2005 Nashville Gibson ES-175

[Falling_leaves]

Hi,

I finally found an ES-175 in my country, that is within my budget (~ USD $2550).What is your opinion on this 2005 year model? It is not the current Memphis made or from custom shop.

[Bluedawg]

Looks like a nice guitar ... a 2005 175 should be a good guitar and that's a good price IMHO

Ideally you can play it before you buy it .... then you can know of it will work for you or if it has issues


Good Luck

[Jabberwocky]

You should plug it in. If you like how it sounds and how it plays, then it is a good guitar.

The ES-175 has been around for so long that there is a panoply of opinions on how a "good" ES-175 should sound. Rather than get into argy-bargy with anyone, try it for your own ears and hands.

Jonathan Kreisberg makes some great sounds with the much decried Norlin era ES-175. I would not dare trade opinions with Kreisberg and tell him he is playing a piece of tosh.

I hardly use the bridge pickup on my similar 2000 L-4CES so I lower it till it is flush with the pickup ring. It doesn't do anything except make it look neater.

[Gitterbug]

Nice looks! Maple or mahogany body? Late Nashville is probably safer than early Memphis. I had two 2006 lemons (loose bracing, cracked top) delivered before a decent - but not great - early 2007 sample. There was also a case of the cutaway's inner curve being sanded to one-ply thickness - easy to detect by placing a flashlight inside the guitar in a dark room.

[AlohaJoe]

I don't know where you are or what the market may be like there, but I'm with Jabber. If your hands and ears love the guitar and it's worth it to you, it's worth it. It looks clean but look it over well, repairs can be expensive. Maybe it's negotiable.

[3625]

I had a 2006 sunburst that looked identical to the one pictured - not sure where the 2006 models were made though.

Compared to earlier 175's, it had a very thick top and not much acoustic tone - less feedback but not particularly satisfying when playing unplugged (for an electric laminate archtop that is). So for an 'archtop' it felt to me, a little like a semi-hollow in some respects because of the anemic acoustic tone. Sounded great amplified, but not like earlier 175's - it had it's own thing.

Also the neck was extremely chunky - more than anything else I've played including other 175's. While some guys like chunky necks, this profile IMO could easily be a bit too much for other players.

It needed a set-up (I was the second owner, but it was still as left the factory) - the nut and everything else was woefully bad, but after I took it to a luthier I could set the action super low with no buzz, and the whole guitar played like butter.

Like Jabberwocky said, if possible try it out in person. I bought mine interstate (in Australia) thinking it would be pretty much the same as other 175's I'd played from the 80's/90's, but it was way different and not exactly what I wanted.

[Jabberwocky]

Nice looks! Maple or mahogany body? Late Nashville is probably safer than early Memphis. I had two 2006 lemons (loose bracing, cracked top) delivered before a decent - but not great - early 2007 sample. There was also a case of the cutaway's inner curve being sanded to one-ply thickness - easy to detect by placing a flashlight inside the guitar in a dark room.

It has long been suspected that Gibson ships lemons to Helsinki...

[Para]

They would be the dearest lemons you'd ever seen

[Archie]

In fear of voicing a slight note of caution (obviously a personal opinion though). I find Gibson to be at their best in the 90's and prior to that the 60's and prior (without falling in to the pitfall of the Norlin era debate, which has merits for sure).

I found the 2000 (decade) Gibson's I played (and somewhat across their range) to be a little hard edged in tone, and somewhat deader in tone.

I agree with 3625

But that aside, you still have to play it to make up your own mind.

[Patrick2]

"I finally found an ES175 in my country that is within my budget" . . . is the most important thing I've read in your post. Buy the damn thing and learn to live with it for what it is. Don't worry about which years are this or that . . flashlights in F holes . . nose boogers on the finger board or sweat and drool on the strings. It's a Gibson ES175D. It's what you are seeking. It's the only one you can find in your country within your budget. What are you waiting for . . someone else to beat you to the punch? If they're that scarce in your country . . and it turns out to be a turd . . you should have no problem getting all or most of your money back reselling it.

Buy it. Bring it into your home. Tweak it to your liking. Then, play the shit out of it for a couple of weeks. Only then will you know if you've got a keeper.

