Old vs. New Gibson ES-175s

[rschwa9966]

Dilemma: the 1950s and 60s ES-175s are just about the perfect guitar for me with their warm, silky, yet strong sound. The problem with them is two-fold: they're expensive, and, well, they're 50-plus-year-old guitars and therefore vulnerable.
The new ones feel about right, but sound much colder in comparison, at least the ones I've tried. Anyone have a different experience?

[backliner]

I too like the older ones. I don't bond with the "stiffer" ones built after Kalamazoo. I even would rather have the Norlin narrow neck with maple era. The pickups are kinda thin too. My first was a '54.

I saw a narrow necked eighties Charlie Christian (pickup) model that felt pretty good to me, but it was several kilabucks.

[rpguitar]

As someone who has gone through about 90 guitars looking for the "perfect" one, which never actually exists anyway, I suggest saving $$ for a while longer and getting the vintage 175 you really want.

Look obsessively on Ebay and Craigslist for the deal that you can't refuse. I bought my oversprayed 1957 ES-175DN with first year PAF pickups for $1500.

[oldane]

To my ears, the 50s versions with P90 pickups sound better than the PAF equipped samples. The bass is clearer, and the indicidual tones of chords stand out better (humbuckers tend to mud up the bass somewhat). In addition I fell the position of the neck pickup on the 175 is better suited to P90s than to humbuckers. The pickup is nearer to the bridge than on many other guitars which gives a more compact and centered tone, and this goes hand in hand with the inborn character of the P90.

But then, I generally like single coil PUs better than humbuckers, and others will likely beg to differ as personal taste differs. In fact I have replaced the neck humbucker on my 1961 175 with one of those humbucker shaped P90s, and it has improved the sound for my taste - clear, tight, woody and with better tonal balance between bass and treble than a humbucker. (Of course, I know that these old HB PUs are sought after, and I have kept the original PAF PU, so it can be put back in the instrument if wanted later by a new owner, but personally I can't hear why these old humbuckers should so be much better than everything else).

If you are going for a vintage 175, be sure to check out both P90 and humbucker samples to see what you like best. If you find one in good shape, which has survived well for 50-60 years, there's no reason why it shouldn't survive another 50 years. If guitars warp, fall apart or whatever, it usually happens during the first 10-15 years of their life.

Also note that the neck shape changed considerably during the years. The 50s versions has "classic" somewhat clubby C shaped necks with good width, while the necks from first half of the 60's are slimmer and flatter from front to back, but still has good width (1 3/4"). Some find these necks to be the fastest Gibson has ever made, while others find them too skinny. In the late 60s the nacks became narrower - uncomfortably narrow for some players.

And the price? I bought my sample in 1973 for DKr 3000 which at the exchange rate of that time equals around $400. Those were the days .......

[StevieB]

Also note that the neck shape changed considerably during the years. The 50s versions has "classic" somewhat clubby C shaped necks with good width, while the necks from first half of the 60's are slimmer and flatter from front to back, but still has good width (1 3/4"). Some find these necks to be the fastest Gibson has ever made, while others find them too skinny. In the late 60s the nacks became narrower - uncomfortably narrow for some players.

In what year did Gibson start producing ES-175s with todays standard 1 11/16" nut width?

My ES-175 reissue was built in 2003 and to my ears sounds great (even in comparison to some early models I've played.)

I'm certain many players have more discerning ears than I do, but I don't think from a 'sound perspective' it would be worth the cost difference to me to get an early model. Now if I was a 'collector' . . . it would be a different story.

[Bill C]

In what year did Gibson start producing ES-175s with todays standard 1 11/16" nut width?

1949. The "pencil necks" were only used for a few years in the mid to late 60's afaik - more info here ...

Vintage Guitars Info - Gibson collecting vintage gibson guitars

[oldane]

I'm certain many players have more discerning ears than I do, but I don't think from a 'sound perspective' it would be worth the cost difference to me to get an early model. Now if I was a 'collector' . . . it would be a different story.

One thing that changed in the 175s was the material for the back and sides. Up till 1990 it was laminated mahogany, after that it was laminated maple, though I have read that the most recent models have carved backs and sides of solid mahagany. The older instruments have one piece mahogany necks - I think I have seen somewhere that the present 175 has a maple neck, but I am not sure. Such changes in materials can explain a change in tone. Also the change from rosewood bridge saddles to metal tune-o-matic saddles meant a less woody, clearer and more sustaining tone. It easy - and cheap - to try this out by replacing the bridge saddle with the other type (both types fit the bridge base) to see what you like best.

[StevieB]

1949. The "pencil necks" were only used for a few years in the mid to late 60's afaik - more info here ...

Vintage Guitars Info - Gibson collecting vintage gibson guitars

Good to know . . . Thanks

One thing that changed in the 175s was the material for the back and sides. Up till 1990 it was laminated mahogany, after that it was laminated maple, though I have read that the most recent models have carved backs and sides of solid mahagany. The older instruments have one piece mahogany necks - I think I have seen somewhere that the present 175 has a maple neck, but I am not sure. Such changes in materials can explain a change in tone. Also the change from rosewood bridge saddles to metal tune-o-matic saddles meant a less woody, clearer and more sustaining tone. It easy - and cheap - to try this out by replacing the bridge saddle with the other type (both types fit the bridge base) to see what you like best.

Great information. I think I may try that. Thanks for letting me know.

[SamBooka]

all 175s have had laminated backs and sides and tops. The solid top model is an L4.

The materials did change:
"the top and back laminate material consist of a figured maple top followed by poplar and another maple laminate. The original model would have been made of plain maple/basswood/maple. "

The mahogany models started in the 70s but I thought they were discontinued by the early 80s. I may be wrong there.

Not a huge difference between basswood and poplar in this instance (changing from a rosewood to tunomatic has a much bigger impact. I changed the TOM on my 165 to ebony and was pleased. I tried going back to TOM for a VERY short time (30 min?))

[StevieB]

all 175s have had laminated backs and sides and tops. The solid top model is an L4.

The materials did change:
"the top and back laminate material consist of a figured maple top followed by poplar and another maple laminate. The original model would have been made of plain maple/basswood/maple. "

The mahogany models started in the 70s but I thought they were discontinued by the early 80s. I may be wrong there.

Not a huge difference between basswood and poplar in this instance (changing from a rosewood to tunomatic has a much bigger impact. I changed the TOM on my 165 to ebony and was pleased. I tried going back to TOM for a VERY short time (30 min?))

Lots of great info here.

Please clarify: My ES-175 has the stock ABR-1 bridge and trapezoid tailpiece. Is that a TOM?

Also if I wanted to go old school and replace the ABR-1 bridge with a carved(?) rosewood or ebony bridge, where would i get that type of bridge?

Thanks,

[NiAg]

An ABR-1 is the original configuration of the "tune-o-matic" or TOM, or t-o-m, or T-o-M, bridge.

You can make a wooden bridge or buy one. The bridges about halfway down this page will do it:

Acoustic & archtop guitar parts, mandolin, lap steel parts

Note that the bridges above are for a wound G.

************************************************** *

Avoid the Stewmac bridge, which is like the bridges used on some Westerly Guild archtops:

STEWMAC.COM : Archtop Guitar Bridge

This one is absurdly overcompensated.

[rschwa9966]

So I split the difference. I bought a 1988 ES-175 with mahagony back and sides for $2,600. It's 100% better than the new ES-175s that I've played for $3,600 and just a tad lower in sound quality than the vintage 50s and 60s models in the $4,200 to $9000 range.
Also, I have more peace of mind on the age issue.
Thanks for the great input.

[StevieB]

I bought a 1988 ES-175 with mahagony back and sides for $2,600. It's 100% better than the new ES-175s that I've played for $3,600

Really?

[rschwa9966]

I bought a 1988 ES-175 with mahagony back and sides for $2,600. It's 100% better than the new ES-175s that I've played for $3,600

Really?

Yes. I know post-60s models are iffy and can be stiff, but occasionally you find gems. I got lucky.

[fordfanjpn]

So I split the difference. I bought a 1988 ES-175 with mahagony back and sides for $2,600. It's 100% better than the new ES-175s that I've played for $3,600 and just a tad lower in sound quality than the vintage 50s and 60s models in the $4,200 to $9000 range.
Also, I have more peace of mind on the age issue.
Thanks for the great input.

Congrats on the "new" guitar. I haven't played a 175 from that era, but the 335's I've played from the days after the Norlin fiasco were extremely nice guitars. Gibson was really making a comeback at that time.

FWIW, I have a '70 175 with patent number sticker pickups that sounds great and plays quite well in spite of the rather thin neck, and my wife just bought me a 1950 175 with a single P90 for Christmas (I have a special wife!) that is a really great old guitar, but I suspect your '88 plays and sounds just as good. Good luck and enjoy that guitar.

Bill

[rschwa9966]

Thanks, Bill!

[customxke]

One thing that changed in the 175s was the material for the back and sides. Up till 1990 it was laminated mahogany, after that it was laminated maple, though I have read that the most recent models have carved backs and sides of solid mahagany. The older instruments have one piece mahogany necks - I think I have seen somewhere that the present 175 has a maple neck, but I am not sure. Such changes in materials can explain a change in tone. Also the change from rosewood bridge saddles to metal tune-o-matic saddles meant a less woody, clearer and more sustaining tone. It easy - and cheap - to try this out by replacing the bridge saddle with the other type (both types fit the bridge base) to see what you like best.

all of my 175s (mid 50s-1967) have maple sides.

[rschwa9966]

One thing that changed in the 175s was the material for the back and sides. Up till 1990 it was laminated mahogany, after that it was laminated maple, though I have read that the most recent models have carved backs and sides of solid mahagany. The older instruments have one piece mahogany necks - I think I have seen somewhere that the present 175 has a maple neck, but I am not sure. Such changes in materials can explain a change in tone. Also the change from rosewood bridge saddles to metal tune-o-matic saddles meant a less woody, clearer and more sustaining tone. It easy - and cheap - to try this out by replacing the bridge saddle with the other type (both types fit the bridge base) to see what you like best.

all of my 175s (mid 50s-1967) have maple sides.

According to Wikipedia, the ES-175 used mahogany back and sides from 1983 to 1990.

[oldane]

According to Wikipedia, the ES-175 used mahogany back and sides from 1983 to 1990.

I checked more thoroughly myself, and it looks like I have to stand corrected. It's just that my own 1961 175 as well as others I have seen from than period has brown and very mahagany looking sides and backs. But it must be stained maple laminate.

[SamBooka]

I looked in the 175 book by Ingram and couldnt find anything that jumped out at me. I will look again. Maybe i am thinking of the ones with maple backs with walnut stain. Shouldnt be that hard to figure out.