-
NOooooooooooooo - Why would you get a brand new 175? The earlier ones are so much better. Why do folks feel like they have to have these shiny, new toys?!?
-
01-02-2014 07:52 AM
-
Well for some people, newer= trouble-free! I wouldn't buy new, for the reasons discussed, and I like the older 175 vibe, but for those who aren't interested or able to do their own guitar maintenance, or who might be concerned about serious repair issues with older instruments, buying new has its attractions. These attractions aren't completely illusory - yes, usually set up work is needed with a new guitar, esp the nut, but after that's done it should be Ok for several years.
Originally Posted by jzucker
NOooooooooooooo - Why would you get a brand new 175? The earlier ones are so much better. Why do folks feel like they have to have these shiny, new toys?!?
And, there's the warranty to think about...
Example of older 175 issues; I bought my 72 which had a demagnetised T top. No big deal for anyone comfortable with opening the T top & exchanging the magnet, but maybe a deal-breaker for others. And there was a thread not too long ago about collapsed tops on 70s 175s…so my guess is that for the player less comfortable with the possibility of these kind of issues in an older instrument, buying new may seem the safer option. Some players even dislike lacquer cracks..
-
>>> Why do folks feel like they have to have these shiny, new toys?!?
This "begs the question" (among a pile of other logical fallacies):
Does the OP in fact feel like he has to have a shiny new toy, or has he looked at the available options, considered the opinions of others, and decided what most appeals to him?
There are more reasons for buying a particular guitar than are dreamt of in any given blustery vision of mojo philosophy.
I would never buy a Gibson new, or from fairly recent vintage, significantly due to what I find to be an enduring and absurdly soft and sticky finish formula. But for many players this is not an issue at all.
I hope to hear how the OP likes his new 175, shiny, sticky, old and myth-filled, or otherwise. It's all fun, especially when one follows one's own path and reports on it.
In my opinion.
ChrisLast edited by PTChristopher2; 01-02-2014 at 09:22 AM. Reason: spelling errors
-
I appreciate Jack's point about old vs new 175's, but the '59 Reissue VOS is a fabulous guitar. That being said, I think any new Gibson is over priced. One day I'll be purchasing another 175 (single p/u for me), and it will either be a used '59 RI VOS (if I'm lucky enough to find one), or an old (mid '50's) 175 that is priced right.
-
Trouble-free, lol. It's not a car.
It wasn't 70's guitars that had the issue with collapsed tops. It was the early 175s that had thinner plywood. The reason they went to the stiffer top guitars was that they were putting out warranty repair money for them. They thickened the top to minimize warranty exposure. To heck with the tone, let's just make sure we don't have warranty issues. There are plenty of great '60s and '70s 175s out there without collapsed tops though so in retrospect, it was probably just poorly done bracing.
And if you buy from a reputable dealer you can minimize the exposure. It's one thing if the new guitar is half the cost but the new guitar is actually about the same price as a '60s and more money than a '70s guitar.
Are you buying it to play it or just to hang it in a showcase? Again, I think it says a lot about the mentality of people that they have to buy something new and untouched.
And who said anything about mojo?!? The reason the older guitars sounded better was they used thinner plywood and the wood quality was better than what's available today.
-
Here's my recommendation:
Buy an older guitar. Buy a newer amp.
-
[QUOTE=PTChristopher2;387558]>>> Why do folks feel like they have to have these shiny, new toys?!?
This "begs the question" (among a pile of other logical fallacies):
Does the OP in fact feel like he has to have a shiny new toy, or has he looked at the available options, considered the opinions of others, and decided what most appeals to him?
There are more reasons for buying a particular guitar than are dreamt of in any given blustery vision of mojo philosophy.
I would never buy a Gibson new, or from fairly recent vintage, significantly due to what I find to be an enduring and absurdly soft and sticky finish formula. But for many players this is not an issue at all.
I hope to hear how the OP likes his new 175, shiny, sticky, old and myth-filled, or otherwise.
Hmmmm . . . .
As indecisive as the OP is . . . that comment will likely set him back months in his decision making process.
-
LOL. Thanks again Jack, but I've never said anything about wanting something new and untouched and I do not feel any compelling need to have a new toy. I don't think you intended to comment on my mentality, but I said in a previous thread that I've never really bought new before. What has admittedly thrown me for a loop is that the mom and pop shops in my area, Southern California, that would carry used inventory or even new inventory, have been killed off by the Internet. Originally Posted by jzucker
My original post was not really about the reasons for my decision. However, one attraction of the '59 reissue is the consistency of the neck, which makes it easier for me to purchase, new or used, sight unseen. Another reason is the consistency of the sound; they are pretty consistent in weight and have thinner plywood than their non-reissue counterparts.
I've played some actual '50s 175s with humbuckers, but there is only about two and a half years to choose from, they are not that consistent, and they are very expensive unless you find one stripped. I've played some actual '60s and '70s 175s and haven't come across any with chunky necks.
I get the old wood better wood theory and subscribe to it to a certain extent. However, I am less concerned with a break-in period for a laminate; it's not like a fine spruce top that can take 10 years to break in. I am also fine with the quality of the current wood. I'm interested in a plugged-in tone and, yes, it will leave my living room regularly.
The reason this whole new debate entered the conversation was because I had the possibility of buying one that I could actually play. After doing so and not finding a particular advantage with the particular ones that I played,I am on the prowl for a new or used one. I'm finding that since they have only been making them since 2012, the price difference between new and used is not that great. While I don't really care about a warranty so much, a reputable dealer tends to make the transaction feel safer, but, again, I'm still looking.
i will say that one thing that has surprised me is how difficult it is to get dealers to return emails or give me intelligent, detailed information over the phone. It makes it that much more worrisome to me to transact over the Internet.
-
This. Originally Posted by Encinitastubes
I couldn't find any local dealers for Eastman (in Chicago!), so I went online. Places that claimed to have stock didn't return emails or fully answer simple questions. Phoning was worse - one guy wouldn't quit referring to me as " brah". On top of that he couldn't find any of the guitars he claimed to have in house. Assured me that all the guitars were "awesome".
Fortunately, a local dealer started carrying Eastman and I was able to pick out a nice one.
-
do a search on guitar center or gbase's site. It's worth going through a couple to get a good one. Most of the dealers offer a trial period.
And plywood guitar tops do age.
-
I might have missed it but what are those 59 reissues going for at street price? I see the list price at Gibson at 4899$. Whoah, that's a lot of money for a 175 in my opinion. Have you considered other brands or is the Gibson a must? Personally, I would go for a Sadowsky in that price range. In think they are the finest laminate guitars around and they can do a 175 classic tone probably better than Gibson can. All my humble opinion of course.
-
No, the 575 doesn't sound exactly like an ES175. It wasn't designed to. Actually, it was designed NOT to. But, I didn't hear the OP indicate that's what he was going for. I did see one of his posts where he indicated he liked a greasier, slightly filthy, funky, louder sound. Also, with all of those adjectives he used . . I'm kinda wondering why it would be so hard for him to actually settle on any particular ES175.?.? Most of what he's looking for is accomplished through amps, pedals, pups, electronics . . .etc.. Originally Posted by jzucker
Regarding the vintage tone quest . . . . you're enough of a pro to understand that a good/great sounding ES175 is a relatively small part of the equation for someone who's looking to get close to a Methey or a Jim Hall sound.
I really think that the OP is horny for a 175 . . . just because it's a 175 . . and all of the history, hype, mystique, mojo etc., that comes along with it. Just as "only a Gibson L5CES" . . is a Gibson L5CES . . so too is that true with a Gibson ES175. That's really the reason I threw the 575 into the equasion with only a "I'm just sayin' man" . . type of a comment. It's because I know that only an ES175 will scratch his itch.
-
I agree with most of your post. The one thing I disagree with is that if you *ARE* looking for the muted metheny/hall type of sound, I think you really need a 175. The 175 has a particular, percussive sound that I have never heard from any other axe, including the Metheny PM100 and PM120. That sound cannot be obtained by a 575 but I agree that the 575 is a great guitar and a buddy of mine has one and it's one of the best jazz guitars I have ever heard. He had to have it planed and refretted (like I had to do with mine) but now it's a keeper.
Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
They are going for $3999, street price. The sadowsky is cool but it sounds nothing like a 175 and doesn't have a bridge pickup. I totally disagree that it can do a 175 tone. It's not even close. The maple neck/ebony board imparts a totally different tonal character. The guitar has a very different "speaking" voice too. Much more acoustic-like than a 175. Originally Posted by AlainJazz
-
Agreed...you can totally tell a Sadowsky recording from Jim...
I still think one of the secrets of the 175 is the very deep body and that neck pickup placement.
I can get some "175 ish" tones from my 575, but it's definitely a very different guitar...
-
Not sure about your theory of pickup placement. My son has an epiphone 175 and it sounds absolutely nothing like a 175. Same geometry but it's got a maple neck.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
I doubt it will be the maple neck, if it sounds ''nothing like" a gib 175 ; my 72 has the disliked 3 piece maple neck, but you're pushed to hear much difference with the mahogany neck 175 of later vintage ; maybe just a fraction. Originally Posted by jzucker
I tend to agree with the deep body, pickup placement/ aged ply points as contributing to the characteristic sound - and probably the neck/top/ bridge angles too. Can't say the 70s volute does a lot for the sound..
-
The volute has no effect on sound and they didn't even make the maple neck versions until late '73. The maple neck makes a huge difference. On numerous occasions I have compared 70s 175s with maple and mahogany necks and there is a huge difference in the attack. The maple has a definitive chirp on the attack which is very *UN* hall/metheny-like. Originally Posted by Franz 1997
If it was all body/pickup placement the epi and the eastman 371 would sound like a 175. THEY DON'T!
-
[Jzucker] >>> And who said anything about mojo?!?
I did. Over time "mojo" has become (quite reasonably in my view) associated with mythology, or at best, mis-attributed cause and effect.
>>>The reason the older guitars sounded better was they used thinner plywood
This is of course an opinion, so great input. As a broad statement, it can lead to some mistaken conclusions. There is the thickness, the number of layers, the glue used, the actual wood species, the tension remaining in the pressed arch, the bracing, and indeed the age of the instrument with its extremely inconsistent effects.
And then there is the neck wood,...
Some like the sound and response of some of the heavier 175 vintages. But yeah, the 59 RI can be considered not among the 175's heavy enough to be listed in "Jane's Fighting Ships".
>>> and the wood quality was better than what's available today.
I worked with wood then, and now, and in-between. In my view, any broad statement about wood quality is not consistent at all with the actual situation. I suppose it has become a well-furrowed part of the general guitar mythology, and of course with the extreme variety of wood quality both then and now, one can cherry pick a misleading set of observations to support a confirmational bias.
In my opinion.
Some love the mojo of older guitars, some find it hard to hear, much as unicorns are hard to see.
Some guitars really do have a specific sound evolution as they age, many do not at all.
Some love a new guitar, some do not see the value in spanking new.
Some find a new guitar less trouble-prone, yet many new guitars will exhibit early-years troubles that are not consistent with this view.
I have doen warranty work for Gibson. The actual value of the warranty is superb in some types of difficulty, and heartbreakingly worthless in others. If Larry L. is out there, I still have to sit down when thinking about the S neck from many years ago, and Gibson's profound contempt.
In my opinion the OP has targeted a guitar that is a sincere attempt by Gibson to put out a guitar with some of the features that many associate with the 175 in its most admired form. I hope to see and hear how it works out.
ChrisLast edited by PTChristopher2; 01-02-2014 at 02:35 PM. Reason: spelling
-
Thanks Chris. That is very useful information that I appreciate. Actually, I appreciate everyone's responses as there is always something to learn and/or think about. It's a little weird to me how some responses are directed to me, and then in the following sentence they will be directed about me or what my obvious thought process is. Perhaps that's the psychology of the internet forum and the limitations on the written language. Still, I choose to just focus on the substance of the responses and thank everyone for taking the time to share their thoughts.
-
we'll have to agree to disagree Chris. There is a reason gibson and other importers are switching woods or importing stuff illegally and switching to other countries for their woods. The original woods are no longer available. And, sure among internet chat forums there is a discrepancy about the 59 reissue but any great player can hear and feel the difference. It's only in the democratic world of a the internet that it can be debated in this way. Believe what you want to believe.
-
"mojo." I love that word. How does one know when the guitar they own has "mojo?" And does "mojo" have a sound?
-
Hi Jack,
Yes we certainly do disagree, both in the substance of the matter and in the presentation of opinion. It is certainly a good thing in my opinion, and most likely quite beneficial to third parties - covering significantly different areas of the gamut of views.
In my opinion:
Many a "great player" hears remarkably little of the real and imagined differences from one guitar to the next.
Many a "great player" hears all sorts of subtle differences from one guitar to the next.
Many a less-accomplished player hears remarkably little of the real and imagined differences from one guitar to the next.
Many a less-accomplished player hears all sorts of subtle differences from one guitar to the next.
So I choose to avoid any sort of statement that associates one's playing "greatness" with what can be a very mixed assortment of seemingly-objective and seemingly-imagined observations.
As much as I find some significant disagreement extremely helpful toward better understanding (often for a silent-er third party), I also find attributing greatness to be less helpful.
I am nonetheless (or rather, some-the-more) looking forward to E'tubes experience with the '59 RI.
Chris
-
On neck wood:
I love mahog' necks. I mean real mahogany, as well as sapele, khaya, and many of the open grain mahogany-oids out there.
While there are many fantastic maple neck guitars out there, I do notice the attack (indeed less chirpy to my ears) and sound of a mahogany neck.
Same for lighter tuners vs. some of the real piles of metal out there.
The part I can not at all 'explain' is the effect the neck and tuners often have even when playing well up the neck.
The big disadvantage of mahogany over maple is in the fragility of the neck in the nut area. Mahogany is just very prone to splitting on the short, run-out grain as you make the left-hand turn from neck to headstock. (Assuming no scarf-joned headstock,...)
Chris
-
I think you have it backwards. Inexperienced players think mojo is involved and imagine all kinds of differences in various and sundry properties associated with things like lacquer vs poly, nut composition, bridge pieces, etc. That's because their ears are not discerning enough to hear the difference and much of this mojo crap is pushed by the chat forums and many with irons in the fire. Over at TGP this is highly exacerbated by the number of shills pushing crap like fossilized ivory, $35 boutique picks, snake oil strings, etc.
Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos