Steve Holst - Jim Hall / D'Aquisto mini review part II

[Archie]

at 67, unlikely to replace this. The Heritage Eagle and Holst are keepers as is the kessel though the kessel is now out of the rotation. Just holding onto it for its charm. I have a GB10 that was given to me so I can't get rid of it and a Ibanez Metheny that I like but isn't something I play much. So I'd consider getting rid of it. I am talking to holst about a 175 type of guitar with the decay and thunk that a 175 has but with a new build so I don't have to deal with all the issues inherent in a 30-50 year old guitar. But Steve can't use poplar like gibson uses and would have to use multiple layers of mahogany instead and it would be an experiment...

Hey JZ

I could likely supply you/Holst with the poplar you're seeking.
Gibson are slightly odd in their veneer construction thickness’s. As you suggest, several layers of mahogany will not sound much like poplar, which is a softer hard wood. It depends though on how ruthless you are in obtaining authenticity.
I can produce the poplar sheets required for a 16” body at any thickness, sanded to finish and butt joined with the grain in the required orientation, ready for pressing.

You and Steve can contact me here, if you want to discuss further.

info@archtopheaven.com

BTW nice guitar!

[jzucker]

Thanks Archie, it's not just the material but the thickness. Gibson's laminate uses two think sheets of maple and a 2x thickness of poplar in the middle. Holst's laminate press cannot handle the thicker material. Not sure the technical details but that's what he told me.

Hey JZ

I could likely supply you/Holst with the poplar you're seeking.
Gibson are slightly odd in their veneer construction thickness’s. As you suggest, several layers of mahogany will not sound much like poplar, which is a softer hard wood. It depends though on how ruthless you are in obtaining authenticity.
I can produce the poplar sheets required for a 16” body at any thickness, sanded to finish and butt joined with the grain in the required orientation, ready for pressing.

You and Steve can contact me here, if you want to discuss further.

info@archtopheaven.com

BTW nice guitar!

[Archie]

Thanks Archie, it's not just the material but the thickness. Gibson's laminate uses two think sheets of maple and a 2x thickness of poplar in the middle. Holst's laminate press cannot handle the thicker material. Not sure the technical details but that's what he told me.

Hey JZ.

I see. I assume then that he is using vacuum pressing. Depending on his technique, it sounds like he isn’t able to create enough force.
Gibson as you know use hydraulic presses with an insane amount of pressure. There are ways to overcome this.

I think the Gibson poplar veneer is around 2.5mm thick and the maple is roughly 1mm thick. I’ve got a mid 90’s 165 for comparison. Most think that Gibson use 3 layers of veneer but they actually use 5. There are two very thin knife cut figured veneers glued to each top surface.

If he or you are interested, I could likely produce the plates myself and send them on. My operation is set up so that I can recreate any laminated composition and plate.

For example, here is me pressing an early 90’s Ibanez JP-20 top plate, from a 3D scan. (ignore the wood, it’s some scrap sycamore maple for testing).

[jzucker]

That's awesome! Here's some food for thought. In 1988/1989 Gibson used mahogany ply on the back and sides of the 175. However, I'm convinced the top was different as well because if you try a 1990 version, the sound is completely different. There is more acoustic liveliness in the '88 and '89 versions. I had a great '88 that I sold about 10 years ago and I've bought 5 of them since but every one had major problems. The last one I bought had a maxed truss rod and the neck was twisted. I've kind of given up on finding one but I'm convinced someone with decent forensic skills could figure out what the formula is for that year. Sounds noticeably better than the other years IMO...

Hey JZ.

I see. I assume then that he is using vacuum pressing. Depending on his technique, it sounds like he isn’t able to create enough force.
Gibson as you know use hydraulic presses with an insane amount of pressure. There are ways to overcome this.

I think the Gibson poplar veneer is around 2.5mm thick and the maple is roughly 1mm thick. I’ve got a mid 90’s 165 for comparison. Most think that Gibson use 3 layers of veneer but they actually use 5. There are two very thin knife cut figured veneers glued to each top surface.

If he or you are interested, I could likely produce the plates myself and send them on. My operation is set up so that I can recreate any laminated composition and plate.

For example, here is me pressing an early 90’s Ibanez JP-20 top plate, from a 3D scan. (ignore the wood, it’s some scrap sycamore maple for testing).

[jzucker]

p.s. on that joe pass, please consider making one with 20 frets and putting the pickup against the fingerboard.

[Archie]

p.s. on that joe pass, please consider making one with 20 frets and putting the pickup against the fingerboard.

That’s exactly why I’m remaking it

I wanted to do a series of archtops that could have been vastly improved (in the publics eye) if not for one or two alterations.
I was going to call it the ‘exiled’ series. Models that have been cast out but could be great.
It was also going to be part of a run of Joe Pass remakes as I have found his D’Aquisto, which he used live between 1976 and 1980.
That and his thinline 175, hence why I bought a mid 90’s 165, which will have the same back and top plate.
(just to clarify, I haven't found them as in 'have them in my possession’. I just know how to remake them to a very high level of accuracy).

Regarding the late 80’s 175, I would need to see the top, to determine if the former used to press the plates was different in anyway. 175 plates do vary somewhat but hard to tell by what years.
My suspicion is that the plates on the late 80’s are the same as the 90’s ones, as a lot of Gibson re-tooling was done in the early 80’s and I think again in the early 2000’s (if anyone knows otherwise, I would like to know). That is to say, the pressing on my 2012? (need to check) 165 seems more defined than on my mid 90’s 165.

Another option could be that Gibson went with a different veneer stack for that era but I doubt it. The only time Gibson used a different stack, was in the 60’s (I think).
It could be the bracing was changed but again, with manufacturing on this scale, small changes are liekly never made, as they would hinder production so much it would be too uneconomical.
I suspect the reason they made the 175’s of that ere out of mahogany backs and sides, is because they were going for a model refresh, or they had an abundance of mahogany,
The more I learn about guitar manufacturing, the more I learn that wood availability and abundance/price, usually drives choices.
I would imagine Gibson used poplar in the mahogany veneer stack but that would be a guess.

What are your thoughts? Did you ever pull the pup on one? Was it heavier than normal ones?

My mid 90’s 165 is very acoustic. I put that down to the top of the plate being very flat. almost like a cross between an archtop and a flat top.

A typical trait of a post 90’s 175 plate, seems to be a pronounced horn on the upper bout, but not much on the cutaway side and a wide arch across the lower bout with a relatively flat centre. There is also a double hump.

[Archie]

Thanks Archie, it's not just the material but the thickness. Gibson's laminate uses two think sheets of maple and a 2x thickness of poplar in the middle. Holst's laminate press cannot handle the thicker material. Not sure the technical details but that's what he told me.

I just found these pics

Gibson ES-175D (1989)
– Classic Guitars and Amps

The top seems to be the standard lamination and pressing (plate shape) but not sure about the mahogany. The back seems to be one piece, which would denote that it is a knife cut, rolled veneer. Not 100% but pretty close. Those are usually pretty thin but since the wood is plain, it likely wouldn't be decorative.

They switched to mahogany in 1981? I would think they used two sheets of mahogany like they used the maple, either side of a poplar core. The decorative maple veneers came in in the early 90’s along with the switch back to maple.

It could be that the top layer of mahogany is paper thin plain knife cut and then a thicker piece of mahogany underneath and then the poplar core.

Hard to say

[jzucker]

Archie, there's definitely something different between '89 and '90. I've owned multiples of '88, '89, '90 and other '90s variations and the acoustic response is night and day and it carries through to the amp. Check out this youtube video I did of an '88 I recently had. Sadly the headstock was cracked so I had to return it. This is different than EVERY OTHER 175 I've owned (I'm at over 12 at this point) except the other 3 '88/'89 guitars which all sounded like this.

[Archie]

Archie, there's definitely something different between '89 and '90. I've owned multiples of '88, '89, '90 and other '90s variations and the acoustic response is night and day and it carries through to the amp. Check out this youtube video I did of an '88 I recently had. Sadly the headstock was cracked so I had to return it. This is different than EVERY OTHER 175 I've owned (I'm at over 12 at this point) except the other 3 '88/'89 guitars which all sounded like this.

JZ I don't disbelieve you.

We just need to get our hands on one to find out what the secret sauce is.

Bracing, veneer stack, back plate thickness, side thickness etc.. All of that will have some effect to the tone. The only thing we won't be able to tell is the veneer stack in the mahogany but it could be pretty well approximated.
The female and male formers they use to press the plates, only work if the veneers equal the same thickness. So likely whatever they used in terms of thickness for the top veneers, they used on the bottom but replaced the maple with mahogany.

Here are the top plates from two 165's (same as 175). They both look identical in shape. Given the mid 90's one (pic 2) is only a few years off from your 89, I would be very happy to assume they are the same shape.
Really the difference seems to be the F-holes.

Pic 1: ES-165 2012
Pic 2 ES-165 1995