2010, 06:36 AM

I agree with everything thats been said but Jim Hall plus all the others that endorse various makers guitars are paid to do so!

BigDaddyLoveHandles · #12 11-10-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzuki

I agree with everything thats been said but Jim Hall plus all the others that endorse various makers guitars are paid to do so!

That makes it sound like Jim Hall is just another celebrity who's being paid to say he eats Wheaties for breakfast.

jazzuki · #13 11-10-2010, 08:59 AM

Correct-you got it in one!

docbop · #14 11-10-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzuki

I agree with everything thats been said but Jim Hall plus all the others that endorse various makers guitars are paid to do so!

In this day and age endorsements/licensing deal are how most artists generate income from Rappers to Jazzers.

derek · #15 11-10-2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill C

I've played a couple of Sadowksy JH's and a few 175's over the years.

The JH is still a laminate sound but does have an acoustic/airy edge, whereas the 175 has a distinctively mellow "tubby" sound to my ears. A defining factor may be that the JH has more sustain. Also the JH has a maple neck with an ebony board instead of the *usual* 175 spec of rosewood board on mahogany.

The workmanship on the two JH's I've played was simply the best I've ever seen. The 175s were mostly older instruments so it's hard to compare that aspect.

This is my conclusion also. Plus, the JH is a bit thinner in the body and neck. While I really like the JH, I decided to keep my 175. Each to his own.

Soco · #16 11-10-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzuki

I agree with everything thats been said but Jim Hall plus all the others that endorse various makers guitars are paid to do so!

I doesn't work that way. Sadowsky has stated that he doesn't give a way guitars for free, I would be very surprised if he pays Jim Hall. It is a small company.
Most endorsements are discounts-you might get the guitar at cost.

BigDaddyLoveHandles · #17 11-10-2010, 11:11 AM

Now that I know Jim Hall eats Wheaties, I'm going to buy some!

Drifter · #18 11-10-2010, 11:11 AM

Don't know if it's true but it's a funny story I've heard. BB King also isn't paid by Gibson. But every time he sends his Lucille to Gibson for repair work, he gets another one as a replacement for the time beeing which he is asked to send back when his original Lucille is returned. But he never sends back the replacements so now he owns quite a number of Lucilles.

docbop · #19 11-10-2010, 12:38 PM

So has anyone tried the Epiphone ES 175 reissue, the price is good?

76byrdland · #20 11-13-2010, 08:11 PM

Interesting thread. OK, here's the response of a cheap (po'?) addict ... I have played great and dead ES-175s, so if you find a great one, that could be your ticket. I have never heard a Sadowsky owner who didn't rave about their guitar, but haven't had a chance to play one. That said, I would love to have both! If you're looking for a bargain that might just work for you, consider a (hear comes the potential heresy) Fender D'Aquisto!

Yes, there, I said it. I have one that's probably late in the Master Series since it has the normal-shape gold pickup. Mine, which came to me used years ago from 12th Fret in Toronto, also has an invisible piezo under the bridge with no wire connected to the bridge itself and with a separate endpin jack. I use a RavenLabs preamp to blend the two outputs, but most of the time, I actually prefer the humbucker pickup alone.

So many guitars, so little time, so few dollars! Enjoy the search, amigo.

ny126 · #21 03-17-2011, 02:30 PM

If price is any consideration then I would lean towards the Sadowsky. Like others I have played some decent sounding 175's and some dogs and from what I hear (have not played yet) the Jim Hall's just sound amazing. From what I can see at the link below, you would need upwards of 5 g's for a vintage es 175 where as the Sadowsky goes for under 4 I believe. Of course the vintage 175's will probably continue to appreciate...

Gibson ES 175

Nice demo video of a guy playing a Sadowsky Jim Hall

Jazzpunk · #22 03-17-2011, 04:58 PM

I'm just a sucker for a nice ES-175. I even dig the more 'electric' sound of the modern ones:

YouTube Video

The Sadowsky does seem to have a more acoustic sound from the demos I've heard so if that's your bag, that could be the one to get. Than again the Benedetto Bravo has an even more acoustic sound so that may be something to consider as well.

Obviously demoing both would be the way to go though that is not always an option. With so many great builders out there, it's good time to be an archtop lover!

Jabberwocky · #23 03-18-2011, 01:07 AM

The Gibson ES 175 is a rite of passage. Start with the Gibson ES 175 (the sound you love) and then move on to other, even better, things. But you gotta start with the Gibson ES 175 or you'll be wondering for the rest of your life if your education as a jazzer is complete. My tuppence worth.

(The other rite of passage is a Gibson L5, WES or CES, yeah, baby.)

(Edit: Jerry, man, I re-read your post and you were referencing the ES 175. You know what you love. Go for what warms the cockles of your heart or lights a fire under you. Tone is subjective. Even if you got the Sadowsky Jim Hall, you'll always look longingly at that ES 175 and wonder, hmmm, what if I had married the girl I love instead of the one that everybody said was better for me?)

kawa · #24 03-18-2011, 02:07 AM

ES-175D ; Clearly !!!
YouTube - ????? ?? sharkygooddays

YouTube - ‪Autumn Leaves - Take 2‬&rlm;

YouTube - ‪Misty - solo‬&rlm;

YouTube - ‪My Funny Valentine - Up Tempo Take 1‬&rlm;

YouTube - ‪My Funny Valentine - slow tempo‬&rlm;

YouTube - ‪Body And Soul‬&rlm;

YouTube - The Gibson ES 175

YouTube - Confirmation

YouTube - Round Midnight

YouTube - Wave

YouTube - Misty

YouTube - Moonlight Serenade

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WdTDNivkWY

#41

ES-175D "Volale" (Frances The Poll Winners Style)
YouTube - Kanaal van chrisrenoguitar

bluewaterpig · #25 03-18-2011, 08:36 AM

I think everything that can be said has already been said but I think it boils down to this:

Both guitars are absolutely amazing in their own way. To my ears, the 175 has a very distinctive sound. The JH is an absolutely incredible guitar though. If you're after the 175 sound then buy it! Or you're going to be sitting with your JH model trying to get the 175 tone and wishing that you bought it.

Obviously trying out the guitars in person would be best, because if you can get the 175 tone in your ears with the JH model, I would absolutely say buy that guitar because in my opinion, a Sadowsky is going to top a Gibson in almost every way.

NSJ · #26 03-18-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

I think everything that can be said has already been said but I think it boils down to this:

Both guitars are absolutely amazing in their own way. To my ears, the 175 has a very distinctive sound. The JH is an absolutely incredible guitar though. If you're after the 175 sound then buy it! Or you're going to be sitting with your JH model trying to get the 175 tone and wishing that you bought it.

Obviously trying out the guitars in person would be best, because if you can get the 175 tone in your ears with the JH model, I would absolutely say buy that guitar because in my opinion, a Sadowsky is going to top a Gibson in almost every way.

I agree. But I think an old single pickup P90 175 from the 50s will sound radically different than a new dual pickup HB 175 from today, radically lighter in weight, too. More acoustic tone, too.

So, assuming you are measuring a new 175 vs. a JH, it's no comparison for me, really. I'll take the JH 365/24/7.

Jabberwocky · #27 03-18-2011, 09:08 AM

Comparing new ES 175 to a new SJH, I'll still take the ES 175 24/7/365. Only an ES 175 sounds like an ES 175, despite vintage. Granted, there are good ones and there are great ones. You gotta try them out.

To each his own.

(There are really lots of used ES 175s out there. No need to buy new. Buy used. There's a Year 2000 Sunburst right now for $2150.)

bluewaterpig · #28 03-18-2011, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NSJ

I agree. But I think an old single pickup P90 175 from the 50s will sound radically different than a new dual pickup HB 175 from today, radically lighter in weight, too. More acoustic tone, too.

So, assuming you are measuring a new 175 vs. a JH, it's no comparison for me, really. I'll take the JH 365/24/7.

Personally I would take the Sadowsky Jim Hall any day too. But if you're looking for that specific 175 tone, I don't know if the JH can tackle it.

NSJ · #29 03-18-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluewaterpig

Personally I would take the Sadowsky Jim Hall any day too. But if you're looking for that specific 175 tone, I don't know if the JH can tackle it.

Well is there a unified 175 "tone" that stretches across decades? I would argue no. -I used to own an early 50s 175 beater with a p90, and I submit it sounds different and better (it just exhudes warmth!) than the crap Gibson is pedaling today --I've tried new 175s in stores, and I think they sound not much different than a lot of cheaper jazz boxes on the market today.

Jim Hall himself still has his old 1950s era 175 that he received in a trade from Howard Roberts, and I'm thinking he would have zero interest in a new 2011 Gibby.

Jabberwocky · #30 03-18-2011, 11:36 AM

If you like chocolate, don't let a vanilla lover tell you that vanilla is better. No, there is no unified chocolate flavor either but when you taste it you sure know that it is chocolate. Chocolate did not taste better in the 50s. Have a bite of Valrhona circa 2011.

Last I heard, Mr. Jim Hall has lost a bit of his hearing due to age, you know. High frequencies have been shaved off. So, unless you're of Mr. Jim Hall's vintage, I would not be slavish to his choice of instrument unless I am a groupie incapable of making up my own mind.

I think I had better tell Greg Hilden to trash that crappy 2010 Gibson ES 175 of his. The nerve of the man to wring such nice sounds from that crappy Gibby.

I find it absurd to compare a circa 2010 humbuckered SJH to a circa 1950 P90 ES 175. That's like comparing Natalie Portman to Elizabeth Taylor. They're both Jewish, I believe.

In the context of Jerry's posting, it is clear to me that he is asking about current vintage ES 175 vis a vis the SJH. Surely a person asking such a question will not be talking about a 1950s P90 ES 175 which costs northwards of $7500.00 now. But maybe I have reading comprehension problems.

Lastly, what I like has no bearing on what Jerry will like. The SJH is not for everybody because if it is, the ES 175 will stop selling and fall off the catalog and vice versa. With a track record of being in production for over 50 years, that is saying something.