Getting Cynical Over the Gibson ES-175?

[wintermoon]

175's were mid level professional quality guitars occupying the spot below the Super 400CES and L-5CES

the lower line models were the 125 and 150.

[GoergeBenson]

Again : The right price is the price the market will bear. It has nothing at all to do with the cost of raw materials and manufacturing costs. You may not think it's worth $4,250, but all those people who have bought one and are happy with it (there's quite a few on this forum) think so - or they wouldn't have bought it. Then who's right? Them or you? And who's to decide who's right?

Well thats very true but the cost of materials aside, which as you rightly point out bares no relation to the value, it still is odd that someone would willingly pay more for less of a guitar. If gibson weren't making the 'conveniently' named 'Custom Shop' Es-175 (for whatever Custom shop means and I repeat, nothing but $$$) you would say they have less gal but to position it $500 more than a more expensive guitar, is quite staggering and suggests the market and those in it driving it, have all gone slightly mad.

I just don't get it.

If it was me and they asked me to buy it, I would say, "Hang on a minute mate, you want me to pay more for a guitar that cost you less to make? I would then proceed to walk out laughing. As I think you all should because by doing so, you have a chance to reduce the price to its proportionate and appropriate level. Not in regards to material costs but in regard to other guitars with the same model name they make along side it with more hardware, finer wood and more time consuming finish.

I would also argue that there is a false economy here. You can argue that they are worth x because people are buying them but whats the %, how many keep them? what is the average second hand priced, which i think is a greater indicator to a guitars real worth in some ways.

Apparently they are selling around $2,250 guess the more discerning market, doesn't agree with the very very few people who are buying these guitars.

Damn this is digressing and getting deep lol
Its like a thesis in a marketing and ethics degree, not two things you would put together lol

[Greentone]

It is established doctrine in social psychology that people affirm the efficacy of their purchases. Does it make sense? Who knows...it is just what people do. That's why I generally prefer sound and video files to testimonials about guitars. I own and play a 175...would you expect me to say 175s are goat bollocks?

This said, I do enjoy the views of forum members here because this group translates sound into words well.

What's to be said about arch tops in general and 175s in particular? Archtops used to be undervalued. When the two pre-baby boom generations retired, demand for archtops tanked. I was offered a Kalamazoo Award...new...for $1,400, at one point. That was the wholesale price, for goodness sake. Now, the baby boom generation has created an archtop bubble. 175 and other prices are woo high. The bubble will deflate. No generation is coming in behind the boomers that is so large or plays guitar, much less arch tops, in such numbers. At some point, archtops will be a little like Florida condos two years ago.

I hope I am still lucid and limber enough to enjoy an Epi Deluxe, an L5ces, a Super 400, and a blonde 1950-53 ES175. Hmm? $4,000 USD.

[klk]

350 1959 dollars is roughly 2,866 2014 dollars.

that's according to the CPI calculator.

someone could do a quick historical markets comparison on L5s, too, for a comparison of how closely today's Gibson range difference tracks that in 1959.

are folks actually paying MSRP for new 175s? i haven't been paying attention.

[D.G.]

I don't like Gibson's as a whole, i.e. I'm not fond of the guitars they make. Since I'm never in the market for a Gibson, I have no opinion about how they run their business.

OTOH, I do like some of the original Epi models, like the Sorrento and Wildkat models. Does this make me a hypocrite?

[wintermoon]

350 1959 dollars is roughly 2,866 2014 dollars.

that's according to the CPI calculator.

someone could do a quick historical markets comparison on L5s, too, for a comparison of how closely today's Gibson range difference tracks that in 1959.

are folks actually paying MSRP for new 175s? i haven't been paying attention.

about $800 w/brown/pink case in '59

$6451 today

[docbop]

Nothing is what it used to be and every generation says that about products. Gibson, Fender, someone say Harley and others have been bought and sold and are basically just names now. Same with other industries.

I had a 61 175 back in the late 70's and eventually sold it and recently traded some gear with a friend and have 99 175. They are very different guitars I don't measure thing and its been a long time since I had the 61 175. Comparing my memory of the old 175 with the new, I would say the tops are different to me. I pulled the pickup on the old one and could see the raw wood of the laminated top. I looked thick than the new one, and it looked like a thick center layer and two thinner outside layers. The new 175 I haven't pulled a pickup yet, but in general the top seem thinner and little bit I see the layers looks kind of all the same thickness. The neck I on the new 175 I actually like better it has some meat to it. The pickguard seems thinner and more flexible on the new 175. Workmanship on new 175 is okay pickguard is mounted off a little bit so it rubs on the the pickups, the spacer for the upper pickguard support is a bit short so pickguard is bowing a bit. The neck pickup looks slightly crooked. Now on the plus side the 99 looks great the top and side are highly figured tiger stripe maple. So the big one the finish, the old had nice thin finish and felt good, the new has that think stuff whatever it is. It feels kind of sticky, if this was a Fender I'd be heading to the hardware store and buying some sandpaper and take down the finish on the neck. Sound wise they both sound good, the old one had real PAF's in it and whatever is in the new guitar sounds good to me. Acoustically the new one is much louder and has seems have more acoustic quality probably due to the thinner top.

Price well companies especially these days are totally focused on profit, the 175 is an icon Jazz guitar so they charge a a high price because they can. What I think is dumb is a new L4 CES doesn't cost that much more than a 175 so if I was buying new I get a L4. Guitars are getting to be like cars and new guitars drop in value drasticly once you take it home so that is another factor in price.

Bottom line if you buy any big name brand that has been around for decades you're paying a lot for the name, especially if that company has be sold over the years. So only real advise is be an informed buyer.

[Greentone]

Wow. $800 in 1959. In 1980 in Washington, DC, I could walk into a music store and get a L5ces for $950, a Super 400 for $1,100, and an Artist Award Guild for $900. Not much change from what you report in 1959. Given that in 59 a Les Paul Standard was only $275, might your number be too high?

[GoergeBenson]

Nothing is what it used to be and every generation says that about products. Gibson, Fender, someone say Harley and others have been bought and sold and are basically just names now. Same with other industries.

I had a 61 175 back in the late 70's and eventually sold it and recently traded some gear with a friend and have 99 175. They are very different guitars I don't measure thing and its been a long time since I had the 61 175. Comparing my memory of the old 175 with the new, I would say the tops are different to me. I pulled the pickup on the old one and could see the raw wood of the laminated top. I looked thick than the new one, and it looked like a thick center layer and two thinner outside layers. The new 175 I haven't pulled a pickup yet, but in general the top seem thinner and little bit I see the layers looks kind of all the same thickness. The neck I on the new 175 I actually like better it has some meat to it. The pickguard seems thinner and more flexible on the new 175. Workmanship on new 175 is okay pickguard is mounted off a little bit so it rubs on the the pickups, the spacer for the upper pickguard support is a bit short so pickguard is bowing a bit. The neck pickup looks slightly crooked. Now on the plus side the 99 looks great the top and side are highly figured tiger stripe maple. So the big one the finish, the old had nice thin finish and felt good, the new has that think stuff whatever it is. It feels kind of sticky, if this was a Fender I'd be heading to the hardware store and buying some sandpaper and take down the finish on the neck. Sound wise they both sound good, the old one had real PAF's in it and whatever is in the new guitar sounds good to me. Acoustically the new one is much louder and has seems have more acoustic quality probably due to the thinner top.

Price well companies especially these days are totally focused on profit, the 175 is an icon Jazz guitar so they charge a a high price because they can. What I think is dumb is a new L4 CES doesn't cost that much more than a 175 so if I was buying new I get a L4. Guitars are getting to be like cars and new guitars drop in value drasticly once you take it home so that is another factor in price.

Bottom line if you buy any big name brand that has been around for decades you're paying a lot for the name, especially if that company has be sold over the years. So only real advise is be an informed buyer.

I find that very interesting and thank you for contributing.

It seems to me at least, that the whole point of the VOS-59 is to bring back the open woody tone of the es-175 and away from the duller flatter tone of its modern interpretations.

What you saying is in fact almost the opposite.

I had the blonde one pictured opn the first page and I must say, it was one of the best sounding Es-175's a had played. very open and woody tone, although suffered from the typical es-175 problem of being a little bass happy and a little bit treble harsh.
But in comparison to the 50's ones I had played and the 70's-80's etc it was by far one of the better sounding. Its sold now so I have no horse in that race.

Its not something I intended to comment on but I do think that this whole 59 VOS thing is BS. What tone is it from the ES-175 your exactly looking for? what is the 'Golden' age and how can you replicate that? Well you can't and Gibson who are totally profit driven certainly won't.

My point is, are yo being sold what you want to buy at a price that max's you out but are you getting what you really want? or are you being sold a dream, a red herring, a Fagazi? and because the marketing team has crawled up your (cough) and said "hey man I'm hearing you dude" that your now falling over yourself to buy something that should be way less. And are you also buying something unseen and untested but because it looks right, they tell you its right and you think they are right, your happy to part with the dosh?
Certainly it seems and going back to my point about by cynical, thats what the marketing team are essentially trying to get you to do.

Roll up and place your dream on 1959 (sorry i'm probably going bit over board now)

Please don't take that the wrong way, that was more of a thought that got typed.

No offence meant at all. Just talking the price of fish (Jabba knows that one;-)

P.s min e was a 96 and someone else commented on what a fine vintage that was. Who knows maybe in 50 years Gibson will be re-re-issuing the 1996 to people like me.

[Tom Painter]

How is it possible to be a fan of "jazz guitar" and not be a fan of the company that invented our favorite instrument?
Gibson wrote the book on archtop guitars...and all of our favorite pickups too!

The world is a better place for the "The Incredible Jazz Guitar" having not been recorded on a Fender Stratocaster! I'm glad Charlie Christian wasn't the pioneer of the electric banjo...LOL!

[wintermoon]

Wow. $800 in 1959. In 1980 in Washington, DC, I could walk into a music store and get a L5ces for $950, a Super 400 for $1,100, and an Artist Award Guild for $900. Not much change from what you report in 1959. Given that in 59 a Les Paul Standard was only $275, might your number be too high?

no GT, the ones I posted are actual list prices, you were likley looking @ discount prices
in '79 a sunburst Super 400 listed @ $1774 w/case. I remember pricing one in a music store in about '80 and it was about what you saw. I paid $900 for a used blonde L-5CES around then and it was pretty good deal.

regardless of what they sell for today, remember that a Les Paul Standard wasn't a carved top/back guitar and was way down there in the heirarchy of their line

[Bluedawg]

I've got a slight case of GAS for the Japanese Ibanez Path Metheny PM200 model

advertised price for it is around $3500 US ... The new 175s are significantly more, but not crazy money more.

Sadowsky's archtops are in the low to mid range above $4000 US for a Japanese made guitar

With those prices in mind I'd say the market supports Gibson's advertised pricing whether I like it or not .. and regardless of the comparitive quality.


Myself I want a Benedetto La Venezia and a few of the archtop models put out by Monteleone and Steve Anderson ...

Those guys are asking upwards of $20K US or more for their higher end guitars ... too rich for my budget, but if they can really get that kind of money ... more power to them

[wintermoon]

no GT, the ones I posted are actual list prices, you were likley looking @ discount prices
in '79 a sunburst Super 400 listed @ $1774 w/case. I remember pricing one in a music store in about '80 and it was about what you saw. I paid $900 for a used blonde L-5CES around then and it was pretty good deal.

regardless of what they sell for today, remember that a Les Paul Standard wasn't a carved top/back guitar and was way down there in the heirarchy of their line

btw, that same Super that was listed @ $1774 in '79 had jumped to $2499 just 3 yrs later, a 40% [!] increase