-
Looking at an ES 165 herb Ellis,
thought I'd post a pic of the headstock, see anything strange here? I have never seen one with that grain before ???
As far as I can see from other pics guitar looks good although seller is asking a bit much but I'd make an offer
The bridge seems to be misaligned somewhat and the saddles (A) is/are a bit off but a replacement should be an inexpensive undertaking. I see some stuff happening in the neck joint but that could be dust I guess..
Let me know what you think.
S
-
12-17-2025 09:04 PM
-
The bridge & saddles matters are easily corrected, if needed. From the available photos, the guitar looks fine. The headstock issue looks like lacquer checking to me, not visible wood grain. Notice how the longitudinal lacquer checks wrap around the tuner mount compression zones. That's a 30 year old guitar. Looks in fine shape. I have two of that vintage and have just a trace of incipient lacquer checking on the headstocks, but my guitars don't get out of the house much. -Phil
-
Gibson manufacturers went through a faze of having these issues with their headstock veneers.
I believe they fixed it by changing the material.
There maybe other reasons but I believe this is the main one.
I have a 96 one of these and it sounds great. Just check the neck and truss rod.
These 90’s ones seem a bit crude in terms of finish, they certainly improved the finish some years later.
I would’t go over $3k and I would prefer $2.5
-
Thx guys,
Originally Posted by Archie
Looking at the grovers they do seem "dull" for the age of the guitar . I have a few 90's, one with grovers and they're shiny and the headstock finish is flawless. Wonder if it could be moisture/humidity/temperature change issue. Seller asking $3900 US ($5500 cdn).
Found this facebook post on similar issues , lots of different answers
Log into Facebook
S
-
There are three gen 1 (inset pickup) ES-165s on Reverb right now, in the US, priced at ~$3000. Some finish checking but nothing abnormal. A few others higher in the 3000s. Prices have begun to crack among these guitars in the last six months, but $2500 US isn't realistic. Of course there are also still listings for over $4000. I have a 1991 (1st year of production) and a 1992. Both sound and feel great. Over the decades since these guitars were made, I've never encountered a bad one, like people report wrt 175s. Originally Posted by SOLR
Phil
-
Actually , the more I look the more I think someone has put a clear coat over the defect/wear.
???
SLast edited by SOLR; 12-18-2025 at 05:30 PM.
-
@ nearly $4K, I’d look elsewhere. Originally Posted by SOLR
-
I would agree $4k seems excessive for that instrument even in mint shape imo. But since Covid and Inflation rapid rise, I’m a bit stuck in the past asking prices!
To me $3k seems like a top dollar ask,Lol!
-
I see no indications of needing a bridge replacement. The intonation is a little weird but that's easily adjustable for whatever string set you will be using. The angle of the bridge top vis a vis the base is normal for these instruments and the ES -175 and avoids the usual slope bridge placement one sees on so many archtops. More makers should have followed Gibson's lead on this. Originally Posted by SOLR
-
$3,000 US is not a top dollar ask in the current market. While the Reverb sales history is based on low incidence, for a "very good" condition burst ES-165 recent sales have been between ~$2600 - $3200. For "excellent" condition, ~$2800 - $3500. Eight or nine months ago, those selling prices were higher. $4200 was a common asking price until recently, with resulting sales in the mid-to-high threes. The three on Reverb now at ~$3K ask are fairly priced, and you might get a bite on an offer made a little below. None of the non-Gibson equivalents feel or sound the same, if the 165 sound is what you want. Originally Posted by jads57
Prices on the 2nd gen Herb Ellis (with floating p/u) have too little data for a Reverb history but off Reverb I've seen more negotiating room relative to asking prices, but they are still not in the twos.
A truly mint ES-165, 1st gen, particularly the '91 - '96 period, can easily snag over $4000, if sellers have patience to wait for the right buyer who will accept no substitutes. I have been offered over $4000 in the past four months for my '91 and my '92. Of course this can change. In 2015 you could pick up a 165 for $1600 - $1800. But 2025 isn't 2015, and the supply of these guitars isn't increasing.
PhilLast edited by 213Cobra; 12-24-2025 at 03:47 PM.
-
Like I said I’m old and stuck in the past!Lol! Maybe I need to take Duke Ellington and his “Things Ain’t What They Used To Be” more to heart. After all ,it is a Blues,Lol!
-
I usually replace the bridges on new purchases with either a Faber or KMS V grooved. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Thx
S
-
The ES-165 HB with the lone inset humbucker was a lower priced guitar than even the ES-175 with a single neck pickup. The neck profile is chunkier, the logo is silkscreened and the construction may not be as clean-I read reports of dried glue that had oozed out of joints and broken kerfed braces. Brand new, it had an MAP of $1899; the ES-175 was about $2799 new at that time.
Check out the kerfed braces and tantellones under the top. The ES-165 HB is not a cut-price ES-175; it is its own thing. It is a heavier built guitar overall. There is a version of the ES-165 HB with two inset humbuckers that had a MAP of $2399. Again, it is not a cut-price ES-175; it is considered a lower quality Gibson. I read rumours that the ES-165 HB line was built by less experienced journeyman Gibson builders. Hence, the lower price. An unsubstantiated rumour.
-
When I bought my first ES-165 in 1991, it was before eCommerce and music stores had lots of guitars on their walls, and there were lots of music stores here in Los Angeles. So I played, evaluated, inspected various 165s and 175s. Other than the cheaped-out headstock insignia on the 165, I could find no difference in quality of build between them, and some 175s were heavier than the 165, accounting for the extra pickup too, and some were lighter even with the 2nd pickup. I've had a mirror and scope inside examples of both guitars since then, and I've never found 165s to be sloppier in any meaningful way than 175s. But that was my experience with them. Compared to '90s 175s I played, the early 165 necks were somewhat chunkier, which was a positive for me. Many players of later gen 1 165s reported that the necks got less chunky into the latter '90s, and then chunked up again in the last years, roughly 2000-2003, before gen 2 was introduced with the floater. Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
I've measure top plate thickness at the f-holes on 165s and 175s and found the usual Gibson variances from guitar to guitar. If the 1st gen 165 was built by journeyman builders, they were doing a good job if I go by my '91 and '92. If anything, the finish on the 165s was thinner than same era 175s. So I don't buy the "lower-quality Gibson" proposition, except for the headstock veneer and gold paint insignia. They corrected that cosmetic issue in gen 2.
The two HB version of the 165 was named Herb Ellis Plus. There's one on Reverb right now. Years ago when I played one, I couldn't find any real sonic difference from a 175, though the neck was a bit more of a handful.
Phil
-
I have an early ES-165 and the headstock has checked but no where near as bad as the OP’s. I also have the floating pickup model of ES-165. Both are great guitars. Solidly built. Not overly built. Not heavy. Well balanced. Great sounding. Comfortable playing, Decent, but not excessive, meat to the neck profiles. Excellent materials and craftsmanship, etc. Not to diss ES-175s, but I had a late ‘70s ES-175CC. That one missed the mark for me, if for no other reason, because of the pickup. Probably a faithful reproduction of the original, but I wasn’t digging it. Heavy and hummie. The whole guitar was not crafted as well as the 165s that I have now.
-
Here's my '91 & '92 ES-165s:
The '92 on the right has a solid brass L-4 tailpiece that replaced the Bigsby it shipped with to the original owner. Notice the 1 year difference in knobs, and the bridge change -- the '92 has the offset/angled ToM assembly. Both were listed as "cherry" finish, but the '92 leans toward wine red.
Here's my 2007 gen 2 ES-165 with floater, alongside my L-5 Wes:
Even though the gen 2 is still a plywood guitar, it has a fully credible acoustic tone. This one was listed as wine finish, just like the Wes beside it. Love these 165s!
Phil
-
I had a student in the early aughts who had a 95 or 96 ES-165. It was a fine guitar. The pickup, tailpiece and headstock were all downgrades from the ES-175, hence the lower price. And frankly, I like the 490R is some ways better than the 57 Classic as it's stronger mids cut through better in ensemble play.
I can't say that I liked the later generation. I have never understood the concept of having a floating pickup with a laminate guitar. But after watching some videos of forum member Joe D. playing his later generation 165, I think they sound great (or is it possible that anything Joe D. plays sounds great?)
-
I'm a fan of the 490R too. I have a 1990 ES-335 with 490 R/T alongside my 165s and never had any temptation to swap them out for '57 Classics. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
BTW, when I first heard what Gibson planned to do with the gen 2 Herb, I was beyond sceptical too. Plywood, floater? But then I got around to playing one and I quickly surmised that someone at Gibson had a clue. Despite being laminated, the gen 2 165 has a acoustic tone well beyond expectations, and the BJB pickup acquits itself nicely through amps. My gen 1 165s have surprisingly good acoustic tone despite the inset neck pickup, so someone at Gibson realized that the 165 build had latent acoustic qualities suiting a floater and an unburdened top plate.
PhilLast edited by 213Cobra; 12-21-2025 at 07:16 AM.
-
I doubt there is any real difference between the quality of the 175 and 165 in terms of construction. It would likely cost ‘Gibson' more to make changes than to just press the same woods for both.
Both have the standard Gibson veneer stack of maple with a poplar filler and that veneer stack is constant in thickness throughout Gibson laminate guitars.
Both have mahogany necks and rosewood fingerboards with knife cut figured veneers for the top, back and sides, on the outside and inside (either side of the poplar).
The biggest difference is the weight which would be quite noticeable with one less pickup and associated wiring, which can quickly add up. There is of course no need for a bridge pickup on a 175 nor an L5CES (for jazzers) so the 165 makes a lot of sense and I think is a better sounding guitar to the 175.
Regarding floating pickups on a laminate, I don’t think there is an argument to be made that it is a benefit or waste. The pickup will not really be effected by the wood as what makes the difference between archtops and other guitars s the bridge and resulting sustain.
Where the floater comes into it's own regarding the 165 is with further weight reduction. A nice example of a no pickup 165/175 with a floating De’Armond is on my bucket list. The main problem for the floating 165 is the pickup. It doesn't sound very good to my ears.
The 175/165’s rich acoustic tone comes from the very deep body the guitar has, which allows for a lot of resonance despite the laminate construction. The second factor is there is not much arch to the top plate at all. It’s almost a hybrid between a flat top and an archtop. Again this helps make the tone seem more ‘acoustic’.
A well made no pickup 165 with reduced internal bracing and slighly thinner plates (by say 1mm), would be very interesting.
Basically an early 50’s 175 with no set pickup.
-
+1 on both the 490R and BJB. The only comparison I can make is with the CC. These aren’t that and that is a good thing, IMHO.
-
So forum member Hammertone has an even more recent ES-175 for the lower price of $3400 and in excellent shape as well!
-
Not as nice as this one though! Even accounting for the nitro issue on the headstock. Originally Posted by jads57
Just look at the finish on this top, it's gorgeous... That 175 looks like its been hanging in a damp basement for a long time. Tarnished tuners and rusty pickup screws. I don' know , jpeg for jpeg I prefer this one and it's a 165 !
S
-
Hammer is going to get you for dissing HIS guitar! Damp basement indeedy...The House of Hammer offers up only the most fine pieces curated by the Chief Hammer himself and if it looks like it came from a damp basement it's only because it's been ridden hard and put away wet! Like the very fine guitar that it is. Originally Posted by SOLR
Not as nice as this one though! Even accounting for the nitro issue on the headstock.
Just look at the finish on this top, it's gorgeous... That 175 looks like its been hanging in a damp basement for a long time. Tarnished tuners and rusty pickup screws. I don' know , jpeg for jpeg I prefer this one and it's a 165 !
S
The ES 165 on the other hand...looks unsullied by studious hands. And for good reason perhaps.
-
The only thing going for the ES165HE is the faux alligator case. That's cool as heck. Make sure it comes with the guitar. I considered the ES165 HE 1st Gen. but read some stuff online that complained about weight-those Grovers made it headstock heavy, cracked kerfed brace bars, dried up glue, leftover sawdust and a baseball bat neck profile. Just rumours but enough to give me pause. So, check your buy. I think it was also the era of 5-ply laminated tops.
It was a budget laminated Gibson archtop so what I am saying is this: don't pay a premium for it on the used market. Between the ES 175 and ES 165 HE 1st Gen for about the same price, I'll always take the ES-175. The ES 165 HE has to be substantially cheaper to attract me. $1849 was its original MAP. But you do you.
-
Yeah, I don’t have any of those issues with my 1st Gen HE ES-165. The only issue I have is very slight checking on the headstock veneer as had been previously discussed. I don’t think you can blanket statement anything about quality issues with Gibson. Some duds, but many high quality very playable guitars. Some broken headstocks, but many unbroken ones. Some strange designs, but many great designs. Some crappy cases, but some cool cases including the HE alligator cases.
Reply With Quote
Guitar Amps built into case?
Yesterday, 05:03 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos