-
I’m new to the world of learning jazz guitar, though I have many years of playing acoustics, mostly Martin flattops. I’m currently playing an Eastman Jazz Elite from Guitars ‘n Jazz. Very nice guitar, which should keep me satisfied for many years, but as we know the hunting and acquiring of guitars can be something of a disease. I don’t come across many ES-175s so I have very little experience of what they feel like in my hands. I recently tried an ES-165, the single fixed variety (not the floater), and was surprised at how it felt in my hands. I didn’t like it. It felt very heavy. It could be that I was distracted by other activity that was going on in the store at the same time, and/or by the frets on the ES-165 which seemed way too high to me.
From what I read, the ES-165 is really the same as a single-pickup ES-175. I’ve also read that newer 175s are generally heavier than older ones. I’m curious, for those of you that may have played a variety of both old and new – are the older ones typically much lighter in weight? By “older” I mean 1950s or 60s. I know this is only one aspect of what makes a guitar feel right, and every guitar is different, and it’s somewhat subjective, but I’m still curious to hear from others.
-
09-19-2010 03:00 PM
-
I've never thought of any archtop as heavy. Ever pick up a Les Paul?
-
The older 1950s versions are NOTICABLY lighter.
-
I don't like heavy guitars either. I've sold a few really nice ones because of weight. My Ibanez AFS75T, at around 6 lbs., is about right. My cousin's '57 ES-175 is very light.
-
I bought an AFS75 when comparing to an Epi Dot and chose the lighter of the two. VERY glad I did. That wasn't the only deciding factor, but it made a difference. I can play it all day but anything 7lbs and over starts to give me some shoulder fatigue.
-
I appreciate the replies. Bigdaddy, I agree archtops are never really heavy, but it's all relative. The Eastman I play is extremely light. Guitars that I'm most accustomed to playing are light as a feather.
I need to try out some old 175s, but it's not as though they're hanging on the wall at my local Guitar Center.
Thanks, all.
-
I just sold a 1952 harmony h51. Same dimensions as my 165 but quite a bit lighter...
Maybe the lighter tuners? Maybe the lighter tail piece? Maybe the lack of trussrod (dont laugh.. it still played like a dream after almost 60 years).
Maybe guitars were built lighter back then to either a) sound better or b) cut corners. I am willing to bet more than a couple of guitars are heavier now than their predecessors to reduce the number of warantee calls the mfg would recieve.
-
I personally like a heavier guitar, the tone from all that wood yes please. I have yet to try anything of the hollow body variety due to my left-handedness and lack of available guitars to try though.
-
I believe the Gibson 175 is a laminated body. Thats plywood. Your Eastman is likely solid carved. A lot of players like the laminated guitars for the electric tone, but it is really just a matter of what you like. Carved top guitars will usually be lighter, at least in my experience. I wonder if old 175s were carved?
Socalbill
-
They've always been laminated.
Originally Posted by Socalbill
-
Well, maybe the new 175s are being over built. I sure recognize that modern guitars are over built to some extent so that they never come back for warranty repair. Thicker bracing, thicker finishes, bigger blocks at the neck and tail could add up to a heavier guitar. My Ibanez AF105 weighs a ton.
Socalbill
-
The critique I have heard with no verification, is that they used better and lighter laminates in the 50s. 60s. and 70s. Since then, they started to used heavier woods, which also added to the weight, while at the same time increasing durability. Not sure I got any of that right. My 175 is lighter than than the other ones I tried, coming out in the low to mid 7s. Compared to my Sadowsky, Soloway, and Collings, it is indeed heavier. It is lighter than my PRS McCarty and my 335. I love the 175, but if I am going to play for more than an hour, my body prefers one of the other three. Also, I prefer, If I can to play sitting, and the 175 is less comfortable than all but the 335 .he Gibsons are great, but the boutique models really are superior to me. The 335 will probably go at some point, but the 175 is special, and a joy. Even though it loses head-to-head with each of the others, it is a cumulative set of intangible qualities that make it great. But each one is different. If I found this one again, I would buy it.
-
Back in the50s at least the materials were different. If you read the wikipedia article on the ES165 the original 175s were maple basswood maple laminates. The new ones are maple poplar maple. Take that with grain of salt as I wrote that wikipedia article but I did get thie info from Gibson literature, Adrian Igrams ES175 book, and one of the Duchossioir books (Gibson Electics or Gibson Electric Guitars-The classic years, I dont remember now).
-
My 2007 ES 175 is 3350 grams. Yours?
-
1953 ES175 with added strap button, 1 P90 Originally Posted by pineapple
2.3 KG
-
for the love of god dont make me get on a scale....
-
By the way (weigh?), you should not be using a bathroom scale -- it may not be accurate in that range. You should use a postal or a kitchen scale.
-
Believe it or not, plywood, or laminate, back in earlier times was made out of a much choicer selection of wood than is available today. It was lighter, and sounded better.
-
2.3 Kg is just the weight of a acoustic Taylor made with thin woods. It seems strange for a 175. Originally Posted by NSJ
Mine is made of 5-ply, 4.8 mm maple (top, back, sides). Your fantastic '53 175 could be made with mahogany back and sides? Maybe 3-ply mahogany? Let me know.
-
Thanks, everybody, for replies to this thread. I'm catching ES-175 fever!
-
See the "how much should I sell this guitar for thread"
it is a 165.. same guitar as a 175 but with one pickup and no crown inlay on the headstock.
-
Hi there,
I'm new to this forum and will definitely have to keep my viewing in check so I don't spend more time reading than playing haha
I've owned a 1987 175 and currently have a 1954 175. The difference in weight was noticable (the '54 is as light as a feather) but even more revealing was the difference in dynamic range between the two. The '54 is much more responsive and acoustic-sounding and more "alive" than the '87. It seems to breathe whereas the '87 seemed to have the resonance choked off by the extra bracing, glue, lamination, electronics, etc.
On a scale of 1 - 5 for tone and dynamic range I would rate the '87 at 2 and the '54 at 5. I really liked the '87 until I played a 1957 L7 and heard what an older Gibson sounded like. It was a good reference point to start with. I know every guitar is different and I'm sure some newer ones sound great so it's certainly worthwhile to check around and play a few. I read an early 80's Guitar Player interview with Pat Metheny where he mentioned how he loved the feel of his 175 vibrating against his chest when he played. I never experienced this until I got my '54.
Hope this helps.
-
Interesting. I've never played an 80's ES-175. I've played old ones and a current model. They sound nothing like each other but that's the P-90 vs. new humbucker thing.
They both felt about the same weight to me.
-
Originally Posted by GreenTree
Very interesting. What is the difference in weight between them? May you use a precision balance (I have one in my kitchen)? And what do you mean when ou say dynamic range? For me is the range between the loudest and the lower signal the guitar can produce without distortion.
-
Sorry, I don't have the '87 anymore so I can't say how much it weighed.
It did have two humbuckers as opposed to the one P-90 in the '54 so I'm sure that would have contributed to the difference in weight.
Unfortunately I don't have a scale so I can't weigh the '54.
Here's a definition I got from Dictionary.com that decribes what I meant by dynamic range.
Main Entry: dynamic range
Definition: in a digital image, the number of possible colors or shades of gray that can be included in a particular image
I did swap the original P-90 out for a mini-humbucker that rounded the tone out a bit more. The P-90 sounded great though (as many of Jim Hall's older recordings will attest to!).
I remember playing a friend's 1957 ES-175 that had two humbuckers and was also heavier than my '54. It sounded great and noticeably better than the '87 too. Maybe Gibson just did things differently back then? 40 or 50 years of aging probably doesn't hurt either.
Reply With Quote
John McLaughlin and Joe Zawinul duet Zawinul’s...
Today, 10:50 AM in The Players