Gibson ES-175 Sunken Top?

[jzucker]

So it's interesting trying to find a great '60s 175. In addition to everything else, I have only recently become aware that a huge amount of the '60s 175s have sunken tops. In the attached pictures, look at the top in the area of the bridge pickup and the bridge. Also notice in the bridge feet, how the inside feet are curved inward and the adjustment screws are leveled off very high so that only a partial amount of the threads are actually inside the holes in the bridge. This is a classic indication of the top collapsing.

So, the dichotomy is that you are looking for a '60s 175 because the tops were thinner and they were more resonant, and yet - The reason Gibson thickened the top is to prevent the tops from collapsing. From what I have seen, the majority of '60s 175s suffer from this issue. Now, it could be that it won't get any worse or that the amount of continual collapsing will be minimal over the next 10-15 years. Hard to tell...But it makes me want to be even more careful when choosing an older 175.

[Jabberwocky]

Did you look under the top for broken kerfed braces? My untutored unwashed opinion is that the slightly flattened arch of an old ES-175 does not really have an impact on the tone unless the kerfed braces supporting the arch are broken. If so, the top becomes unstable and can cause all kinds of intonation problems.

Frank Ford has an interesting page over at his Frets.net website about fixing a collapsing arch of an ES-175 FRETS.COM Field Trip .

So, all is not lost as it can be fixed. Even when the kerfed braces are not broken the original arch can be restored by pushing the top up and capping the kerfed braces with strips of wood.

[Jabberwocky]

Comparing your photos with those of Frank Ford's, yours come off rather well in comparison.

[redwater]

Jack, I am interested in how much Gibson thickened the top at all.
Are you able to measure the exact thickness of your 60s 175 at the edge of the F-Hole?
I´d love to compare that to my 1996!

[Little Jay]

This is interesting..... Guy with whom I take lessons every now and then has an early 70ies 175 (with the reddish to yellow burst). His top is clearly sunken, bridge is all the way up. He doesn't mind (he likes the guitar) and it seems stable.

My '48 ES-125 came to me without bracing (!), must have been like that for years and it came to me with heavy acoustic strings. The top doesn't show any sign of sinking! It is 5mm thick, maybe a tad more. So what exactly that causes a top to sink? Besides the obvious - thin tops with broken bracing - maybe also quality of the laminate? Method of pressing? Oh and my top only has one pickup, most 175s with sunken tops I've seen are the double humbucker ones.

[Franz 1997]

I had a 70's 175D with a 'sunken' ( i.e. non-arched) top, but intact braces. The ply was the same thickness as my '65 175. It was almost as if it had been formed into that shape intentionally.

[Greentone]

My '68 didn't have a sunken top, but did have the thinner top--like the typical 60s 175. I think I was sort of lucky to have had an example for so long (over 30 years) that did not show any signs of the top flattening out.

However, you are right. I have seen my share of 175s that show the symptoms of the arch going flat--a high bridge.

Does anyone know if this is supposed to be something that accompanied Gibson's move to kerfed bracing, rather than carved bracing?

[Archie]

Not to worry you Jack but BK's do it too. I have also seen plenty of early 175's with sunken tops. Two recently at an auction.

I like the Japanese approach of putting a little patch between the braces directly under the bridge and they dont even kerf braces.

[jzucker]

I wouldn't say not to worry. Each case has to be evaluated individually. And it's not just 175s. Gibson thickened the top on the L5s too. I compare my L5 (1996) to a '60s one and the difference in volume is amazing. Top is way thinner on the '60s ones. Gibson deliberately thickened the top and stiffened the bracing to avoid warranty issues.

Not to worry you Jack but BK's do it too. I have also seen plenty of early 175's with sunken tops. Two recently at an auction.

I like the Japanese approach of putting a little patch between the braces directly under the bridge and they dont even kerf braces.

[Archie]

I wouldn't say not to worry. Each case has to be evaluated individually. And it's not just 175s. Gibson thickened the top on the L5s too. I compare my L5 (1996) to a '60s one and the difference in volume is amazing. Top is way thinner on the '60s ones. Gibson deliberately thickened the top and stiffened the bracing to avoid warranty issues.

Yeh it got quite bad a few years back. Saw some 2000's model L7's with blatant warranty dodging tops. It was at this auction though with another sunken top Es-175 that they had a 60's Kessel, the top was sinking badly. Anyway if yours is good it's not gonna change now, have you had a look at the braces?

[JensL]

My 50's 175 has a sunken top too, I think many of the old ones have this. It does seem to matter how it sinks. It has rendered two of my former teachers 175's useless, but somehow mine is fine.

[oldane]

My 1961 175 has a sagged top too. However, it has been that way and stable since I bought it in 1973 despite being strung up to tune constantly since then so it doesn't worry me much. At some point I had John Moriarty (Irish luthier) make me another rosewood bridge saddle which was taller so the thumb wheels needen't be so high up. But of course a sagged top may reduce the value if I should decide to move it on. OTOH, it has PAFs (which doesn't sound any better than modern pickups to my ears).

[Franz 1997]

Another alternative to a higher bridge base is to install a sound post to stabilise and even slightly 'jack up' a sunken top. There are details in another recent thread about doing this. It does slightly reduce dynamic range but otherwise, amplified tone is unaffected.

And of course, a sound post can be removed if needed for re-sale. No reason why any lam top electric arch top should become unusable due to a sagging top. A carved top might be more adversely affected by a sound post.

[jzucker]

It depends on the degree that the top has sunk.

Another alternative to a higher bridge base is to install a sound post to stabilise and even slightly 'jack up' a sunken top. There are details in another recent thread about doing this. It does slightly reduce dynamic range but otherwise, amplified tone is unaffected.

And of course, a sound post can be removed if needed for re-sale. No reason why any lam top electric arch top should become unusable due to a sagging top. A carved top might be more adversely affected by a sound post.

[Franz 1997]

It depends on the degree that the top has sunk.

Well, yes...not saying it can remove a hollow or dip. But it works if not too advanced.

[Franz 1997]

Here's a snap of my old L4, which had cut braces and a slightly sunken top, amongst many other injuries. Inserting a sound post allowed the top to be pushed up into a very slight arch again. For this to work, there has also to be a full contact bridge, to spread the soundpost contact load across the top. It didn't go back to the original contour, but stabilised and is very playable. It'll never be a looker, but so what..

Note plugged hole for original screwed-down bridge....

[jzucker]

the soundpost also does change the tone even through the amp but I agree it's a decent fix. It also reduces the feedback and gives a thunk to the tone.

[Max405]

Wow guys. I wonder how many guitars out there have sunken tops and the owners don't even know about it? You know, you buy these guitars, you keep them nice in hopes that they will retain there value and then they collapse on you. That sucks. Thanks for a great, eye opening topic. Harsh reality. I think I'm gonna start drinking..
Joe D.

[skykomishone]

I have a 1972 ES175D, purchased new back in the day. Always cared for in the best ways. One day this spring, I noticed the top around the bridge had sunken slightly as did my spirits because I've always loved this guitar and never thought it would happen to me. It's like finding out that your girlfriend had stepped out on you.

So, I took it to my friendly luthier, who looked inside at the bracing right away and discovered that the brace was not broken, but the glue had separated between the plate and brace. He glued and jacked it with a temporary support inside. It went back together firmly and into the proper shape. I wanted to kiss him, but took him out for a few beers instead. That's my story about my 175 sunken top. It ended well, but sure had me upset. In the old days, you'd just go out and find another girlfriend. But we're still together! After all these years.

[Archie]

the soundpost also does change the tone even through the amp but I agree it's a decent fix. It also reduces the feedback and gives a thunk to the tone.

I'm not convinced that sound posts depending on how they are affixed or cut make that much difference. The most acoustically lively Es-175 I have played was an Aria Pro II EAF650? the one down from the Herb Ellis. That had a sound post and a ridiculously thin top. Wonderful sound, just wonderful.

But sure they can also be detrimental way. For example I dont know what I think about the Guild X175 with or without. I think I prefer without.

[Franz 1997]

This is an interesting thread. Just about my experience again; on my 70s 175 the top had sunk into a slight depression, so my first reaction when I noticed it was to check the ( kerfed) bracing for separation or breaks with a torch and mirror. No, it was all intact. But then, the kerfing on the bracing was cut almost though to the top, so you can't help wondering how much support this kind of bracing is actually giving to the top anyway. Can't be much.

My point is, yes there are viable fixes for loose bracing, and there are the new bridge base and sound post fixes, discussed above, but it just makes me wonder how many older 175s with nothing apparently wrong with them just sink
anyway, because of that decision to kerf the bracing to save 5 minutes in assembly.

[jzucker]

Detrimental or enhancement is subjective. I don't see how anyone can say they don't affect the tone?

I'm not convinced that sound posts depending on how they are affixed or cut make that much difference. The most acoustically lively Es-175 I have played was an Aria Pro II EAF650? the one down from the Herb Ellis. That had a sound post and a ridiculously thin top. Wonderful sound, just wonderful.

But sure they can also be detrimental way. For example I dont know what I think about the Guild X175 with or without. I think I prefer without.

[Franz 1997]

I did, in an earlier post. But yes, simple physics suggests it must do, so fair point. I suppose what I should have said I was pleasantly surprised at how much of what I liked about the tone was still there - plus, the feedback resistance bonus. It ended up being a more usable electric arch top IMO.

With the L4, it certainly cut the acoustic volume, no doubt about that.

Incidentally ATH, didn't know the guild CE100D ( presumably you mean that by "guild 175') even had a sound post!
I know some x500s did.

[Max405]

This topic has gotten me nervous and bricks have appeared in my undies.
It made me take pictures of the inside of all my Archtops.
None of my bracing is compromised (yet), but I noticed that all my braces are solid/contoured, not kerfed. Perhaps that is a stronger, longer lasting way to do the bracing? I sure as hell hope so.
Joe D.

[Jabberwocky]

Kerfed tone bars at the point of breaking but not nearly there yet is the secret to the tone of a good ES-175...