Sadowsky Jim Hall vs. Gibson ES-175

[Jabberwocky]

Comparing new ES 175 to a new SJH, I'll still take the ES 175 24/7/365. Only an ES 175 sounds like an ES 175, despite vintage. Granted, there are good ones and there are great ones. You gotta try them out.

To each his own.

(There are really lots of used ES 175s out there. No need to buy new. Buy used. There's a Year 2000 Sunburst right now for $2150.)

[bluewaterpig]

I agree. But I think an old single pickup P90 175 from the 50s will sound radically different than a new dual pickup HB 175 from today, radically lighter in weight, too. More acoustic tone, too.

So, assuming you are measuring a new 175 vs. a JH, it's no comparison for me, really. I'll take the JH 365/24/7.

Personally I would take the Sadowsky Jim Hall any day too. But if you're looking for that specific 175 tone, I don't know if the JH can tackle it.

[NSJ]

Personally I would take the Sadowsky Jim Hall any day too. But if you're looking for that specific 175 tone, I don't know if the JH can tackle it.

Well is there a unified 175 "tone" that stretches across decades? I would argue no. -I used to own an early 50s 175 beater with a p90, and I submit it sounds different and better (it just exhudes warmth!) than the crap Gibson is pedaling today --I've tried new 175s in stores, and I think they sound not much different than a lot of cheaper jazz boxes on the market today.

Jim Hall himself still has his old 1950s era 175 that he received in a trade from Howard Roberts, and I'm thinking he would have zero interest in a new 2011 Gibby.

[Jabberwocky]

If you like chocolate, don't let a vanilla lover tell you that vanilla is better. No, there is no unified chocolate flavor either but when you taste it you sure know that it is chocolate. Chocolate did not taste better in the 50s. Have a bite of Valrhona circa 2011.

Last I heard, Mr. Jim Hall has lost a bit of his hearing due to age, you know. High frequencies have been shaved off. So, unless you're of Mr. Jim Hall's vintage, I would not be slavish to his choice of instrument unless I am a groupie incapable of making up my own mind.

I think I had better tell Greg Hilden to trash that crappy 2010 Gibson ES 175 of his. The nerve of the man to wring such nice sounds from that crappy Gibby.

I find it absurd to compare a circa 2010 humbuckered SJH to a circa 1950 P90 ES 175. That's like comparing Natalie Portman to Elizabeth Taylor. They're both Jewish, I believe.

In the context of Jerry's posting, it is clear to me that he is asking about current vintage ES 175 vis a vis the SJH. Surely a person asking such a question will not be talking about a 1950s P90 ES 175 which costs northwards of $7500.00 now. But maybe I have reading comprehension problems.

Lastly, what I like has no bearing on what Jerry will like. The SJH is not for everybody because if it is, the ES 175 will stop selling and fall off the catalog and vice versa. With a track record of being in production for over 50 years, that is saying something.

[NSJ]

If you like chocolate, don't let a vanilla lover tell you that vanilla is better. No, there is no unified chocolate flavor either but when you taste it you sure know that it is chocolate. Chocolate did not taste better in the 50s. Have a bite of Valrhona circa 2011.

Last I heard, Mr. Jim Hall has lost a bit of his hearing due to age, you know. High frequencies have been shaved off. So, unless you're of Mr. Jim Hall's vintage, I would not be slavish to his choice of instrument unless I am a groupie incapable of making up my own mind.

I think I had better tell Greg Hilden to trash that crappy 2010 Gibson ES 175 of his.

I find it absurd to compare a circa 2010 humbuckered SJH to a circa 1950 P90 ES 175. That's like comparing Natalie Portman to Elizabeth Taylor. They're both Jewish, I believe.

In the context of Jerry's posting, it is clear to me that he is asking about current vintage ES 175 vis a vis the SJH. Surely a person asking such a question will not be talking about a 1950s P90 ES 175 which costs northwards of $7500.00 now. But maybe I have reading comprehension problems.

Lastly, what I like has no bearing on what Jerry will like. The SJH is not for everybody because if it is, the ES 175 will stop selling and fall off the catalog and vice versa. With a track record of being in production for over 50 years, that is saying something.

Sheesh whats with the attitude ? The OP asked for a comparison--have you played (1) an old 175 (2) a new 175 and (3) a Jim Hall???

I own a Jim Hall, used to own an old 175, and have played a new 175. The old Gibsons are far superior in terms of wood and craftsmanship IMHO. One thing I have noticed is that the new 175s are much heavier, and I suspect that impacts tone and sound, particularly the acoustic tone.

Plus, incredibly enough, a new 175 retails for MORE than a Jim Hall and many old/used 175 prices --a 2011 175 will set you back $4200!!!!! For that price, you can find older 175s that will sound much better and actually sound like a 175.

[mattymel]

im puzzled...ive seen plenty of old 50s es175s sell on dealer websites (obviously they tax you a bit) for well under 5K.

if i had 4K to spend on a archtop, i would definitely hold out for the right early 50s single p90 175 to show its pretty head. hard to beat the sound of those.

the JH guitars are nice, but they just dont have the mojo compared to a vintage 175 IMHO. then again, i would take one over a new 175 anyday. no comparison really. lookswise or soundwise.

[Archie]

Sheesh whats with the attitude ?

Bit of the pot calling the kettle black there, pal.

[Jazzpunk]

Plus, incredibly enough, a new 175 retails for MORE than a Jim Hall and many old/used 175 prices --a 2011 175 will set you back $4200!!!!! For that price, you can find older 175s that will sound much better and actually sound like a 175.

The Sunburst ES 175's look like they run around $3600 and the Jim Hall is $4075.

I would think the Jim Hall would be less expensive as it is built in Japan but I'm sure if I played one I would see why it is higher priced than other Asian offerings currently on the market.

[mattymel]

personally, i feel like the JH's are a little overpriced. $4K gets you in the ballpark of a luthier made archtop. again, i think they are nice guitars, but im not paying that much for a foreign factory made guitar. if sadowsky really wanted to shake things up, he should sell those guitars for $3250 and watch how many he sells. at the very least it would scare gibson into making es175s worth buying again.

[NSJ]

personally, i feel like the JH's are a little overpriced. $4K gets you in the ballpark of a luthier made archtop. again, i think they are nice guitars, but im not paying that much for a foreign factory made guitar. if sadowsky really wanted to shake things up, he should sell those guitars for $3250 and watch how many he sells. at the very least it would scare gibson into making es175s worth buying again.

I don't know how many they make, but it's usually a six month wait for em. my understanding is that the final aspects, including the all important fretwork, are all done at Sadowsky's shop in Brooklyn. Thus, the QA is impeccable--I've never read or heard of them releasing a clunker

now, Gibson on the other hand... ( I also have a 339, which I love, but I had to search through 4 different ones at 3 different shops to find one without QA issues).

For sure, one should never buy unseen and unheard--your ears and hands should be the final arbiter

[Cooperro]

No body's mentioned Benedetto yet. You can get a beautiful, hand crafted Bambino Deluxe from the premier archtop builder in America for around $3,300 from Guitar Rodeo. I put some TI flatwounds on her, and she's heavenly. I just compared her to my L5 with identical strings, and she can compete, although the L5 is a bit darker with more of that classic woody sound.

And one more thing. My L5, 1978 vintage, has been appraised around $5,500. Yes, a new one's around $9,000, but I only paid $1,350 for it back then. I'm gonna have to say it held its value, no? Same with that 175 you're considering. It may cost $4,500 now, and be worth only $3,500 in a resell, but NOT if you hang on to it. Eventually, a new 175 will cost $9,000 just like my L5 did, and then your 175 that you bought for $4,500 will be worth $6-7K on resale. Not sure if the Sadowski will hold its value. But, I'd bet my bottom dollar that my Benedetto will also appreciate even though it too would probably go for around $2,500 used. But, in fifteen years, I'm sure she'll be up around $5-6K in value too.

That said, here's my Bambino Deluxe with upgraded fingerboard. What a beautiful instrument, if I do say so myself.

[jazzfan13]

Hello,
I think (like every one who try one) SJH is very better made, less factory product, closer than "luthier product"
But there is slights differences between two SJH... I get two differents together 6 months and play alternatively : two excellents instruments with differents personality.
Acoustically imo no doubt : SJH is really better, a guitar you play acoustic for pleasure.
jim hall 2007
acoustic

electric

signature 2006

[Dennis D]

...What about adding an L-4 to the comparison ?.......I owned a 60's 175, purchased new in 1962 and sold it about five years ago.....an L-4 is the same size, better appointments, ebony vs rosewood, carved top vs laminated, and the most important thing I think, aside from the sound - they're a better buy....they just seem to sell for less money all the time, 'cause everyone is chasing the '60's 175 sound....I can get the 175 sound if I want it, but the L-4 has a fuller sound MHO.....bottom line - for less money, it's a tough one not to consider.....But Good luck !!

[AZanshin]

Added into the mix what about an LS-17
There's something about the tone this video produces

[Flat]

I'm really enjoying some of these clips of various guitars in this category.

I came across this one recently by Gisele Torvik playing a SJH. Very nicely produced video, an excellent composition, and a really wonderful tone on the SJH.

[76byrdland]

NSJ mentions the comparative weight of older (lightweight) and newer (heavier) Gibson ES-175s and I agree; that's a big difference I have felt and I also believe I have heard a difference that is largely attributable to that weight difference.

I have spent significant time with two different 1957 ES-175s, a 1959, (no, not mine and I wish they could be) and several newer 175s including very recent "Custom Shop" models. The newer ones feel much heavier and do not seem to have as "woody" a sound.

I believe Bob Benedetto has said that a great archtop should be light and "on the verge of exploding." I suspect current production of 175s is more like a good coffee table than one of Bob's best creations. (Yes, I've played a couple Benedettos and a truly great Buscarino and they were extremely light and responsive.

Also ... for whatever it may be worth, I want to offer two other points:
* A great player will sound like him/herself no matter which instrument they play. Check out some players who play different kinds of guitars, like Chuck Loeb playing different Sadowsky guitars on YouTube, and notice how similar he sounds despite the big differences between instruments.
* If you can't hear or feel the difference, don't pay for it! Years ago, I sold high end audiophile equipment. If you can't hear sounds above 7.5k or below 80 cycles, why spend a lot of money on equipment that can produce those tones flawlessly?

Of course, if your hearing is shot from the years you played rock in front of a wall of Marshall cabs or if you have more money than you know how to use ... or if your audience tells you your guitar sound (and not your playing) is terrible, that's another thing entirely, right?

Happy hunting amigos.

[burchyk]

"I suspect current production of 175s is more like a good coffee table ..." LOL

[stevedenver]

while generally a gibson fan
you have no idea how close you are-
i know the custom shop manager was in the furniture business previously
in all truth and wisecracking aside-i imagine that the similarities in labor, sourcing wood, transport, distribution, QC, safety, unions etc are nearly identical

and simply, if you wish to avoid warrantiy issues, and you produce tens of thousands of guitars each year-you over build

[Franz 1997]

''I suspect current production of 175s is more like a good coffee table than one of Bob's best creations''.
Excellent comment! But...it all depends what you are looking for. My feeling is that 175s from the late 60s onwards ( and I have a '72) were deliberately designed simply as good electric guitars, with little regard to acoustic sound. And, they do that job very well, they sound great, and they don't feed back, or get that tubby sound you get when an archtop is starting to pickup up resonances from the amp. The fact is, for most group gigs, a too-responsive archtop will cause feedback problems, although it's a different matter for home playing.
So, yes, they may have been coffee tables since the late 60s, but coffee tables that have been in continuous production for 40+ years and which have been used by a few reasonable players.......

[jbear]

If I was going to acquire a hollowbody guitar in that price range...no way I would do it without first playing the candidates side-by-side, preferably, through the amp I would be using. Hollowbodies are such individuals (much more so than solidbodies and somewhat more than semis...in my experience). That's just too much money, and nobody hears things or feels things (like necks and resonance) the way I do. I understand the motivation for asking opinions online before buying, but I hypothesize that it'll turn out better if you get out there and play.
These are all pretty amazing guitars with some heavy cats playing them...you can get magic from any of these instruments. If you gotz the stuff!
Anyway...the Internet is cool and all, but...ain't no substitute for playtime!

[jbear]

while generally a gibson fan
you have no idea how close you are-
i know the custom shop manager was in the furniture business previously
in all truth and wisecracking aside-i imagine that the similarities in labor, sourcing wood, transport, distribution, QC, safety, unions etc are nearly identical

and simply, if you wish to avoid warrantiy issues, and you produce tens of thousands of guitars each year-you over build

I don't mean this as a personal attack at all...really...at all. I just want to make the point that this is a big problem on the Internet and in media...that little statement right there..."I imagine" and statements like it.
We have no idea if that is in the least bit accurate. It might be 100% dead on or...ZERO. Speculation...purely.
I do it too...but I'm trying to cut down.
Anyway...I'm not calling anyone out...just calling attention to a thing we all do...that maybe we could be more aware of.
Sorry...it is the Internet afterall...I gotta be heard

[stevedenver]

no offense taken,
as i stated "i imagine" indicates it is my specualtion or opinion, so as to not mis-lead anyone

its a good deal less speculative than you may, however, think, as i have represented both musical instrument builders and importers, as well as domestic furniture production and foreign importers and regional retailers, as a business, and labor and employment lawyer and i do know what im talking about as im often involved in a variety of these matters, and the actual contracts and agreements, etc and many issues are not industry specific but overlap-a lot


and as i stated , using the qualifier 'i imagine',
i am not pandering this as expert fact-but it is based on my real life professional experience with folks dealing with these issues and my first hand knowledge,
but not my having actual experience as the general manager,


ive toured the Gibson custom shop as well as the regular plant and spoken to the manager as well as Henry about these very issues, over dinner, in nashville, albeit almost a decade back, as i was initially taken aback that the manger was formerly a furniture maker manager, and i asked why he was now a manager over seemingly finer instrument manufacturing-simply, its another factory-

as for the overbuild comment-i only 'know' that from having years of experience with gibson and the design changes, such as three piece necks, pancake bodies (cross banding from teh ...furniture industry for stabilty, volutes, differently angled necks and headstocks etc-
as well as having a triggs guitar, which is essentially like an L5 but not overbuilt-triggs used to run the archtop and accoustic guitar portion of the Gibson custom shop factory and teh similarity in design is obvious , but the execution is entirey different

but as you point out, i could be wrong entirely

[jbear]

That lends significantly greater credibility to the statement, and I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. That was solid.

[Frank67]

Last year i visited the Sadowsky shop in New York. I was fully expecting to fall of my chair with a moronic smile on my face upon hitting the first note in the showroom. Strange enough, this did not happen. I tried all of the guitars, the semi-hollow, Jimmy Bruno, Jim Hall and also the big 18' model (forgot the name). They did not make a lasting impression on me. Sure enough they were all beautifully built. In the shop they had relatively thin roundwound strings that did not resonate with me and the action was set very high which made playing a bit uncomfortable for me. Sure, the tone through their Fender Amp was nice but nothing to die for. I tried an old Byrdland on the same day at Sam Ash that was - at least in my ears - in a totally different category, so so sweet.

Please don't take me wrong - this is no criticism of the Sadowsky guitars. They are surely superb instruments - but they did not resonate with me (that happens). But i am also not a great player (probably just not worthy of that fine instrument :-)).

Having said that i haven't had an ES175 in my hands that did resonate with me. I heard a few live that i thought had a killer nice tone (probably more the people that played them :-)) but whenever i picked one up in a store I put it back pretty much right away.

[stevedenver]

im confused-are sadowskis built in the US?
-i thought they were imports