-
Patrick no offense taken. Been looking very long now both for new or used. Price not a issue. I did find a nice 1999 but it had a strap button on the heel which restricts my hand when I play up high or I would have bought it. I play sitting without a strap. I saw a used 2006 at a store but it had a ski jump neck. I live in Calif. and there is no market for jazz boxes around here. A few guys around San Francisco and me. There are guitar stores everywhere and none of them sell hollow bodies. 335's are as close as you are going to get around here.
-
11-13-2014 11:51 AM
-
I appreciate the thick skin vinny. Sometimes my bluntness is received as being a whole lot more rude than it's actually intended to be.
Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
Here's a suggestion that might sound like a shamelss plug coming from a former heritage guitar rep. But, it's not that at all. It's a genuine offer to help you get what you're after. If money is not an object for you, and you are really seeking the true original ES175 tone . . as it was established by the original masters of achieving it . . then consider this recommendation;
Have Heritage build you an H575 with a laminate top and parallel bracing. For an upcharge, you could spec it with the original ES175 double parallelograms, a bound finger board and have the jack input mounted on the rim instead of through the tail block. Then, notwithstanding the head stock . . you'd have an exact duplicate of a '60s - '70s ES175D. You could spec the color/shading, the pups, the neck profile and the hardware. As restitution for being a bit harsh with you . . I could see this build through for you and assure oy of getting the guitar you desire in 12 to 14 weeks.
They could literally build you this guitar at far less than the $7k that this one is selling for.
https://reverb.com/item/12491-gibson...bacco-sunburst
-
Patrick I have been giving that option some very serious thought. I love their almond burst finish and I am one of the few people that dig the look of their headstocks.
-
Vinny,
The newer models that look like the one Archtop heaven shows tend to sound GREAT! IMO, they don't look very authentic vis-a-vis the traditional Gibson ES-175, but they are pretty guitars in their own right. The main thing is that they tend to sound awesome. By comparison, some people are reporting that the new VOS 175s that look amazingly like the traditional instruments don't sound as good. I haven't played one yet.
I did own a vintage 175 for 35 years. The ES 175 is a superb guitar--for any kind of music, but especially for jazz.
Commencing in the 1990s, I and many others believe that Gibson entered a second golden era. Now, you may or may not like "chambered" Les Pauls--me, I prefer the ones without the holes in the body. But, the archtops are another story. The 175, 350, L5, Super 400, etc., coming out in the last 20 years are some of the finest guitars that Gibson has made in many a year.
If you don't mind the sort of "busy" look of the tops of the post-90s 175, they are amazing guitars, IMO.
-
If you do choose to got that route and would like my assistance, feel free to PM me. I'll help you get it done quickly and correctly. Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
Also, there seems to be a glut of very nice looking vintage 175s on Reverb dot com right now.
-
Wildwood also has one: ES-175 | Hollowbody/Semi-Hollowbody | Gibson Custom & Memphis | Electrics | Wildwood Guitars
I've had really excellent experiences dealing with them (ask for Lance). Wondering if anyone here has had a chance to compare the two different model 175's side-by-side?
-
Thankfully mine was 45% off. I think it sounds perfect. Big bottom end, bright but mellow, nicely balanced. Here it is, I have called it Randolph as it reminds me of some old dude in another time in a dark smokey walnut timber lined cigar bar, kicking back in a Chesterfield chair enjoying a scotch with some mates (yes the guitar excites me).
Maybe my playing is not worthy of such a fine instrument but after years of frustration trying to not spend the $$$'s I am 100% satisfied. I just love hearing it, cannot put it down:
Hope it is music to your ears.
-
That 175 has a very thin top. Usually they are at least twice as thick. Good score :-)
-
Interested to know what you hear that you can reach such a conclusion (as I would have zero idea)? Is it that kind of growl that is lurking underneath the, on the surface, happy tone?
-
Patrick and all, thank you very much !!!! my jazz guitar brothers. Vinny
-
Sitting here playing my '63 ES-175, I do understand Vinny's conundrum. The VOS models are apparently made "like the old ones" with thinner laminate wood and much lighter weight overall. It does make the guitar much more acoustic sounding, which means bright with less sustain when played electrically. If you are enamored of the thicker, heavier, more juicy electric sound of the later ones, those wouldn't suit you. Two different beasts, each with something about it to love.
My '63 weighs 5 lbs 10 oz! I hear the VOS models are not much more than that. I guess Gibson got something right, even if it's clearly not for everybody.
Best of luck finding your 175, Vinny.
-
Roger,
My '68 weighed an even 6lbs 0oz. It was a little heavier than your '63, but not much. It was a guitar that very much sounded like Joe Pass' or Jim Hall's guitar. Herb Ellis' 175 was extremely light--probably about like yours. When I played it, I couldn't believe how light and acoustically responsive it was.
People seem to recall Pass', Ellis', and Hall's guitars as being dark and smoky. Hmm? I think of them as being capable of sounding quite bright, actually. However, each player was able to make his guitar sound anywhere from bright to smoky with judicious use of hands and tone knob adjustment.
I really like those guitars--and I would probably be a candidate for one of the VOS guitars, too. However, I _also_ have enjoyed the recent model, thicker-topped 175s I have played.
Other than the vintage ones I have enjoyed, though, my favorites have been the occasional Norlin-era 175/CC that you run into. Although I don't think that they sound anything like the old ES-150 with the CC pickup, I do think they are especially good sounding archtops.
-
I think rpguitar has a nice point about "two different beasts." I hear a lot of folks longing for big sounding, big bottomed, vibrant 175 tones. However, I also recall an extensive thread in which people were gushing out praise for the the "thunk" of a certain175 tone (I'm not quite sure I got the term right). My experience with my own '59 VOS is that it is much more in the thunk class. My heavier, thicker topped 2006 has a big, sonorous acoustic tone, almost like a dreadnaught, that sounds quite different acoustically and plugged in (the P-90s certainly add to the articulation). Both are wonderful.
-
I had a '61 175 and the neck was too thin for me so I eventually sold it. I now have '99 175. From what I can remember the 61' top was thicker. I pulled a pickup on it and could see the layers of the laminate and remember the middle layer being thicker than I expected. It's acoustic sound was so-so plugged in it sounded good. The '99 has a thin top to me feeling the thickness thru the F-hole. Has a nice big neck, but does feel a bit heavy. The sound of the '99 acoustically it is very nice and louder than I expected. Plugged in it sound goods, but think could sound better, so thinking about changing pickups. The '99 has become my #2 guitar, I keep two guitar out one in practice area and one by desk and the 175 has become the desk guitar.
-
I have a 1979 ES175CC I bought new in '80, as per my avatar. I absolutely love that guitar, the neck is on the thin side, playability is excellent as is fit and finish . . . considering the Gibson/Norlin era, I feel fortunate to have a good one. Tone - it does the B. Kessel tone pretty well, has good thunk, noticeable bass, not much in the way of mids. I have not weighed it, I'll do that this weekend. Originally Posted by Greentone
I'm still trying to find the "perfect" amp for it.
-
ESCC,
True that about the thin neck. Every 175CC I have played--that would be four, at this point--has had an uncommonly thin neck carve. In particular, I cannot recall a thinner neck right at the point just below the volute. While I would personally prefer a fat, round neck, it is no matter. The CC is such a good sounding guitar it transcends the mechanics of the thin, wide neck, for me.
I once had possession for about six months of my buddy's CC--he wanted me to evaluate it for him and promptly forgot about it. The guitar was unusual in that it had yellow rose colored double parallelogram inlays on the fretboard. I have seen this guitar on the Internet in the intervening years. [My friend eventually sold the guitar.] This instrument was a superb 175 that I wish I had bought for myself...one of those "I am still kicking myself" guitars.
-
I just found a picture of the 175CC in question on the Internet:
You can just make out the coloration of the parallelograms on the fret markers. This was a GREAT guitar. The original case for this guitar, as I recall, was standard Gibson--but it was silver/gray on the exterior.
-
Yes, I've seen that guitar - or one very similar to it with the rose inlays before, nice. The inlays on mine are standard "pearl". As per my avatar I switched the vol and tone knobs to gold speed knobs, they look better in my opinion, the original black top-hats are "cheesy", but, no doubt I've kept them. Originally Posted by Greentone
I just found a picture of the 175CC in question on the Internet:
You can just make out the coloration of the parallelograms on the fret markers. This was a GREAT guitar. The original case for this guitar, as I recall, was standard Gibson--but it was silver/gray on the exterior.
-
Some bakelite radio chicken head knobs, a la Barney Kessel, might look and work best. ;-)
-
WOW! You guys weigh your guitars? OK, now I need to see if you all have correlated the weight versus the tone. Is a heavier or lighter guitar more likely to satisfy you?
As a point of information, last night I weighed my very satisfactory nearly 20 year old 1995 model and it came in at a hefty (compared to some above) 7 lb. 1 1/2 oz.
-
Here's my 2012 Custom Shop ES-175. It makes me smile every time I pick it up! Again, only mod is the rosewood bridge. Very subtle flame and the fit and finish is perfect. Best quality Gibson I've owned in many years and, tonally, it surpasses any of the single pickup models I've had.
-
A used 2011 here 2011 Gibson ES-175 Custom . Asking $2995. The description is seller's boilerplate. Call for in-hand once-over.
Another used 2012 here http://www.guitarrez.com/usedhtml/usdgib175nt.html . Asking $2599.Last edited by Jabberwocky; 11-15-2014 at 06:00 AM.
-
Boy-o-boy . . . this is a matter so filled with subjectivity and uncertainty due to a lacking of confirming scientific data. There's absolutely no way of telling for sure how any piece of wood will respond . . whether its heavy and dense or light as a feather. But, there is a good rule of thumb, so to speak. Almost alway *almost* always . . a lighter arch top guitar translates to more (better?) acoustical properties. Especially if it's the top that's thinner/lighter. Far better for playing unamplified or slightly amplified. A heavier arch top guitar will not move as much air . . because the thickness or density of the wood keeps it relatively motionless. Far better for amplified playing. But, the weightiness of a heavier guitar doesn't always come from its top. Also, a thin top and back that are not adequately aged and dried will do more to absorb vibration than to deflect it into a movement of air. So, it's really hard to make those claims in the absolute. Originally Posted by GNAPPI
But, even with that said . . the ES175 guitar is designed for and meant to be played through an amplifier. So, I'm really very hard pressed to imagine how I'd be able to call any of them a dud or a dog. Different from others? Sure. But, what actually constitutes a dog . . as opposed to one that sounds pretty good and one that sounds great? Frankly, when played through a good Fender type tube amp . . I could live with just about any ES175 by modifying and tweaking its tonal response with the guitar and amp controls.
-
"Boy-o-boy . . . this is a matter so filled with subjectivity and uncertainty due to a lacking of confirming scientific data. "
Yeah that's a mouth full!
"But, even with that said . . the ES175 guitar is designed for and meant to be played through an amplifier. So, I'm really very hard pressed to imagine how I'd be able to call any of them a dud or a dog. Different from others? Sure. But, what actually constitutes a dog . . as opposed to one that sounds pretty good and one that sounds great? Frankly, when played through a good Fender type tube amp . . I could live with just about any ES175 by modifying and tweaking its tonal response with the guitar and amp controls"
Amen to that!
I think I'm in deep crappenzola (my Italian family technical term) now...
I think the "assumption" may be that much of the differences in weight is the top and back, and I doubt that the bulk is remotely attributable to these parts alone.
The different neck profiles, finger board density, sides, knobs, bracing, neck pocket, bridges (wood / TOM) tailpieces (two types I know of) as well as wood type used in construction... spruce, maple, walnut, and metal parts make up the bulk of the weight. 1 1/2 to 2 pounds difference in the top and back on any guitar of the same model?
If I were a betting man I'd be willing to bet that there is less than 1 - 4 ounces difference in the weights of the heaviest to the lightest guitar back or top.
IIRC these tops are machine laminated. Now I have never laminated a top, but I know a bit about machine design for assembly lines and I don't think any company goes around willy nilly arbitrarily changing the tooling on their assembly lines to make a top thicker one year and thinner the next and risk top breakage and warranty repairs due to a design that was previously proven? So, throw out the tool re-designs and we're left with wood, and glue... 2 pounds?
It's time to get the verniers out and measure the thickness of our 175 tops :-)
PS, my "laminated wallet" which is full of petroleum based products, and is 3 1/2 x 4 x 1 1/2" thick is 5 ounces! A couple of thou on a top? Nah!
-
A big part of the weight difference is in the top . . but, not all of it. What happens is, two sheets of maple are put together with a filler panel sandwiched in between them . . kinda like an Oreo. Then, it's wet a bit and goes into a heated press . . thus forming the arch in the top. The change from older 175s to some of the newer ones that were said to be (perceived to be) duds or dogs . . is that Gibson switched to a different, denser and heavier filler panel. It's also suspected that Gibson used different glue to make the laminate. There was no change in the tooling. The change was in the raw materials. In the most recent 175s coming out of Memphis, it's been reported that Gibson went back to exactly what they were doing back in the '60s. That's why the old school guys like the newer ones better. Some just don't want to pay the price it'll take to get one. Originally Posted by GNAPPI
Not a fan boy comment here . . but, that's one of the things that Hertiage lovers most appreciate about Heritage guitars. They are laminating their 535s, 550s, 525s . . exactly like it was done in the "good ol' days". One day, the Heritage bashers of the world will understand that. I recommended to the OP that he custom orders a 575 but with a laminate top . . parallelograms . . the 175 tail piece, jack in the rim and OSB finish. He'll then have the guitar of his dreams.
Reply With Quote
What's happening at the end of this song?
Today, 07:55 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading