Eastman AR372CE vs Gibson ES-175

**Bluedawg** · 03-03-2015, 04:30 PM

I love my ES-175D .... although it doesn't get that much attention now that I finally bought an L5

But then I bought my ES-175D back in the 80s when the prices seemed more reasonable ... even if they really weren't compared to my income at the time

**Jim Soloway** · 03-03-2015, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Spook410

Many here are big Gibson ES175 fans
Only saw one input (Archtop) really not liking the design for what it is and he certainly has a right to his opinion
Some others, like the OP, prefer one of the many ES175 competitors
- Some find this baffling and are compelled to subjective expression
Some don't like the neck profile on the ones they have owned or playes
Some (myself included) feel they fail to represent a reasonable value
Some are dubious of recent Gibson quality
- Especially given the price
There were expressions for and against the presence of lingering spirits
- Probably in the finish or fret wire

I don't think we're up to the standard of 'bashing' yet. Not that we won't get there shortly.

You're right Spook. It's really just a couple people making really silly posts on both sides of the issue ... but they pushed the limits of silly so far that's hard for others to not respond (or should I say that it was hard for me not to respond. Although I gave the ghosts in the box post a free pass).

**Archie** · 03-03-2015, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

You're right Spook. It's really just a couple people making really silly posts on both sides of the issue ... but they pushed the limits of silly so far that's hard for others to not respond (or should I say that it was hard for me not to respond. Although I gave the ghosts in the box post a free pass).

If your looking at which is the better guitar, then you have to be logical about it.

Gibson ES-175 = $4000

Eastmen (whatever) $1250?

Lets look at it this way. If Eastmen using the same pricing scale, decided to make a $4000 ES-175, do you think it would be better (subjective but you get my point), than Gibson's?

If the answer is yes, then we've discovered two things,

1. The Eastmen is pound for pound the better guitar (by a looooong way)

2. The Gibson Es-175 is over priced (by a loooooong way)

If a guitar is massively over priced an thus represents poor value, does that make it a good guitar?

This of course only represents the value side of the argument. Some will answer, that is does not make the Gibson Es-175 a bad guitar, as nothing else plays like one and therefore its quality to value is irrelevant. No one could argue with that. Its a perfectly acceptable argument to make.

The other argument (which I'm making) is that its not only of poor value but it doesn't represent an a good enough return, in sound and playability for said lack of value. A double whammy if you will.

I've expressed my reasons, which I think many could agree with and some have already stated themselves, about the tonal response (wooly bass issues), playability (set-up potential, feedback etc..), issues with quality control etc...

Although let me again add, I've played some great Es-175's. I had a particularly nice blonde one.

The problem is the OP's question. We're trying to argue about a subjective issue. Its likely to get a tad silly I suppose.

(Patrick's probably screaming at me right now, whens he coming back. I miss him

)

**ESCC** · 03-03-2015, 05:50 PM

Is it time to switch the subject to Heritage head stock design?

I've been able to control the bass and treble response on my 175 by adjusting the height of the pick-up, does the trick, wonderful guitar IMO.

**jzucker** · 03-03-2015, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven

Gibson Es-175's are generally not very good because the design is poor. They are too deep with a poor tonal range and control. Bass is often all over the place, boomy and nondescript, whilst the trebles can be brittle and harsh. Its also not very practical as it feeds back pretty badly.

Nice looking guitar but I would be hard pushed to find one I found acceptable.

What Gibson does is not magic, joe pass is not speaking to you through his Es-175. There is no lineage. Gibson is a faceless corporation for profit that churns out old designs. The Es-175 is a laminate maple guitar a monkey could make one. If you like the taste of coolaid then pay £3000 for a name.

Non of the greats who had a truly good tone played an Es-175.

bwahahaha, pat metheny, jim hall, joe pass, even wes used one occasionally. Reminds me of why I hate these forums.

**Jim Soloway** · 03-03-2015, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven

If your looking at which is the better guitar, then you have to be logical about it.

Gibson ES-175 = $4000

Eastmen (whatever) $1250?

Lets look at it this way. If Eastmen using the same pricing scale, decided to make a $4000 ES-175, do you think it would be better (subjective but you get my point), than Gibson's?

If the answer is yes, then we've discovered two things,

1. The Eastmen is pound for pound the better guitar (by a looooong way)

2. The Gibson Es-175 is over priced (by a loooooong way)

If a guitar is massively over priced an thus represents poor value, does that make it a good guitar?

This of course only represents the value side of the argument. Some will answer, that is does not make the Gibson Es-175 a bad guitar, as nothing else plays like one and therefore its quality to value is irrelevant. No one could argue with that. Its a perfectly acceptable argument to make.

The other argument (which I'm making) is that its not only of poor value but it doesn't represent an a good enough return, in sound and playability for said lack of value. A double whammy if you will.

I've expressed my reasons, which I think many could agree with and some have already stated themselves, about the tonal response (wooly bass issues), playability (set-up potential, feedback etc..), issues with quality control etc...

Although let me again add, I've played some great Es-175's. I had a particularly nice blonde one.

The problem is the OP's question. We're trying to argue about a subjective issue. Its likely to get a tad silly I suppose.

(Patrick's probably screaming at me right now, whens he coming back. I miss him

)

Actually, what you said was Gibson Es-175's are generally not very good because the design is poor. They are too deep with a poor tonal range and control. Bass is often all over the place, boomy and nondescript, whilst the trebles can be brittle and harsh. Its also not very practical as it feeds back pretty badly.

Nice looking guitar but I would be hard pushed to find one I found acceptable.

You also said Non of the greats who had a truly good tone played an Es-175. (I assume you meant "none" rather than "non").

You also said 3) Joe Pass, Jim hall, Pat Metheny, the classic Es-175 users, all happen to have the most controversial tone because people generally don't like it.

You also said: My issue with the Es-175 is simple. Guitars are there to allow us to play music. To open up our possibilities when improvising. So how does a guitar that has in general, poor bass response, poor upper treble response, rattles (for many), has appointments I dont think improve the tone like Rosewood bridges and fretboards and a scale length that i dont think is the most conducive to gettgin punch articulate notes (23 3/4") suddenly become the best jazz guitar?

None of that relates to issues of value or price. You simply said it was a crappy guitar with bad tone that was poorly designed and that people generally didn't like the tone that iconic players achieved with it.

**jzucker** · 03-03-2015, 07:16 PM

and to price, i paid $2100 for my 1989 175 which is not too far from the prices of the 80x series eastmans.

**Archie** · 03-03-2015, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

None of that relates to issues of value or price. You simply said it was a crappy guitar with bad tone that was poorly designed and that people generally didn't like the tone that iconic players achieved with it.

Are we gonna have a Youtube Video fight now

Come on, I never said it was "crappy". You also missed out the bit where I said "Although let me add again, I've played some great ES-175's". I happen to know Jz bagged himself a nice one (finally).

**boatheelmusic** · 03-03-2015, 07:49 PM

Right, on the value thrashing threads $4,000 is often cited, when no one pays that.

**Jim Soloway** · 03-03-2015, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven

Are we gonna have a Youtube Video fight now

Come on, I never said it was "crappy". You also missed out the bit where I said "Although let me add again, I've played some great ES-175's". I happen to know Jz bagged himself a nice one (finally).

No fight. You said what you said and where I live this would equal crappy ... Gibson Es-175's are generally not very good because the design is poor. They are too deep with a poor tonal range and control. Bass is often all over the place, boomy and nondescript, whilst the trebles can be brittle and harsh. Its also not very practical as it feeds back pretty badly.

Nice looking guitar but I would be hard pushed to find one I found acceptable.

**Archie** · 03-03-2015, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by boatheelmusic

Right, on the value thrashing threads $4,000 is often cited, when no one pays that.

Your Right

gibson es-175 | Sweetwater.com

**Falling_leaves** · 03-03-2015, 08:08 PM

Some Aussie folks do pay that much for a laminated es-175.

**Falling_leaves** · 03-03-2015, 08:13 PM

Gibson ES 175 Reissue Electric Guitar Antique Natural | eBay

**Takemitsu** · 03-03-2015, 08:19 PM

I had a es-175, a 89 one. Sounded good but weighted a ton. I sold it to get a Jim Hall. I am perfectly happy now. Love the sound, love the specs. It happens that the ar371ce is:

1)lightweight

2)has 24 3/4 scale

3)has 1,75 nut

4) is cheap

and I don't want to bring my sadowsky outdoor when playing drunk with friends.

The a r371 fitted the bill and I ordered one....Received it today.

Pretty good, very loud acoustic but eh its an electric guitar just like the es-175 but for a coach guitar its an asset. Right now without a setup its very fun to play but nowhere near my sadowsky and if I don't think about the weight, it is not as good as the es-175 I had in term of playability AND sound. But Ill see after a good setup.

I will probably buy a es-175 VOS soon just to check out. I could not try one but I heard they are lighter.

**jzucker** · 03-03-2015, 08:53 PM

a lot of people looking for a 175 end up with a jim hall. Puzzling because they sound nothing alike. And my '89 175 is light weight. The Jim Hall / Jazzline is bright sounding and doesn't have the thunk that a 175 has.

I've said this before but if you don't like this tone, then I'm not sure what else to say. And no sadowsky or anything else for that matter can get this tone)

(Joe Pass on his 175)

**Takemitsu** · 03-03-2015, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

a lot of people looking for a 175 end up with a jim hall. Puzzling because they sound nothing alike. And my '89 175 is light weight. The Jim Hall / Jazzline is bright sounding and doesn't have the thunk that a 175 has.

I've said this before but if you don't like this tone, then I'm not sure what else to say. And no sadowsky or anything else for that matter can get this tone)

(Joe Pass on his 175)

Maybe its possible to like this tone AND end up liking another one too?

**jzucker** · 03-03-2015, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Takemitsu

Maybe its possible to like this tone AND end up liking another one too?

yes but this thread is about 175s and 175 tone.

**Takemitsu** · 03-03-2015, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

yes but this thread is about 175s and 175 tone.

For what I have red in the OP its about comparing a es-175 with an ar372ce. My post and the experience I related is indeed about the es-175 I owned, The Sadowsky I found as replacement and an ar371 I bought. I think it is pretty much related to the OP no?

**boatheelmusic** · 03-03-2015, 10:04 PM

[QUOTE=ArchtopHeaven;507738]Your Right

gibson es-175 | Sweetwater.com[/QUOTE

**Spook410** · 03-03-2015, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

and to price, i paid $2100 for my 1989 175 which is not too far from the prices of the 80x series eastmans.

If you mean you bought a 175 in 1989 for $2100, the equivalent would be $4061 in 2014 dollars. That's just inflation. You also have to consider income loss due to lost interest which is compounded. For lost interest you can consider treasury bonds at one end of the spectrum or equity returns on the other.

If you mean you bought a used one, then you have to consider used retail, used individual sale, good deals, bad deals, condition et. al. to get to a comparison to something else which is awfully hard to do. Though you could consider how much money you lose by selling a new guitar in perfect condition ES175 say one year later on average on Ebay versus how much you lose with whatever guitar you're comparing it to. Everything else becomes kind of a swamp. Like an Eastman AR371CE, a laminate box as opposed to the solid hand carved 8xx models, going for $700 or 1/3 of your ES175 $2100 on Ebay. Direct comparison? Some ways yes, some ways no.

This is why I think you have to consider only new guitars at retail when considering value.

And while it's a good thing we love guitars given they're lousy investments we're still lucky. Paying around $2K for a used guitar you like and can expect to play for years is really cheap in the grand scheme of things.

**StevieB** · 03-03-2015, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

a lot of people looking for a 175 end up with a jim hall. Puzzling because they sound nothing alike. And my '89 175 is light weight. The Jim Hall / Jazzline is bright sounding and doesn't have the thunk that a 175 has.

I've said this before but if you don't like this tone, then I'm not sure what else to say. And no sadowsky or anything else for that matter can get this tone)

(Joe Pass on his 175)

I love ES-175s. My 2001 'Reissue' has great tone, playability, looks and mojo. Having said that, I'm not so sure this Joe Pass video can represent the quintessential 175 tone because if the cover of the album is accurate, JP looks to be playing his much thinner bodied custom 175. I'm just sayin.

**jzucker** · 03-03-2015, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Spook410

If you mean you bought a 175 in 1989 for $2100, the equivalent would be $4061 in 2014 dollars. That's just inflation. You also have to consider income loss due to lost interest which is compounded. For lost interest you can consider treasury bonds at one end of the spectrum or equity returns on the other.

If you mean you bought a used one, then you have to consider used retail, used individual sale, good deals, bad deals, condition et. al. to get to a comparison to something else which is awfully hard to do. Though you could consider how much money you lose by selling a perfect condition ES175 say one year later on average on Ebay versus how much you lose with whatever guitar you're comparing it to.

It's a good thing we love guitars.. they're lousy investments.

Ummm no. I bought my '89 175 a little over a year ago for $2100.

**jzucker** · 03-03-2015, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by StevieB

I love ES-175s. My 2001 'Reissue' has great tone, playability, looks and mojo. Having said that, I'm not so sure this Joe Pass video can represent the quintessential 175 tone because if the cover of the album is accurate, JP looks to be playing his much thinner bodied custom 175. I'm just sayin.

this has been covered a zillion times. We need an FAQ for this forum. Do a little research. It's a well known *FACT* that he used a 175 for this album.

**StevieB** · 03-03-2015, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

this has been covered a zillion times. We need an FAQ for this forum. Do a little research. It's a well known *FACT* that he used a 175 for this album.

Thanks for setting me straight.

**jzucker** · 03-04-2015, 07:49 AM

i want to offer one additional viewpoint. I've owned dozens of archtops including some of the boutique sh1t that is often drooled over on this forum and I'd put my 175 up there in terms of construction, tone, feel with any of them. In fact IMO it blows away most of the boutique stuff. IMO, The boutique stuff was created to fill an imaginary void for folks who drool over the great instruments but don't want to take the time or effort to find one.

Sure, not every 175 is a great one and admittedly I had to purchase and return 6 or so to find the one I had but it was worth the effort.

It takes time to find a great instrument. Doesn't matter if it's boutique or not. Just because the luthier makes it by hand and just because the woods are pretty doesn't mean it's going to sound great. Wood is wood and it's all going to be different and unique and truth be told, most boutique luthiers are choosing wood for appearance.

I could have bought a boutique, hand made instrument (and I did) which didn't sound or play nearly as well.