Gibson ES-175 vs Gibson Tal Farlow

[Francesco Chieffo]

The idea that a TF could, in a certain way, sound like a Bach corale quickly eliminates every doubt. I must admit I didn't know the tone details I appreciated trying the TF could be largely due to the scale lenght. But if, as rio said, the comfort is only a matter of practice, the 25 1/2 scale doesn't scare me anymore.

Also I must say that, speaking about aesthetics, I prefer the TF shape and details by far, starting from the venetian cutaway.

[vinnyv1k]

Lenny Breau used to say : The longer the string the better the ring.

[Chazmo]

I have a 59 VOS ES-175 and an Epiphone Elitist Broadway, which is similar in specs to the Tal Farlow. Both are great guitars. The Epi sounds full and creamy, but when I am headed out to a gig I usually grab the VOS. I have a choice of either one, but in the real world it comes down to the VOS being lighter and just more comfortable.

Two things about the TF have always bugged me: the stupid curlicue on the bottom front bout which I guess is supposed to invoke the carved piece on old Gibson F-style mandolins; and the pickguard with all the hard edges.

[Dutchbopper]

I tend to assess Gibson guitars purely in terms of the price quality ratio that is offered by the guitar. I'm not fond of the current top models in that respect. But .... of the non vintage guitars the Gibson Tal Farlow offers the best value for money ever. You can get one for 3k (or slightly less even if you are lucky) and it sounds like a 6k guitar.

I played two Wesmo's last week (a 95 and a 97) and I really, really cannot say an L5 is a better or nicer guitar. Only different. The Farlow is that good. For half the money.

IMHO of course.

DB

[Stringswinger]

I have never owned a TF (I just do not like the cosmetics) and have never played one, so my opinion on the TF is worthless. But I have played a 59 ES-175 reissue. I have only played one (a small sample to be sure) and was seriously underwhelmed. The build quality was second-rate and the sound was thin. Buyer beware. And this warning comes from a Gibson fan-boy.

[Alter]

Scale length, 25.25" vs. 24.75", isn't really about comfort. It's about overall sound, like you suggest.

Charlie Hunter, in an interview, said something that stuck with me...I'm going to paraphrase, because I'll never remember it, but he said harmonies on a 24.75" instrument were more blendy, like the Everly Brothers singing harmony. With a 25.5" instrument, things are more seperated, you can hear the voices more infependently. Like a Bach chorale or something.

I 'd agree on that description, it's pretty accurate. However for me, the shorter scale doesn't just make things more comfortable to play, this comfort makes me able to play more complicated chord solos, faster single line playing, better octave runs, have strings that feel looser and easier to play, etc.. Even on the acouctic guitars the short scale is something that i prefer (and i think it's even more rare there than on archtops). I kind of see it in a similar fashion to string gauges and action setup. You can get used to anything with some practice, but each setup facilitates different aspects of your playing, so it boils down to personal choice..

[Max405]

My Tal measures 25-1/2 scale.
The 175 scale is 24-3/4. To me the difference is noticeable.
The Tal is a joy to play. The 175 is basically auto-pilot.

[Max405]

Francesco,
Like I said, you can't make a mistake with either. If you choose The Tal, it is a guitar of a lifetime.
Guitarra di una vita!
Good Luck to you.
Joe D