-
I have only played guitars with them in it, never owned a pair or compared them in the same guitar. They do sound great.
Originally Posted by garybaldy
I'm thinking of guitars around '64, I've played a bunch of 335's from that era and a few L5's, they sound great. The many SG's of classic rock, many would have been from that era. The guitars a bit earlier sometimes have one of each and you'd never know it.
They started to change towards the T-top era, not sure when things like wire changed. Many like early T-tops as well.
-
02-25-2026 04:13 PM
-
the non-constant tone quest...
it can make you a bit crazy..the tone chase..
I gave up a while back..
2006 LP Classic stock 57 PAFs top and bottom
neck-rolled back tone to 0--vol 6
amp: practice--8' speaker-- tone settings mid & bass noon..treb 2:00-- Vol 4
Twin: same settings
Polytone--1-12 same settings
Home studio recordings results
Basic 12 blues no distort med temp
the practice amp could fool ya..sounded great-chords clear on high frets..not muddy
Twin: punchy..bright chord tones on high frets..single lines clear
Polytone: OK it could be a bit bright for "jazz" but all clear..not a drop of mud in any range..chords or lines
comments from studio tecks...sounds like 3 different guitars..
YMMV
-
If you find the 57s a little too dark ( I do not) Seth Lover is pretty much the same thing but without wax potting. They are a LITTLE more articulate. If you have good pots in your guitar you can turn up the tone control 1-1.5 and arrive at the same sonic destination.
-
Marketing is the key thing these days,Lol! There are so many great choices ,and similar offerings at all different price points from reasonable to you must be crazy,Lol!
Lindy Fralin,Manluis,Sheptone,Seymour Duncan, Lollar,just to name a few. I also like DiMarzio 36 th Anniversary set as well!
Gibson also has jumped into the fray as well.
-
The Lollar stuff is really outstanding. I have a Lollar DB high output rail pickup that was designed for metal guys but can do just about anything. It's actually quite similar to the 57 classic in many respects but raised up can provide more punch and bite. Very sensitive to the height you set it at. It's amazing really, and one of my favorite pickups. Often thought about putting it in the bridge of one of my 335s but that means pulling a 57 classic and who wants to do that? Originally Posted by jads57
Other guitarist I work with has a tele with a 'bucker rout in the neck and he used an El Rayo that sounds really good. He also has the Lollar CC in a melody maker. That thing smokes! Outside of Gibson that is my go-to company. A bit on the high side of price but buy once, cry once.
-
At that point Gibson was hawking newer pickups, so I can imagine it's true. More importantly, two longtime Gibson employees and later independent luthiers (Aaron Cowles and Pete Moreno) discussed this and other stories. Would Gibson throw out PAFs? I wouldn't, but they were marketing new pickups to retailers and the public. Originally Posted by wintermoon
In the 1960s Gibson outgrew its space due to the huge demand for guitars, up to 400 instruments per day. The driving needs appear first due to Elvis then years later the Beatles. So you might think in the second wave they would have used up the PAFs. But the electric guitar market was very competitive in the mid 60s. Gibson's quality was less than consistent, including PAFs. Seymour Duncan The History and Resurgence of P.A.F. Pickups - Seymour Duncan T-Tops were much more consistent and were not hand wound. The new pickups were part of the marketing strategy.
Those of you who knew Aaron Cowles and Pete Moreno would confirm that these men were not sensationalists. They were salt of the Earth types and very practical. Aaron would take home F-5 mandolins routinely to finish them up for Gibson getting a per piece payment. Pete Moreno, after leaving Gibson, had a years long contract doing Gibson warranty repairs. Maddie Moore, the queen of engraving and inlays, had the same basic work ethic. I've listened to their reminiscences of their Gibson work. On the specific topic of pickups, Gibson was weak with the PAFs, which is ironic. That is not to say they were bad, just not uniform. Plus hand wrapping the coils cost more. Gibson was competing with Gretsch (Beatles) and Fender in the electric guitar field. I believe the Gibson workers.
I can't prove the PAFs were taken to the dump. I can say the Pete Moreno did dump hauls for Gibson because he had a good sized pickup truck. I've never known Pete to lie.
I can add my recollections from the time period of the end of PAFs. No one I knew of at the time thought they were special. No one thought of them at all really. They just didn't hum, which was a big deal but not unique to Gibson. The newer pickups were "precision made" for rock, blues, and country and were promoted as such.
Would Gibson really destroy its property for its greater good? Take a look.
-
Interesting thread!
So interesting that I started to consider should I still, afterall and anyway, put a Classic 57 neck pickup in to my 1984 ES-175 to get even better classic jazz sound.
It is a mahogany era guitar with original Shaws in it. There is nothing wrong with Shaw neck pu (I don't use the bridge pickup), it is great, only a bit lower output pickup than any other guitar I have.
I have another ES-175 too, it is a 1954 Reissue from 2015 and it has P90s. My bandmates prefer it over my "vintage" humbucker ES-175. Is it only their degraded hearing, because P90 gives more treble? Or is the P90 more dynamic?
Would a Classic 57 in the neck position be a upgrade, downgrade or samegrade? Would it be even better than a Shaw? Louder and more dynamic? As balanced?
-
Not all 57’s sound the same. I had them in a Byrdland and they were the worst pickups ever made. Originally Posted by jads57
That being said I agree with the OP; A good 57 sounds great. The only other pickup I like (or have tried on many occasions) are the HB-1’s from Guild.
-
For the most part you'll have to trust your own ears unless you have someone you have already verified has a good set! You could swap to a '57 and be very pleased or you could wish you hadn't wasted time and money. Shaws are worth a grip, and regarded as great pickups. Not sure it's worth it but I'm not sure what the tonal profile of them is supposed to be vs a '57 classic or what YOU are looking for. Maybe someone else can provide that answer. I personally don't like P-90's but am always blown away by how amazing other guys will sound with them. It's all about what works best for you and your style. Originally Posted by Herbie
Interesting thread!
So interesting that I started to consider should I still, afterall and anyway, put a Classic 57 neck pickup in to my 1984 ES-175 to get even better classic jazz sound.
It is a mahogany era guitar with original Shaws in it. There is nothing wrong with Shaw neck pu (I don't use the bridge pickup), it is great, only a bit lower output pickup than any other guitar I have.
I have another ES-175 too, it is a 1954 Reissue from 2015 and it has P90s. My bandmates prefer it over my "vintage" humbucker ES-175. Is it only their degraded hearing, because P90 gives more treble? Or is the P90 more dynamic?
Would a Classic 57 in the neck position be a upgrade, downgrade or samegrade? Would it be even better than a Shaw? Louder and more dynamic? As balanced?
Just my two cents but different pickups can often be brought to sound very close to each other just by EQ and pickup height/polepiece settings so that's something to consider trying first. Want more warmth/richness? Raise the height and lower the polepieces. Need more clarity/bite/articulation? Lower the height and raise the polepieces. There is a lot to play with there in terms of tonal exploration.
Every change is a gamble. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. Good luck!!!
-
I have two 175's with 57 classics and in the past, I had one with Shaws. IMO, the sound is pretty much the same, so I would not replace a Shaw with a 57 Classic. It would be an extreme case of the law of diminishing returns. Originally Posted by Herbie
Interesting thread!
So interesting that I started to consider should I still, afterall and anyway, put a Classic 57 neck pickup in to my 1984 ES-175 to get even better classic jazz sound.
It is a mahogany era guitar with original Shaws in it. There is nothing wrong with Shaw neck pu (I don't use the bridge pickup), it is great, only a bit lower output pickup than any other guitar I have.
I have another ES-175 too, it is a 1954 Reissue from 2015 and it has P90s. My bandmates prefer it over my "vintage" humbucker ES-175. Is it only their degraded hearing, because P90 gives more treble? Or is the P90 more dynamic?
Would a Classic 57 in the neck position be a upgrade, downgrade or samegrade? Would it be even better than a Shaw? Louder and more dynamic? As balanced?
-
All I can add with my limited experience is: I put Classic 57's in my Epi Lucille to juice up the output on stage. The stock p/ups did not have enough cut tho they were very sweet sounding. The 57+ in the bridge spot was great but the 57 regular was mud in the neck spot. I put in a DeArmond Gold Tone in the neck slot and it was great (Alnico 5)
I have an '81 L5CES that came with Shaw h/buckers. I never got the tone that I love from L5's. I played a '68 L5 and the tone blew me away. That's the sound I wanted. So instead of selling my L5, I put in Seth Lovers and upgraded the pots. Now I have plenty of tone, and no mud., like someone took a blanket off of the guitar.
So, while being guitar dependent, the p/ups will do different things. Of course subjectivity and personal setups vary. But I seem to have read enough posts that agree with me, on 57's and Seth Lovers.
I like what DawgBone and Stringswinger have posted above^, and as always, good luck in your search.
-
To answer Herbie's query, with my experience, a 57 would not be a worthwhile switch for a Shaw in a 175. A Seth Lover will get you closer to a P90 sound, (if that's what you are after) with a h/ber. They are bright, and you can play with the adjustments to tailor them to your preferences,
-
IIRC, Seth Lovers are not wax potted. Another way to brighten the tone from a Shaw while keeping the feedback resistance of a potted pickup would be to go with a Duncan 59. For the most part, a Duncan 59 is a Gibson 57 Classic with Alnico 5 magnets. Originally Posted by Jimmy Mack
-
Interesting take. I found the Duncan 59 to be very dull sounding in the neck of my LP copy. I disliked it so much vs my Gibson stuff that I gave it away as a gift to another player. I much prefer the 490r I have in there right now. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
i still think the story is bs, unless: Originally Posted by Marty Grass
-Defective pickups? Yes.
-Broken/failed pickups? Yes.
-Working units, ready to install? No.
Firebird X example is a completely different situation.
-
No one is saying those old guys were sensationalists or liars, they're just not remembering things correctly imo. Originally Posted by Marty Grass
As to whether PAFs were considered special back then, they likely weren't, they were just humbuckers.
Again, they never stopped using humbuckers all the way up to today, there'd be zero reason to toss them.
You might be letting your respect and admiration for them cloud the possibility they misrember the facts of something that happened over half a century ago.
-
That doesn't surprise me. I do not like a 57 Classic or a Duncan 59 in the neck position of a Lester (both pickups are too muddy in that application). The right pickup for the neck position of a Lester is either a 490R or a T-top. Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
Stringswinger I am truly loving hearing your detailed personal experiences with these pickups. With a Twin Reverb I found if I lowered the pickup and raised the polepieces on the '57 it was acceptably bright enough but I 100% can see where you are coming from cause it is still slightly dark. It does make for a rich lead tone and beefy rhythm with my rig. With other amps that might mean muddy. I found very little difference with the '57 or a 490r in general in both a LP or 335, as I had them in the neck of both types of guitars at one stage or another. They are both great pickups. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
You might like the new Calibrated T-Type at the neck. Unpotted, it does give a bit of extra clarity that the '57 misses in the neck but still has that nice '57/490r compression. I prefer it in the neck but I think the '57 in the bridge is a little juicier and fatter than the T-Type bridge pickup. All in all my complaints are so minor I do not see it as worthwhile to mess with what I have now. 57's in one ES, T-types in the other, and a 490r in the LP with a Lollar DB in the LP bridge. The DB is a high output rail but is quite different than your usual "metal" pickup. In the bridge I can approximate the '57 or the T-Type depending on my height setting and my tone knob. I have agonized over rolling the dice on it in the bridge one of my Edwards ES cause the '57 has been such a go-to over the years.
-
The Classic 57s were available as separate items on-line from Gibson.com for several years after it had been replaced by Burstbuckers in new production guitars. According to the technical spec the Classic 57 was wax potted. In comparison the Seth Lovers are unpotted...
We understand that the wax is supposed to stop the internals from rattling and thereby prevent feedback and microphonics. Feedback could indeed be a problem, especially when playing hollow body electrics, and then a potted pickup may help.
Some pickups are completely filled with glue and looks like a soap bar under the hood, but when opening up a Classic 57 the wax is barely visible..."Wax is not just wax"
-
Thanks Stringswinger and all who have commented my question! Originally Posted by Stringswinger
I have swapped so many pickups in my LPs and hollowbodies, that I have learned that it is always not a miraculous solution. And the Shaws I have had have been wonderful pickups, bright but not harsh, balanced and never muddy.
I like Seth Lovers too, in fact I have them in my LP R8.
The guitars acoustic properties affects the equation too in many ways. My 2015 ES-175 is louder, more dynamic than the 1984 ES-175. It is not totally dead or lifeless, but its life is different than the 2015's liveliness.
My thought was not to make the guitars sound exactly the same, but more like help the older ES-175 find its full potential. I guess the Shaws are a way to it.
"An extreme case of the law of diminishing returns" – can You say that more precisely!
-
Hah, I had a SD 59 to put somewhere, and tried it in my L5. It was brighter than the Seth Lover I tried in the L5. Go figure!
-
Again comparing the same pickup in different scale length as well as other differences from Hollow,Laminate,Semi Hollow,Chambered, etc will sound different.
The pickup while voiced in a certain way from strength to magnet type, scatter wound vs machine wound to same amount of winds.
Is reproducing the acoustic voice of the instrument.
All of this along with personal preferences,amplifier, etc! A suggestion to those trying PAF lower wounds,say approx.7k Alnico 2
Dial your amp a bit louder and turn your bass up,and presence and treble down.
-
I spent yesterday morning with the current Heritage pickup designer and longtime luthier. We never discussed the PAF dump run before. He was well aware of that story and said it is likely true. Gibson worked toward tighter specs on the bobbin wraps and used shorter magnets post PAF and pre-T Tops. One point is that there were several changes between the PAF and T Tops. The other the obvious: PAFs were variable. They did use wind counters as a guide at times but didn't necessarily adhere to the wrap count. And there was variable scatter winding. Originally Posted by Hammertone
I understand that there is a lot of respect we have for Gibson back in the day. I got my first two Gibsons in 7th grade, one a used '64 Firebird from a neighbor ($125 which included an amp) and another a 12 string stamped bargain (new from a music store for $300 or so). Soon I added a mint ES-345 at a ridiculously low price ($175). I also got a Gibson-made Epiphone Howard Roberts in mint condition in 9th grade, again at very low price from an add in the paper ~$350). I was too young and naive to know that there was something fishy. I had a part-time job working as a stock boy and helping with a paper route since 7th grade and had some cash.
It's hard to believe that Gibson was cranking out over 400 guitars a day at its peak.
I mentioned this before. If a guitar coming down the line had a defect it was stamped a second (2) or a bargain (BGN) by the serial number. These stamps discounted the wholesale price to shops and also dropped the cost to employees to purchase their two guitars per year directly from Gibson. One tactic sometime used was to put these stamps in very lightly in the lacquer. The employee could remove the stamp and fill in the lacquer, which hid all evidence of the stamp. The employees could eventually sell them privately at a profit. This technique of light stamping was confirmed by two long term luthier employees at Gibson. One of them told me about this while I was in his post-Gibson shop because a customer wanted to get the BGN removed. He told me that the stamp gun was spring-loaded when BGN was stamped. That went into the raw wood and would be difficult to remove. He told me that when employees wanted to buy the guitar from Gibson, they would not load the spring, causing the 2 or BGN to be only in the lacquer and easily removed.
Back to the PAFs. Is the story of the dump run with boxes of pickups being abandoned true? Two out of two long term elite Gibson luthiers independently told me this, not to shock me but to make the point that today's treasures were yesterday's discards. The current Heritage guy, who helped design this guitar, has heard of this dump also.
If I didn't live through this Gibson period and know these people, I would be hesitant to believe the event. Also, don't you think that if the PAF were the ultimate pickup, Gibson would have maintained the magnet type and length and simply automated the winding? Gibson most certainly was on a market-quest to remain viable. They still made P-90s plus they had Firebird and floating pickups to make.
Personally, I like Seth Lovers. That's as PAF as I get. https://www.seymourduncan.com/blog/l...of-paf-pickups
Not everyone will agree with what I've said about the pickup dump. But the luthiers I know or knew in Kalamazoo didn't disagree and two confirmed the dump, including the one who did it. This was not a big event for Gibson at the time. And if you roamed the 225 Parsons Street factory, it was tight quarters at high productivity times.
-
I like the new aesthetics Heritage is finally adopting.
-
Knowing that some '63 175Ds possibly did have one PAF, if not two, my interest is in what would have been under the hood of the Pat. No. stickered HBs. I have two in my '63. They honestly sound wonderful. At the time it probably saved me a couple of K pricewise. Probably more today. Originally Posted by Marty Grass
I spent yesterday morning with the current Heritage pickup designer and longtime luthier. We never discussed the PAF dump run before. He was well aware of that story and said it is likely true. Gibson worked toward tighter specs on the bobbin wraps and used shorter magnets post PAF and pre-T Tops. One point is that there were several changes between the PAF and T Tops. The other the obvious: PAFs were variable. They did use wind counters as a guide at times but didn't necessarily adhere to the wrap count. And there was variable scatter winding.
I understand that there is a lot of respect we have for Gibson back in the day. I got my first two Gibsons in 7th grade, one a used '64 Firebird from a neighbor ($125 which included an amp) and another a 12 string stamped bargain (new from a music store for $300 or so). Soon I added a mint ES-345 at a ridiculously low price ($175). I also got a Gibson-made Epiphone Howard Roberts in mint condition in 9th grade, again at very low price from an add in the paper ~$350). I was too young and naive to know that there was something fishy. I had a part-time job working as a stock boy and helping with a paper route since 7th grade and had some cash.
It's hard to believe that Gibson was cranking out over 400 guitars a day at its peak.
I mentioned this before. If a guitar coming down the line had a defect it was stamped a second (2) or a bargain (BGN) by the serial number. These stamps discounted the wholesale price to shops and also dropped the cost to employees to purchase their two guitars per year directly from Gibson. One tactic sometime used was to put these stamps in very lightly in the lacquer. The employee could remove the stamp and fill in the lacquer, which hid all evidence of the stamp. The employees could eventually sell them privately at a profit. This technique of light stamping was confirmed by two long term luthier employees at Gibson. One of them told me about this while I was in his post-Gibson shop because a customer wanted to get the BGN removed. He told me that the stamp gun was spring-loaded when BGN was stamped. That went into the raw wood and would be difficult to remove. He told me that when employees wanted to buy the guitar from Gibson, they would not load the spring, causing the 2 or BGN to be only in the lacquer and easily removed.
Back to the PAFs. Is the story of the dump run with boxes of pickups being abandoned true? Two out of two long term elite Gibson luthiers independently told me this, not to shock me but to make the point that today's treasures were yesterday's discards. The current Heritage guy, who helped design this guitar, has heard of this dump also.
If I didn't live through this Gibson period and know these people, I would be hesitant to believe the event. Also, don't you think that if the PAF were the ultimate pickup, Gibson would have maintained the magnet type and length and simply automated the winding? Gibson most certainly was on a market-quest to remain viable. They still made P-90s plus they had Firebird and floating pickups to make.
Personally, I like Seth Lovers. That's as PAF as I get. https://www.seymourduncan.com/blog/l...of-paf-pickups
Not everyone will agree with what I've said about the pickup dump. But the luthiers I know or knew in Kalamazoo didn't disagree and two confirmed the dump, including the one who did it. This was not a big event for Gibson at the time. And if you roamed the 225 Parsons Street factory, it was tight quarters at high productivity times.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos