2 x Gibson ES-165s (ES-175s) 3D Scanned, Reviewed & Compared

[Archie]

Hi all.

I've got two ES-165's and I 3D scanned them for an up coming project. I thought I would share some of the data, so we can look at these guitars in a different light.
I'll have some time away from the workshop over the next few months, so will post a variety of archtops in the same manner.

The two models here are early/mid 90's, and a 2002. These scans are very accurate. The given accuracy is around 2 microns, which is 0.002mm, so what you see is the most accurate representation you can get.

The set humbucker model is from the 90's and the floating humbucker, from 2002.

Pic 1: The arched plates are essentially identical, which shows they are pressed in the same former (carved mold with which to press veneers into) . The style seems to be an accentuated upper bout hump but; little shape going into the cutaway.
There is a slight difference in the cutaway and the f-holes on the later model are thinner.



Here is the top plate in map form. What you can notice is the bridge are is very flat and wide compared to more conventional carving.


Here we have the bridge shape of an Ibanez JP20. You can see the difference in the shaping of the bridge area.



Now we'll look at some cross sections of the two ES-165's.

This side view shows the difference in neck carve on both guitars.



This next picture looks at the neck angle. There will be some room for error here. but the result is 2.6 degrees.



Here is two cross sections taken from the lower bout at the widest point.




The next pic puts out some dimensions (sorry to the Americans in advance). The model on the right is slightly bigger by 3 or so mm, which in the round is nothing. The height between the top and bottom plate in the centres is 1mm. This again shows the bodies of both models to be the same.


Let's have a look at the top and bottom plates from a side view. You can see the plate does not have much arch. The 90's model is on top. One could argue that the pickup may have effected the arch shape. It could well be that the guitar was in a case, where the bridge was being pushed down.



Here is a side view from an Ibanez JP20 for comparison.



And here is a Duane Eddy for more comparison



Here are the 3 models compared across the lower bout



Left to right: ES-165 - Duane Eddy - JP20.

The highest arch is on the JP2- and the lowest by 5mm (which is quite a lot) is the 165.




Here is the back plates: The upper part of the plates is surprisingly flat. As if the only half the plate has any shape to it.



Here is a comparison between the 165 -Jp20 - DE400: Asa can be seen, the other two plates have been pressed from a fully carved former.



And here is a look at the tops: Again The Gibson former is somewhat under carved but there is nothing wrong with that per say.



Here is the body dimensions. Both are very similar.




Takeaways:

I'm sorry to not present much neck data. I'm currently focusing on bodies so when I get to necks, I'll post data on those. I suppose for fun we can check the body to nut length and see how similar they are.



A difference of 2mm is within the margin of era.

In closing, when you see the guitars in this way, every defect stands out and ones you would never notice just by looking at the guitar.
The flatness of the top plates around the bridge area is a stand out and the type of carve used to form the plates.
My biggest takeaway is that although Gibson's are mass produced, they still seem to have a handmade element to them. The plates being slightly off centre, the carve (former) being slightly off centre. You would expect to see something you might consider better quality but it's not the point here to say what is bad or good, just what is.

Both guitars sound great and allow players to connect to the idols of the past. That is really important when it comes to a guitar; Its soul and that cannot be captured in a scan.

Certainly tightening up of the tolerances would give a better playing guitar but not necessarily better sounding and to some extent, they all sound different. The 90's example here is very acoustic and sounds great. The 2002 is a little stiffer and slightly more focuses tonally.


(3 years ago I started my journey into building a jazz guitar manufacturing facility in the UK. Prior to that I was a keen enthusiast of archtops but with no experience in making them. I have used the most advanced technology to reverse engineer great archtops, with the hope of learning from those that came before, to build guitars that capture their character, going forwards. I have a youtube channel linked at the bottom of this page and I've documented my journey so far here in the 'bench' section on this forum).

[Spook410]

OK.. that was pretty cool.

[va3ux]

Wow ! Fascinating.

[jim777]

That's really cool Archie, thanks for that!

[vinnyv1k]

Very cool !

[2bornot2bop]

Not likely to see that again soon!

[jads57]

Fascinating exploration of some iconic 16” laminate Archtops,for sure! Thanks for taking the time to explain it to us laymen.

[Archie]

Fascinating exploration of some iconic 16” laminate Archtops,for sure! Thanks for taking the time to explain it to us laymen.

Thanks jads

I'm actually a laymen myself, or I suppose I still think I am.

[icr]

Do you own the scanner and software for this, or is this 3d scanning a service that one can request from a vendor?

[chris32895]

Really fascinating, thanks. I played a JP20 once a while back and really liked it, I wonder if they carve of the top was the reason. Anyone know the tonal difference a more curved top would have against a flatter one?

[lawson-stone]

This is a treasure-trove of detailed data that has a lot of uses beyond just trying to build a guitar. Thank you for sharing this information. Seriously, I relished reading over these details.

[omphalopsychos]

would be very interesting if OP also included some observations/analysis in addition to the measurements. any builders want to opine on how these differences contribute to feel and sound?

[Archie]

I'll add these for interest and put them in the original post too.

The red lines you see are maps generated based on the actual surface data. The map of the 165 top plate, I have included in the original post, was re-worked by myself to create a former.

The difficulty with scanning, is that you cannot just scan the guitar and job done. When you start to analyse the plates, you quickly find they can be somewhat all over the place. This depends on manufacturer and age, plus design of the guitar itself. For example, thin-line bodies warp a lot! Other factors are quality of components, tooling and the operating set up in the factory at the time of construction.

This pic shows two ES-165 top plates and (left and Centre) and one Ibanez JP20 from 1992? (ish).
You can tell from the surface rings (red lines) the evenness and general flow of the plates.
One thing to note is the Gibson in the middle is where the red lines show up in the neck. You can see they are slightly off centre.



Here is the reworking I did of the one on the left. There is no outline as the former does not require the guitar outer shape, it only requires the arch.
I have recentered the arch, created symmetry across the bridge line (to improve setup and playability, lower string height etc..). It all flows from the foundation of that main arch (in my inexperienced opinion).
This reworking is not actually finished, I'm still working on it but it shows how things can be improved.

One thing I would like to say is that, the paint/finish can have a big impact on this data. I suspect that Gibson's spraying is not very good in terms of consistency (thickness), as they shoot Nitro and the Ibanez is in poly. The poly might simply lay down more evenly and requires less coats, so less room for inconsistency in application.

As mentioned in the original post, the 165 cutaways have a slightly different radius. I've taken each one and placed them over each other to show the difference. I don't know what to make of this exactly. It could well be that due to the nature of the cutaway and how it's made, there is a lot of room for deviation in the final outcome. A typical venetian cutaway, is likely more consistent as it is a produced using a continuous piece of wood over a former. Not several different pieces, glued at opposing angles.



It's taken me 3 years of self teaching to learn how to rework all this data; to create something that is not only faithful to the original design (former) but improves upon it.
The formers that were originally made for these guitars were likely done by hand, up till more recently than you would think and the inaccuracy inherent in such a method, shows up in the final product.
Modern manufacturers have only really started turning to CNC and CAD design in the last few decades (I can't speak for all). CAD design can really help tighten things up, which will make a noticeable difference in the playability and feel. Like an F1 car compared to one made in the 1950's. The cornering, speed and ease of driving comes from refining the product. Mark Campellone is very good at this even though he still makes archtops in the more traditional way.
What I would like to do for archtops is like recreating a Jaguar D-type, but when you lift the bonnet, it's a state of the art Maclaren.

Over these 3 years I've hired several CAD professionals, with decades of experience and none could do the work. It turns out CAD designers don't really like doing surface modelling, especially compound radius organic surface modelling. At a few points I thought I would have to throw in the towel.
I've spent countless hours after work, on days off, learning how to do this and it's been the hardest part of this journey so far. I complained to the software company after hitting so many walls, that I ended up getting a 1-2-1 meting with the guy who makes the software. To put that in context, Yamaha and Gibson use this software; I'm a nobody. I just wasn't going to take 'no' for an answer! Not after I'd spent so much money on machinery.

Anyway I'm thrilled it's finally paying off and I can now go on to create and recreate, some Maclaren Jaguar D-types.

Onwards and upwards!

[mikeSF]

love this, thx

[bebopblues]

This is very interesting. Looking forward to more about the necks. Thanks!