Aim the Sigsaur . . . pull the trigger . . fire . . . buy the guitar. Blink your eyes and you'll loose out on it

[Archie]

"I finally found an ES175 in my country that is within my budget" . . . is the most important thing I've read in your post. Buy the damn thing and learn to live with it for what it is. Don't worry about which years are this or that . . flashlights in F holes . . nose boogers on the finger board or sweat and drool on the strings. It's a Gibson ES175D. It's what you are seeking. It's the only one you can find in your country within your budget. What are you waiting for . . someone else to beat you to the punch? If they're that scarce in your country . . and it turns out to be a turd . . you should have no problem getting all or most of your money back reselling it.

Buy it. Bring it into your home. Tweak it to your liking. Then, play the shit out of it for a couple of weeks. Only then will you know if you've got a keeper.

Aim the Sigsaur . . . pull the trigger . . fire . . . buy the guitar. Blink your eyes and you'll loose out on it

Good advice.

Sometimes buying guitars at great prices is nothing more than a free trial with a little bit of work needed for it (i.e. selling it if you dont like it).

[John Link]

I have a 2006, and I love it. It's very heavy for an archtop and yes the top is thick, but no thicker than my friends late fifties something model. The pickups are a little mis-aligned but that does not affect the sound. I traded a Benedetto Bravo for it am I do not regret the trade. It's a wonderful instrument and it has a great jazz vibe.

[3625]

In fear of voicing a slight note of caution (obviously a personal opinion though). I find Gibson to be at their best in the 90's and prior to that the 60's and prior (without falling in to the pitfall of the Norlin era debate, which has merits for sure).

I found the 2000 (decade) Gibson's I played (and somewhat across their range) to be a little hard edged in tone, and somewhat deader in tone.

I agree with 3625

But that aside, you still have to play it to make up your own mind.

Yeah 90's Gibson's IME have been particularly good - I'm not really that much of a semi-hollow guy but my student has this '96 Cherry Red 335 with just the right amount of understated flame that is absolutely incredible. Everyone who's seen it loves it + I've played Farlow's, 175's etc. from then as well. I probably would risk buying another Gibson sight unseen if it was a 90's model that was in excellent condition. Probably a Farlow.

In fact I'd prefer a 90's to a really old vintage guitar. With laminates I think there's a point where they are past their prime.

[Archie]

Yeah 90's Gibson's IME have been particularly good - I'm not really that much of a semi-hollow guy but my student has this '96 Cherry Red 335 with just the right amount of understated flame that is absolutely incredible. Everyone who's seen it loves it + I've played Farlow's, 175's etc. from then as well. I probably would risk buying another Gibson sight unseen if it was a 90's model that was in excellent condition. Probably a Farlow.

In fact I'd prefer a 90's to a really old vintage guitar. With laminates I think there's a point where they are past their prime.

I owned a 96 Tal Farlow, it was the best I had ever played. I also owned a 2011 and it was a complete dog but that doesn't mean they all are and of course thats my personal opinion.

I've also had a 91 Byrdland, a 97 ES350T, a 1996 es-175 and a 1997 L5CES.

I discovered that best kept secret some time ago ;-)

I'm gonna make up a stupid statement here but it seems the 90's laminates were lighter or more open producing a warmer tone airier tone but again I haven't played all the Gibson's after that period, so take my comment as a stupid one just in case.

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=ArchtopHeaven;526332]

I owned a 96 Tal Farlow, it was the best I had ever played. I also owned a 2011 and it was a complete dog.I also played 3 other 2000's Tal's and didn't care for a single one.

I'm sure that'll be comforting to hear, for anyone here who might own a Gibson Tal from this era who love their guitars. I guess you feel they are complete fools for doing so.?.?

You've got to be the most unlucky Gibson customer I've ever come across. There are myriad owners of Gibson guitars from the 2000s forward, who are completely satisfied with their instruments. Maybe it's not a matter of being unlucky? Maybe it's just inaccurate assessment on your part? Or, maybe your personal taste in guitars doesn't lend itself to the Gibson brand? Maybe the good/great ones you've owned were complete anomalies and happened to be made to be great guitars purely by mistake?

I personally find it to be very absurd to continue to trash a complete decade of a major builder of hand crafted instruments. I find it equally absure to presume that all Gibson arch tops made during the 90's era were free of some of the many issues you claim to have experienced with those of the 2,000s era.

I've also had a 91 Byrdland, a 97 ES350T, a 1996 es-175 and a 1997 L5CES.

I discovered that best kept secret some time ago ;-)

If these were good or great guitars, it's probably a mistake that they were ever released by Gibson's QC department. Surely they could have found a way to booger them up before shipping them abroad.

I'm gonna make up a stupid statement here

Well . . there's certainly something to be said for consistency.

but it seems the 90's laminates were lighter or more open producing a warmer tone airier tone.

Like any other era . . some were . . some were not.

It might serve you well to consider that some here actually have Gibson arch tops from the era you insist upon defining as "dogs" . . . . and that your broad stroke generalizations of Gibson's products from that era all suck, might be perceived as insulting to their intelligence for owning them.

[Stringswinger]

My experience with Gibson guitars (and they have no bigger fan than me, my heroes played Gibson guitars and I have owned one or more Gibson guitars since 1973 (I have been playing since 1968) is this (I have owned and played hundreds of Gibson guitars and 6 of my 20 guitars say Gibson on the headstock):

Gibson makes some great guitars and if you purchase one of their iconic models used (like the ES-175), it is as good or better then having the purchase price money in the bank.

The ES-175 may be the best gigging jazz guitar ever made (It is what I mostly use on my gigs).

Gibson Guitars from pre 1965 and the 90's ARE generally the best, though there are great examples from all of the other years as well. Norlin era guitars may have some undesirable attributes (for me the volutes on the Norlin era archtops suck, I do not mind the chrome plating or the changed neck angle). I have found that Gibsons from 2000 to the present can be heavy (much like guitars from the Norlin era). As tonewoods disappear, I suspect the price of the lighter woods may be rising to the point where Fender and Gibson will only use the lighter woods on their most expensive Custom Shop guitars.

I had a mid 2000's ES-175 and I have a bandmate who has a 2006 ES-175. The neck is too big for my taste and I am underwhelmed by the skill of the painters on these guitars. That said, tonewise they sound great.

To Falling-Leaves I say buy the guitar! It may be the perfect guitar for you, and I hope that it is.

To Patrick I say lighten up on ArchtopHeaven. He has strong opinions and being that he and I agree on much, I think he is entitled to his opinions, even when he and I disagree.

To Archtopheaven I say lighten up on Gibson and the 175!

Cheers to all,

Marc
www.hotclubpacific.com

[Archie]

My experience with Gibson guitars (and they have no bigger fan than me, my heroes played Gibson guitars and I have owned one or more Gibson guitars since 1973 (I have been playing since 1968) is this (I have owned and played hundreds of Gibson guitars and 6 of my 20 guitars say Gibson on the headstock):

Gibson makes some great guitars and if you purchase one of their iconic models used (like the ES-175), it is as good or better then having the purchase price money in the bank.

The ES-175 may be the best gigging jazz guitar ever made (It is what I mostly use on my gigs).

Gibson Guitars from pre 1965 and the 90's ARE generally the best, though there are great examples from all of the other years as well. Norlin era guitars may have some undesirable attributes (for me the volutes on the Norlin era archtops suck, I do not mind the chrome plating or the changed neck angle). I have found that Gibsons from 2000 to the present can be heavy (much like guitars from the Norlin era). As tonewoods disappear, I suspect the price of the lighter woods may be rising to the point where Fender and Gibson will only use the lighter woods on their most expensive Custom Shop guitars.

I had a mid 2000's ES-175 and I have a bandmate who has a 2006 ES-175. The neck is too big for my taste and I am underwhelmed by the skill of the painters on these guitars. That said, tonewise they sound great.

To Falling-Leaves I say buy the guitar! It may be the perfect guitar for you, and I hope that it is.

To Patrick I say lighten up on ArchtopHeaven. He has strong opinions and being that he and I agree on much, I think he is entitled to his opinions, even when he and I disagree.

To Archtopheaven I say lighten up on Gibson and the 175!

Cheers to all,

Marc
www.hotclubpacific.com

I appreciate your comments and I also wanted to add (but this is more aimed at patrick, my arch nemeses, who'm I have come to love)

I think one has to realise that I haven't played every single Gibson ever made and therefore can only talk about the ones I have. If I and others have noted a certain trend, so be it. I even said myself that my statement is stupid!

There is no Gibson bashing here or Es-175 bashing, Patrick seems to have overlooked the part were i listed all the Gibson's I have owned that I did love.
Even you yourself String kinda fooled for that one too because you overlooked the 96 Es-175 in that list of Gibson's I thought were really good. So I don't 'have it in' for the 175, lets not go back there, even I'm sick of that. I do appreciate very much your comment though.

60% of communication is non verbal and it seems because of that proportionality is the first thing to get misjudged imo. of course blame for that must be laid at my door as well.

Just checked out your site btw (there isn't a two thumbed emoji)

[Patrick2]

My experience with Gibson guitars (and they have no bigger fan than me, my heroes played Gibson guitars and I have owned one or more Gibson guitars since 1973 (I have been playing since 1968) is this (I have owned and played hundreds of Gibson guitars and 6 of my 20 guitars say Gibson on the headstock):

Gibson makes some great guitars and if you purchase one of their iconic models used (like the ES-175), it is as good or better then having the purchase price money in the bank.

The ES-175 may be the best gigging jazz guitar ever made (It is what I mostly use on my gigs).

Gibson Guitars from pre 1965 and the 90's ARE generally the best, though there are great examples from all of the other years as well. Norlin era guitars may have some undesirable attributes (for me the volutes on the Norlin era archtops suck, I do not mind the chrome plating or the changed neck angle). I have found that Gibsons from 2000 to the present can be heavy (much like guitars from the Norlin era). As tonewoods disappear, I suspect the price of the lighter woods may be rising to the point where Fender and Gibson will only use the lighter woods on their most expensive Custom Shop guitars.

I had a mid 2000's ES-175 and I have a bandmate who has a 2006 ES-175. The neck is too big for my taste and I am underwhelmed by the skill of the painters on these guitars. That said, tonewise they sound great.

To Falling-Leaves I say buy the guitar! It may be the perfect guitar for you, and I hope that it is.

To Patrick I say lighten up on ArchtopHeaven. He has strong opinions and being that he and I agree on much, I think he is entitled to his opinions, even when he and I disagree.

To Archtopheaven I say lighten up on Gibson and the 175!

Cheers to all,

Marc
www.hotclubpacific.com

Cool post Marc. I agree with just about all that you've said. I think the weight issue as well as the tonal issue for *some* of the 175s may have to do with a change in the glue type and process of laminating the tops. (research sheet glue as opposed to liquid glue). Even further to that, there was also some discussion on how Gibson might have been using a *substance* other than maple, actually other than wood, for the inner layer of the laminate. However, even with that being said, there were some pretty darn good 175s built during those questionable years. Many are still in existence and still making wonderful music.

I also found some of your post to be entertaining. Particularly the paragraph I highlighted. So, if I may steal a thought from your entertaining post, by also offering an intendedly entertaining thought of my own;

To Stringswinger I say lighten up on Patrick and ArchtopHeaven. You have no idea how much pleasure they each derive from breaking one and other's other's balls during discussions on Gibson. ;-)

[Patrick2]

I appreciate your comments and I also wanted to add (but this is more aimed at patrick, my arch nemeses, who'm I have come to love)

I think one has to use their intelligence to know that I haven't played every single Gibson ever made and therefore can only talk about the ones I have. If I and others have noted a certain trend, so be it. I even said myself that my statement is stupid!

There is no Gibson bashing here or Es-175 bashing, Patrick seems to have overlooked the part were i listed all the Gibson's I have owned that I did love.
Even you yourself String kinda fooled for that one too because you overlooked the 96 Es-175 in that list of Gibson's I thought were really good. So I don't 'have it in' for the 175, lets not go back there, even I'm sick of that. I do appreciate very much your comment though.

60% of communication is non verbal and it seems because of that proportionality is the first thing to get misjudged imo. of course blame for that must be laid at my door as well.

Luv u 2 buddy! But no back peddling, please. If you say it . . own it. To continue on with the joyful banter . . . the one who needs to use their intelligence in knowing they haven't played every single Gibson ever made . . is you. Because, you opine as though you have. My objection to some of what you post is the generalization. Your posts sometimes . . . most of the time . . generalize on a complete model or era of manufacture. Even the most biased of people have to realize that it's utterly impossible for every 175 built in the '90s to be better than every 175 built in the 2,000s . . . or even visa-versa. And to repeat what I said in my prior post, please consider that when you openly catagorize a particular model, or era as being bad . . to the people here who might own some of those guitars and reading that nonsense . . it's probably not a cool thing.

[jzucker]

i think the year is fine but unfortunately, you can't generalize. I would say that only 10% of the dozens of Gibson 175s I've played from the last 40 years are great. 50% could be characterized as good and unfortunately, that leaves 50% as not good.

[Patrick2]

i think the year is fine but unfortunately, you can't generalize. I would say that only 10% of the dozens of Gibson 175s I've played from the last 40 years are great. 50% could be characterized as good and unfortunately, that leaves 50% as not good.

Mr. Zucker . . you guitar skills and photography skills are unquestionable. Your math?? Well . . . . . ;-)

[Archie]

Luv u 2 buddy! But no back peddling, please. If you say it . . own it. To continue on with the joyful banter . . . the one who needs to use their intelligence in knowing they haven't played every single Gibson ever made . . is you. Because, you opine as though you have. My objection to some of what you post is the generalization. Your posts sometimes . . . most of the time . . generalize on a complete model or era of manufacture. Even the most biased of people have to realize that it's utterly impossible for every 175 built in the '90s to be better than every 175 built in the 2,000s . . . or even visa-versa. And to repeat what I said in my prior post, please consider that when you openly catagorize a particular model, or era as being bad . . to the people here who might own some of those guitars and reading that nonsense . . it's probably not a cool thing.

Damn it! I actually removed the 'intelligence' bit because I thought it was too strong and bordering on middy offensive. I changed it to 'realise' but you were too quick on the reply :-(

I agree with you. I cant vouch for every Gibson and nor should I but I did find it interesting that others have expressed an opinion I had secretly been hoarding myself, although not conclusive by any means.

Can we just all blame Falling leaves for finding one and leave it at that and then 3625 for having an opinion I happened to agree with?

[Patrick2]

Damn it! I actually removed the 'intelligence' bit because I thought it was too strong and bordering on middy offensive. I changed it to 'realise' but you were too quick on the reply :-(

I agree with you. I cant vouch for every Gibson and nor should I but I did find it interesting that others have expressed an opinion I had secretly been hoarding myself, although not conclusive by any means.

Can we just all blame Falling leaves for finding one and leave it at that and then 3625 for having an opinion I happened to agree with?

Falling_leaves seems to be hesitant on this 175 he's found. I think he's making a mistake if he doesn't buy it. Even if it's not a great one, it really can't suck to the extent that he can't enjoy practicing, studying and playing it. That's mainly the reason I was concerned about your comments. You might be scaring a guy away from buying a guitar that he is lusting for, by the generalizations of certain era Gibson archies. They aren't all great. But, they aren't all "dogs" either.

When one has reached the level of being a fully accomplished jazz guitarist (if that's even possiblr for most of us mere mortals) . . to the point where the only thing they can further refine is their tone . . then at that point being extremely particular and fussy about getting a perfect example of a particular model might be appropriate. But, I get a sense that Falling_leaves isn't quite at that level yet. I'd bet the barn that this 175 will serve him well and he'll love it.

Yeah . . . let's blame 3625 for agreeing with you. He's a nice guy and I'm sure he won't be offended. In fact, let's question the sanity of anyone who might agree with you.

Opinions are fine . . as long as they are stated as such. I always get my balls twisted when opinion is expressed as irrefutable fact. But, that's probably more my problem than it is anyone else's.

[Archie]

Falling_leaves seems to be hesitant on this 175 he's found. I think he's making a mistake if he doesn't buy it. Even if it's not a great one, it really can't suck to the extent that he can't enjoy practicing, studying and playing it. That's mainly the reason I was concerned about your comments. You might be scaring a guy away from buying a guitar that he is lusting for, by the generalizations of certain era Gibson archies. They aren't all great. But, they aren't all "dogs" either.

When one has reached the level of being a fully accomplished jazz guitarist (if that's even possiblr for most of us mere mortals) . . to the point where the only thing they can further refine is their tone . . then at that point being extremely particular and fussy about getting a perfect example of a particular model might be appropriate. But, I get a sense that Falling_leaves isn't quite at that level yet. I'd bet the barn that this 175 will serve him well and he'll love it.

Yeah . . . let's blame 3625 for agreeing with you. He's a nice guy and I'm sure he won't be offended. In fact, let's question the sanity of anyone who might agree with you.

Opinions are fine . . as long as they are stated as such. I always get my balls twisted when opinion is expressed as irrefutable fact. But, that's probably more my problem than it is anyone else's.

Ok let me change or caveat my original post.

5 seconds later, ok now see if that reads better.

[Stringswinger]

Archie and Patrick...it is nice to see you guys getting along...while presumably Jack is brushing up on his arithmetic.