My thoughts on the Gibson L-5 CES vs Gibson ES-175

[jzucker]

So, recently I bought and returned a couple Gibson L5s. One was a '78, the other was a 2001. Both of them had some issues. The '78 arrived with sitar like neck adjustment and had had some wood patches in the neck so I didn't even evaluate it but the 2001 I played for a few hours. It had a nice setup with Thomastik .012 flats which is what I use.

The overall tone was good. Sounded like an L5. Played good although this particular instrument had a tail rise in the fingerboard and you could see where the frets had been taken down quite a bit from the 15th to the 20th in order less the impact of that. The real fix is to pull the frets, plane that part of the board and refret. Unfortunately, on a gibson, the frets are "tanged" which means the binding goes over the frets. It makes it difficult to refret it back to "original" specs. Most people just pull the frets and plane the board including the binding, then refret over top of the binding. The store (sam ash) offered to discount the instrument further to allow for that but having paid $6300, i felt it should have been right from the start but there was something more...

Comparing it to my '89 Gibson 175 and a Heritage Eagle, I felt it didn't "pull away" from those 2 guitars in any significant way. The tone and playability of my 175 is superior. (This would have likely changed with a fingerboard planing and refret) I felt the tone of the L5 was a bit on the mushy side, perhaps better slated for rhythm guitar and more of a '50s style of jazz guitar. Since my playing is very aggressive and notey I felt that the L5 didn't necessarily speak well for my playing. Comparing it to the heritage eagle, it was a wash. Neither guitar jumped out as being a better instrument. For all practical purposes, they sounded identical. Given that you can get a Heritage Eagle Classic for under $2500 used, it's a no brainer to me.

So, for me personally I've put the rest the notion of owning an L5 or feeling slighted because I previously owned and sold a '64 and '75 L5. I'm confident a Heritage Eagle can do the job for about 1/3 the price.

In terms of overall jazz tone, I think the 175 is still the king of jazz guitar. It's got an extremely pleasing tone, very easy to play, very comfortable, and doesn't feed back much. It'll still be my #1 guitar but I'm glad about the eagle because it does sound great for playing octaves and Wes-inspired material.

You can always pack it with cotton and put super heavy strings on it to get the old Pat Martino tone too but I don't think I'll do that.

[Ric Lee]

Regardless of how political things get around here I appreciate having access to reviews of someone who's experienced and expresses their opinions regardless of how it will be received! I'm also glad you've somewhat settled on an 1989 Gibson 175 from evaluation. That may mean I won't have to gather 30 gallons of virgin blood to sacrifice in order to afford a vintage archtop(easier to convince the wife on 15 gallons). I've always found the 175's easier to play than the L5's size wise(I'm 5/6 if I stand up straight!).

p.s. I've always really liked Pat's tone on the first album. Mattress factory L5 or not.

[Max405]

I like both. I recently sold my 175 but I still have a 165 and I love it. My L5 is jazz guitar utopia, too me. Everyone has there own opinion. If you have a 175, that you think is the greatest, then you are very lucky.

[jzucker]

Regardless of how political things get around here I appreciate having access to reviews of someone who's experienced and expresses their opinions regardless of how it will be received! I'm also glad you've somewhat settled on an 1989 Gibson 175 from evaluation. That may mean I won't have to gather 30 gallons of virgin blood to sacrifice in order to afford a vintage archtop(easier to convince the wife on 15 gallons). I've always found the 175's easier to play than the L5's size wise(I'm 5/6 if I stand up straight!).

p.s. I've always really liked Pat's tone on the first album. Mattress factory L5 or not.

Those late '80s 175s are reasonably priced too.

[jzucker]

I like both. I recently sold my 175 but I still have a 165 and I love it. My L5 is jazz guitar utopia, too me. Everyone has there own opinion. If you have a 175, that you think is the greatest, then you are very lucky.

like I said, a lot depends on your style. For my style, the 175 works way better than the L5. (For me...)

[jzucker]

and the 175 with it's shorter scale, lower string tension and smaller size is just easier to get around on. For some things like accompanying a singer, I like the Heritage Eagle / Gibson L5. I just picked up an ibanez GB10. They are even easier to play and get around on than a 175 so we'll see if that pushes the 175 out of the daily rotation...

When it came down to it, I just didn't feel the L5 was $4500 better than my 175. And again, it's not worth $4500 more than a Heritage Eagle which after playing them back to back I can assure you nobody could pick out in a blindfold test and I actually prefer the neck on the heritage.

[Dutchbopper]

Great review from a highly credible source, away from popular (and mythical) belief but therefore very valuable. I am a laminate Gibson man myself and I can see where Jack is coming from. I always thouhjt Jack and the L5 would be a perfect match but ... apparently not so.

Glad you vaporize the myth of Norlin 175s too. As you know I own a 1982 ES 175 with the same specs as your 1989 one (mahogany back and sides) and it is a great guitar. Way better than the post 1990 ones I played. The mahogany ES 175s from the 80s are great guitars.

I am going to do a comparison with the L5 myself too within a few weeks. A friend of mine has one that I can borrow. I think I'll compare the 175, the 350t and the Tal Farlow with the L5.

By the way, I just returned from a jam session. Today I used my Tal Farlow and a guitarist that has (now) seen me play all my guitars at that particular jam stated the Tal was easily the best sounding one.

Mmmmm ..... It DID sound great. It seems to have more penetrating power than my other guitars. I usually do not take it to jams but I really should. Especially on rowdy ones, like today's ...

Regards,

DB

[Stringswinger]

I had a 1982 ES-175 with Maple back and sides and a mahogany neck (no volute). It was a 3 tone sunburst and was every bit as good as the 1970 orange label ES-175 that I sold years earlier (Which had the same specs but had a wooden bridge saddle and a cherry sunburst finish...both had plastic tuner keys, but the 1970 had double rings and the 1982 had single rings). Those are both guitars that I wish I had never sold.

1982 was a transitional year for 175's in many ways.

I have had 3 Norlin ES-175s. All three were great guitars and were WAY better than my late 60's 175 or my mid 2000's 175.

They are all different, but one thing I will say for sure. A good 175 is about as good a guitar for playing jazz as there is.

Guys who do not like them either don't know what they are talking about or have never played a good one.

[GregErnstMusic]

Well, I suppose I should get my two-bits worth in here.

Since 1966, I dreamed of owning a ES 175 (the birth of that desire is a story unto itself). In 1971,I bought my 1st ES 175, an early 50's model. It was played out. Then in "74, I acquired the the most beautiful ES 175 ever. The acquisition is a mythical story unto itself. That was 40+ years ago.

My ES 175 is a 1961, serial #10117, with a very narrow (43mm) mahogany neck. It was originally a single PAF but a 2nd PAF was added before I acquired it. Since the guitar was already modified, I changed all the hardware to gold. I have played the hell out of this instrument and only 1 scratch is on it. The only other person who has ever played my guitar was a guy named Howard Roberts who commented "Wow man, nice guitar!" I am an agreeable guy!

Oh yea... I paid $265 for it.

I have owned and played a number of ES 175's since, but none compare to this one. So much music and life experiences we've had together! I guess I just got lucky.

[floatingpickup]

I have played ES-175's most of my life, buying my first one in 1969 (I still have it). I have also owned a number of L5's over the years. Currently, I have have both and I tend to go back and forth between them, depending on the situation. Both are wonderful guitars in their own right. I have been playing my L5's a lot lately but when I think back over the last 40+ years of playing gigs, I have logged more hours on my ES-175's than any other guitars. A 175 is a solid reliable guitar that always sounds amazing. The 16" body and shorter scale are extremely comfortable. The laminated construction reduces feedback and it stands up to changes in humidity, temperature, etc. better than solid wood. You can't go wrong with a really nice ES-175 and if I could only have one guitar, that is probably what I would choose. If you can swing it, it's really nice to have both. The 175 is a workhorse and the L5 is a thing of beauty that is really nice to pull out for a really special gig.
Keith

[Bluedawg]

I love both the 175 and the L5

Tough decision as to which is better ... I lean towards the L5 ....

but I'm more of a hobby player than a pro ...

although I have made a little money in the last few years playing guitar and bass with local jazz groups


I understand why the extra expense is not worth it to some folks for the L5 ... especially with heritage as an option

[vintagelove]

I would say they are both kings of their own jungles.

L5 - More acoustic tone
175 - THE dark jazz tone

Pick the right tool for the job.



It's like arguing which is a better microphone u47 vs c12. They both recorded a million hits, and sound amazing. Not better, just different.

[Archie]

I love both the 175 and the L5

Tough decision as to which is better ... I lean towards the L5 ....

but I'm more of a hobby player than a pro ...

although I have made a little money in the last few years playing guitar and bass with local jazz groups


I understand why the extra expense is not worth it to some folks for the L5 ... especially with heritage as an option

It doesn't matter if you are a pro or not. This idea that pros go for the ES-175 over the L5 is nonsense.

Benson and Birelli both the top players of their generation play L5's.

Most of the 'pros' who played a 175 one went on to something else, that I can only assume they were more happy with.

Some people like Es-175's, some people like L5's. I personally think that a longer scale is better for solo lines and not the duller deader flatter muffled response of many 175's. Apparently the most virtuoso players seem to agree.

Whats even more redundant is the idea that unless you can buy an Es-175 for $1600 your getting real value for money in the wider market. So to sum it up, as stated by some "The ES-175 is the greatest jazz guitar ever' yet is over priced, rarely used by pros since the 60's, the tone is also the most hated and loved. To top it off the person who claims they are the best, the loudest, had to go through 6 to get one he was happy with.

That doesn't qualify it to be the best of anything.

It was common because it was cheap. It was common because it was one of the first real gigging archtops. Its popular today because of all the players that we worship had one. They are good, some great but not the best. If they were everyone would play one and I dont see many players with one these days.

Hype VS Reality.

(The reality is the reason you can get one for $1600 when they are more than 2x's that new and here in the UK you can buy one for £1500 when they are £3500 only goes to show how little demand there is for them. Most Gibson lose about 1/3' in value, Es-175's have gone over 50%).

[jzucker]

It doesn't matter if you are a pro or not. This idea that pros go for the ES-175 over the L5 is nonsense.

Benson and Birelli both the top players of their generation play L5's.

Most of the 'pros' who played a 175 one went on to something else, that I can only assume they were more happy with.

Some people like Es-175's, some people like L5's. I personally think that a longer scale is better for solo lines and not the duller deader flatter muffled response of many 175's. Apparently the most virtuoso players seem to agree.

Benson does not play an L5, never has to my knowledge. Your statement about virtuoso players is just not true. Metheny, Joe Pass , Joe Diorio would certainly bring a degree of question to your statement. I have hung out with Pass and Metheny. The reason they moved onto ibanez is that gibson does not typically offer paid endorsements to jazz musicians. Benson plays and records primarily with 24.75" scale instruments though not a 175 of course.

[Groyniad]

the amazing thing about the 175 is that - even if you restrict yourself to the classic recordings by the great players - its hard to say that a 175-tone emerges. joe pass playing his in the early recordings sounds nothing whatever like jim hall on his 175, and neither sound anything like herb ellis or (early) peter bernstein.

perhaps there is a 175 sound that emerges from mediocre amateur jazz gigs (a tone that trades in clarity for warmth) - but that's a very different type of thing.

[rpguitar]

Both are great, iconic guitars, with neither being intrinsically "better." You need a good individual one of each to even begin comparing.

Both sound terrific in a good player's hands, and sound like poop in a hack's hands. The L-5CES is fancier and, as a result, inherently more costly to buy and sell (and hence a tad rarer). The L-5CES is King while the ES-175 is Prime Minister. Both are important statesmen representing your country; count on the PM to work a bit harder, talk more, and get results for the common man. Bring out the King to impress people with lavish ceremony. (Although in this case he's a King with substance - not just a shallow figure head ). Both of them are valuable enough to have a dedicated security detail covering their movements.

I own a '63 175 and a '99 L-5CES. (I have three other acoustic L-5s, but they are not really part of this comparison.) Due to the age of the 175, it's very acoustic and exceptionally lightweight at under 6 lbs. The CES approaches 8 lbs. I prefer to be seen with the L-5, but the 175 is easier to grab and less fussy. The physical attributes of each model - bout size, rim depth, scale length, neck profile, etc. - should be a big part of the decision. Players care about that stuff much more than the color of hardware, wood figure, or other aesthetics.

My favorite right now is the 175. Last month it was the CES. Don't ask me to choose right now. When I have to send my 3 kids to college (coming up soon!), I'll make choices - which may or may not include either of these two guitars.

[Franz 1997]

Read Adrian Ingram's book on the ES 175 to get a perspective on the importance of that guitar. And who played them.
DB

Adrian's book is an interesting read, and as you say does give a great perspective on why the 175 has been the 'working pro's jazz guitar' for so many years. But strangely, the book doesn't mention several aspects of 175 evolution over the years that players would be most concerned about; neck shapes, top plywood thickness, cutaway shapes, nut widths, mahogany bodies, and change to TOM bridges, to mention a few. He tends to focus more on the cosmetic aspects of the guitar, 175 variants, as well as writing a good section on 175 players.

Adrian also does a good job of giving the impression that the Norlin years 175s were uniformly bad, whereas some experienced members here might disagree. He's a great player, and now a telecaster player, but I'm not sure he's ever used a 175 - I could be wrong, of course. Anyway, it's a good read, although not a comprehensive account of 175 evolution IMO.

[nick1994]

I heard somewhere that benson owns an L5 that belonged to wes, I don't if that's true though. And I thought Pat stopped touring with the 175 because it was getting beat up pretty bad.

[jzucker]

I heard somewhere that benson owns an L5 that belonged to wes, I don't if that's true though. And I thought Pat stopped touring with the 175 because it was getting beat up pretty bad.

Benson auctioned that guitar off on ebay a few years back. Metheny took his guitar to linda manzer who told him that the guitar wouldn't survive another refret so he's no longer touring with it. The ibanez he uses is designed to mimic the 175 he loved.

[Archie]

Benson still plays L5 types (Johnny Smiths) in the studio. He used to play a sup 400 for a while as well.

@JZ

I sincerely believe if you spent the time reading what I actually say, instead of what you think I say, then you wouldn't make half the comments you do. Literally 90% of your remarks towards me aren't even based on what I have said.

Perhaps the term 'critiquing' would be better than bashing. All I'm doing is pointing out where I think it falls down.

My reality, is that it is you, who is driving this debate after I made some comments about the ES175 you started showing up and throwing abuse around, making all these threads to prove a point, expecting me not to challenge them in return.

Takes two to tango ;-)

Now apart from calling me archtop hell which is probably the most churlish comment I have read thus far on this forum, lets leave it at that.

You stop talking about me, I'll stop showing up to stand my ground.

Now as far as I'm concerned its nothing personal (well not to me anyway) even after the name calling. You're still a credit to the wider jazz community with your playing and information sharing. I will continue to enjoy that. However its obvious that we have very different tastes, ears and versions of reality. Neither is right as long as we both make good music and enjoy the sound we achieve. Some people will agree with you, some with me and some a bit of both.

This place is an information exchange. The wider the variety and difference in opinions only serves the up coming players. The ES-175 rarely gets challanged and I'm happy to do so. Thats probably half the shock lol

[callouscallus]

Did Jim hall use a 175 on "live"? I absolutely love that album. not sure what he was using at that time. jonathon Kriesberg is one of the best guitarists young or old on the scene, his 175 tone is amazing. Love the l5 tone, but not sure what consideration needs to be done , two great classic jazz tones. Certainly different, certainly great in the right hands.

[Flat]

I'll just say that that '89 ES-175 kills it! Classic, iconic tone with just the right amount of thump. One of the best ES-175s I've ever heard!

Mahogany, eh? Hmmm...

[fumblefingers]

Did Jim hall use a 175 on "live"? I absolutely love that album. not sure what he was using at that time. jonathon Kriesberg is one of the best guitarists young or old on the scene, his 175 tone is amazing. Love the l5 tone, but not sure what consideration needs to be done , two great classic jazz tones. Certainly different, certainly great in the right hands.

i believe it was the D'Aquisto

[kris]

I"ve chequed two es-175 in the music shop one week ago. They sounded very similar in my hands.May be I have that sound in my fingers and in my head. Somebody tried them also and they sound completly different-not like Gibson es-175. I think jazz musician with expierience can sound very similar on every es-175. but it is imposible to cheque every Gibson es-175...:-) There are a lot .I think. I used es-175 in earyly 80s-fantasic jazz guitar that every guitarist have to try.

[jzucker]

i believe it was the D'Aquisto

no, that was a 175
[edit] - i was wrong. It was indeed the d'aquisto
I think it was alone-together that was the 175

P.S.

Interesting to compare that guitar to the sadowsky jim hall. It seems to me that the sadowsky is much brighter?