Gibson ES-175 1959 Reissue

[StevieB]

Its all good

I was curious now to weigh it.

The only scales I have are my bathroom scales, for which I make no great claims as to their accuracy, but they are showing 4lbs

Hello Ob Com - I love your guitar, Congratulations! I have a 'regular' ES 175 Reissue myself I got back in 2001 and I love mine.

When you posted about the weight of your new guitar I got curious and weighed mine. It came in at 7 lbs on my digital scale.

The huge difference in weight between our two guitars made me want to go out and see if I could find a 1959 Reissue here in the LA area to A/B against mine.

So far I haven't found one, but I did find some interesting info about the 175 1959 Reissue at Sweetwater.com (a big online retailer here in the US). They have two 1959 Reissues showing in their online inventory (both two p/u models), and among the information it shows is the weight of the guitars. One is listed as 6 lbs 11 oz and the other at 6 lbs 8 oz.

They also show the weight of some regular 175 Reissues they have in stock and one is listed at 7 lbs and the other at 7 lbs 5oz.

Obviously there is some variance in the weight of the instruments but none are near 4 lbs so I'm thinking you may have a calibration issue on your scale.

Regardless, you have a lifetime keeper guitar - Enjoy it!

[Timo]

I had the chance to play one of these in Toronto this past week. An amazing guitar, with a wonderful, full, rich tone. Light, resonant, and really easy to play. Priced at 4700.00 CDN. I almost bought it- but couldn't really justify the cost. Maybe in the future.

[JimBobWay]

Well well well...looks like they have gone back to the roots. This is _the_ guitar that got me into jazz, let's face it, it's a damn fine axe. I found mine at just the right time, and it sleeps with me. Only 5 days older than me, but weathered the years well, maybe better than me.

I paid chump change for this guitar, and have had offers that would turn my head if I needed the money, but it's a perfect fit so I will take it with me when I go. Jim Hall, one of my heroes, called it a cardboard guitar because it is pressboard, but I don't care about that. It sounds great, it sounds like JAZZ GUITAR.

This instrument makes me happy every day. What's not to like about that?
Every day that I play this guitar I give thanks to those who crafted it. It is a simple joy and if Gibson plans to revive it I say well done!

[Chazmo]

I played a 1959 reissue this weekend and thought it was great! I wish Gibson would just make all 175s that way, without all the intentional aging. Gibson--give us a brand new looking 175 that plays and sounds as good as a reissue and we'll buy them!

[Jazz_175]

One question: considering that the 59 Reissue is lighter than the regular one, could it be that (being perhaps more resonant, the top being, maybe, less rigid) the 59 Reissue is more prone to feedback than the "standard" 175?

I've got a "standard" 2010 Es 175. I like it except for the weight,
so I might consider trading it for a 59 Reissue, but I have a fear for the feedback problem.
I don't know if that might be the case....
What do you think.

[Jabberwocky]

One question: considering that the 59 Reissue is lighter than the regular one, could it be that (being perhaps more resonant, the top being, maybe, less rigid) the 59 Reissue is more prone to feedback than the "standard" 175?

I've got a "standard" 2010 Es 175. I like it except for the weight,
so I might consider trading it for a 59 Reissue, but I have a fear for the feedback problem.
I don't know if that might be the case....
What do you think.

If you're going to play the ES-175 plugged in all of the time, I doubt it is going to make a great deal of difference. Gibson responded to the market clamoring for making the ES-175 "the way it used to be made". And Gibson succeeded.

I have not tried the 59 VOS ES-175 and I don't doubt it is very good but I think that the "regular" ES-175 is just as good with a different tonality, without the "authentic" 50s mojo. More modern sounding perhaps.

Like audiophools, guitarists tend to exaggerate minute differences in search of "magical tone", forgetting that a large part of the message is really in the notes you play. I don't think the regular ES-175 has bad tone, just a different tonality.

(As an illustration, back in the 80s and 90s, there was a fad around Harmonix Tuning Dots. Audiophools bought these Harmonix Tuning Dots from Japan and positioned them on PCBs and the chassis of amplifiers, preamps, etc claiming to hear that the "changed resonance" made their hifi more musical sounding. A lot of it is auto-suggestion, hearing what you want to hear. Makes for good business if you are the manufacturer.)

[Philco]

I must admit to lusting after a really light arch top.
These days when I look at the specs for a guitar I'm always looking for the weight.
But I wonder about this in regard to tone.
I recently bought a 61 ES125 and it's very light. I would say around 5lb.
I also have an L5 Wesmo which is much heavier....much heavier.

Now.....the 125 is louder acoustically. Quite a bit. It's also louder when plugged in. That old P90 has some grunt.

BUT......and it's a big BUT......the Wesmo sounds like a Jazz guitar and the 125 sounds like a loud acoustic guitar.

The Wesmo (and from memory my 775) have that strong mid range projection that translates to what my ears identify as a "Jazz Guitar Tone".

Now of course this is a personal thing and completely subjective.

But perhaps "light in weight" is not necessary for a great electric "jazz" tone.

It certainly is desirable for comfort of course.

[Chazmo]

I can relate to what you are saying, Philco. The Epiphone Elitist Broadway I currently play and the L-5C Wesmo I sold recently are heavy, but they have that thick and creamy electric "jazz" sound. My Montana L-7C with x-bracing and an Armstrong 2c floater weighs about 5 lbs. and it sounds great, but more like an amplified acoustic guitar. All that being said, the 1959 ES-175 reissue I played recently was lighter and had better acoustic properties than the standard ES-175, but it sounded like an electric guitar.

As far as feedback, lighter top guitars tend to feedback more than heavy top guitars because there is more motion, but I doubt the ES-175 is a howler unless the volume is really loud. While it is lightweight, it has a laminated top and there will be less movement than a solid, carved top or flattop.

[Jabberwocky]

Sorry, Jazz 175, I misunderstood you. I have a 2006 ES-175 which weighs 6.5 pounds or so. Of course, it has a pair of P90s and they do not weigh as much as the Classic 57s.

Isn't trading in or selling a regular ES-175 for a 59 VOS Reissue going to be rather expensive though to save 454 grammes in weight? The 59 VOS Reissue has yet to appear used on the market so that means you buy NEW. A regular ES-175 sells used for about $2000 in the US. $2100 to $2200, if you're lucky. A new 59 VOS Reissue is just slightly under $3500 new for a single neck pup in Sunburst.

I would think about it seriously because you are giving up a lot of money just for it.

[Encinitastubes]

Hi Everyone,

First post here and have enjoyed the pix and the thread. I have tried to find out exactly what is different about the production 175s and the Custom Shops. Gibson's website is utterly confusing. From what I have gleaned, looks like the Custom Shop uses a lighter plywood and an aged finish. Are there structural differences. Are they made in different facilities? Regardless, the guitar in the pix is stunning!

[Hammertone]

The necks are a different shape.
The Custom Shop reissue has a fatter neck.

[Encinitastubes]

Thanks. Didn't mean to hijack the thread. I have a 2006 175 with two P-90s and the neck is pretty chunky. Can't wait to see how a '59 Reissue compares.

[Ob Com]

These are the main differences so far as I am aware:

on the 59 vos

thinner/lighter ply
much thinner nitro finish
solid maple rings with cotton rim stays
59 neck profile
wooden bridge
lighter weight trapeze


all of the above will effect the sound to a greater or lesser extent I would suggest

I think I'm right in saying that the 59 RI body depth is slightly thinner than the standard, to reflect historic specs.

I think the 59 ri has a nylon nut as opposed to corian

The shape of the body press seems truer to the vintage 175's I have had hands on experience with

I don't know what pots/caps are used in the standard 175, the 59 uses 500k cts and the notorious "fake" bumble bee's that are found in historic RI les pauls

in my view the 57 classic pups are likely to have been low wound, but gibson doesnt state this on the website. They sound it to my ears- and it would make sense if they have because this guitar came out of the 1959 es 330 project, which had low wind p-90s to try and recapture the sound of the original.

It does sound markedly different from the "standard" 175, due to the differences in construction.

Subjectively I would describe the amplified sound as being drier, woodier and mellower than the modern 175s I have owned/played.

hth

[Laro]

I own a one PU 1959 RI 175 : it's a marvel of great looks, simplicity, ease of playing and incredibly good tone! It became my first choice guitar since it entered my house (1 month ago), I just can't put it down!

[vanschoyck]

Hope this helps: When I went to buy one of these there weren't as many reviews as I would have liked. I've had mine for about two months now and it has worked very well for me: sound, playability, vibe. I haven't gigged with it yet buy I would. Gibson isn't perfect but there's nothing quite like them either.

[Mark M.]

I have had the opportunity to demo one as well, and I echo your glowing review. I played a single p/u version and have been lusting for one ever since. It was incredibly light, played like a dream and had a great sound. They are fabulous instruments.

[Laro]

Here are some pics of my guitar (9 months later the dream goes on!).

[Jazz_175]

Although I own a "standard" 2010 Gibson Es 175, my little dream would be a 1 PU natural '59 Reissue

[staush]

Thanks for sharing your impressions. I am looking seriously at the same model with one pickup--$4500.00 remains a hurdle, however! I used to own a 1980 model with two pickups, but was never entirely satisfied with it.

For those of you who want to hear just how good this guitar sounds, check out demonstrations of this guitar on you tube by a guy named Olli Black ("Angel Eyes," etc.). To my ears, this guitar sounds awesome.

[Derekdaman]

I recently got this beautiful guitar from the Chicago Music Exchange for $3100. I just realized that there is no strap peg next to the neck. What kind of strap would I need to get for a guitar like this?

[cgratham]

Hi Derek,
That's a beauty - congrats. Here's an interesting link to strap button options: STEWMAC.COM : Issue 55, Where?s the best spot for your strap butto.

If you search the forums here there's also quite a few threads about strap placement on 175's.


Chris

[Jabberwocky]

Beautiful guitar, Derek. I marvel at how much like a vintage '59 ES-175 it looks. How does it sound and play?

I wouldn't put a strap button on that beauty, if I were the owner. That's just me. If you're going to install one, get a good tech to do it neatly with a felt washer in between. StewMac Position 4 or 2 works for me, in that order of preference. Won't hurt resale if done well. Make sure it is well-centred to preserve symmetry. The other positions hurt resale like crazy, in my own experience.

Oh, Heavy Leather NYC .

[3625]

I had that exact guitar, but it was an original 59 - funny thing is I sold it back in 96 for $3100

[Jazz_175]

Lovely guitar
I like the 1 Pu option.

Congratulations!

[Derekdaman]

Jabber - It plays very very nicely, I have to get it set up though.


Also, I'm leaning towards position 4. I'm in the market for a new strap as well, any suggestions?