-
Hi, first post - forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere.
I always wanted a single PU ES175 but could never afford one. In 1995 I bought a new ES165 with 490R humbucker which has been a great guitar except that I didn't like the gold plate, the sound of the 490R or the cheap copy of the original zig zag tailpiece which is reputedly prone to breakage. I swapped the 490R for a 57 humbucker to get the authentic dark 175 sound. Recently I managed to change the substandard tailpiece to a genuine Gibson nickel plated zig zag one and this has actually improved the acoustic sound of the guitar. Maybe the solid brass construction is responsible for this - I don't know.
When the 1959 ES175 VOS came out I thought that at last Gibson have produced the guitar I always wanted and had it been affordable I would have traded in my 165 for one. However, on this forum and elsewhere I read very conflicting views as to whether the quality of the reissues is really worth the money and looking harder at the spec of the two models I wonder if there is any significant difference in construction. The early ES165s have the maple/poplar/maple laminate and the clubbier neck like the VOS. Following my changes the pickup and talipiece are now the same as the reissue and for a small outlay the rest of the hardware could be converted to nickel - the Grover keystone tuners are actually rather better than Klusons.
Am I missing something or is there something other than the headstock logo which would set these guitars apart? It seems that Gibson have discontinued the single PU version this year so the opportunity for buying a new one is fading fast. There is nowhere near where I live that would have one in stock anyway so this is all rather academic. Any comments much appreciated.
-
06-20-2015 02:45 PM
-
I did just same swap a year ago.
My ES165 was a floater and I wanted a guitar with real size PAF style pu.
Those guitars are totally different instruments. The Reissue is light and vibrant while my ES165 was heavier and 'deader'. Many standard ES175's I have played since have sounded a bit similar.
I tried for a long time to get a 'classic' ES175 sound from my Reissue but realised just a while ago that it is more 'archaic' and 'raw' kind of a archtop than those 'civilized' ES175's. Or ES165's.
I stopped to think about Joe Pass and started to think more about Charlie Christian. Changed the pickup to VVG CC Rider and begun to enjoy that woody sound!
So I did not get what I originally thought but now I am more than satisfied.
-
This post made me play my 165.
I bought it because I loved the loved the looks of it. At the time, I kept it because it was cheaper than my 175 and I needed the money for another purchase. Now I am glad I kept it, because it is similar in everyway to my 175, except for that unused Bridge Pickup. Great Guitar. Not as lively as the 175 my dad owned years ago, but just as commanding in your hands, gives off the same quintessential sound and it is so damn fun to play!
You know, we all go searching for the perfect guitar. Some of the lucky ones find it and they are done. Some of the fortunate ones get to test out a lot of them and realize, they are chasing something that was right in there hands multiple times. A wise man on this site said, find one and make it work for you. They are all capable of that. Enjoy your guitar. We are very Fortunate.
-
Herbie/Joe, thanks for your very interesting replies. I am fascinated to hear that the 165 and the VOS reissue sound completely different. As I said, I don't have the good fortune of being able to make that comparison myself at the moment. The nearest single pu VOS 175 I can find is somewhere in Germany and I am in the UK and unable to justify a journey to try it. Anyway, I love the unamplified sound of my 165 especially following the tailpiece swap, even with an ancient set of D'addario 11 flatwounds on it is a pleasure to play. The tone is balanced, clear and musical throughout the entire range. I don't bother plugging it into my Megabrute unless I'm rehearsing with a band.
I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to extend my collection of three guitars. In fact I have been thinking of reducing it to one in order to fund other things for the family. Buying a 175 VOS or vintage (natural) would be the dream, at least in theory, but that would mean selling my early '65 cherry 345 which has a lot of sentiment and history attached to it even if I don't play it much these days.
I think Joe's last comment about the search for the perfect guitar is very wise - we don't know when we are well off. There is often no musical justificaction for this eternal search for guitar perfection. I suspect in my case it's often a way of compensating for lack of musical progress. Better to practise more on what you have and concentrate on harmony rather than laminates. Back to my scales....
-
I had both guitars, so I can share my experience. The 165 is the one with set Humbucker 1996 I think.
I had to decide between the two guitars because I wanted a Es175 in my collection.
The VOS weight was about 3Kilos the 165 is about 3,7Kilos. I loved the weight of the VOS.
The VOS sounded better and more lively than the 165 when played unamplified.
Amplified the 165 sounds way better. Darker and deeper and more gentle. Thats why I kept it and returned the VOS to shop.
The VOS sounded a bit harsh and sharp, nothing an EQ could not fix, but I rather have an Instrument with a smooth natural sound.
Another aspect ist the cost of the VOS: It is overpriced in my opinion.
The Tailpiece of the 165 broke once and I got a new one as replacement via a british music shop.
Since that day I am happy with the 165. Since I have my 165 I never looked back and the lusting for another Archtop has gone. I had many good and bad Archtop guitars (different Heritages, Eastman, Yamaha, Ibanez etc), but the 165 is the one I like the most.
-
Hi Redwater,
That's a very interesting post and it makes me more inclined to stick with the 165. I certainly don't want to sacrifice the amplified tone of my 165 with the classic 57 for the 'better' unamplified tone of the VOS. The weight of the guitar isn't a particular concern of mine, but the £3000+ price tag is. I have come to the conclusion that the dark amplified tones of a standard 175/165 are all I really want. I have had only limited experience of other archtops but a notable example was a '66 L5 with Charlie Christian pickup. A great guitar on paper but it really didn't work for me amplified or unamplified. I just couldn't get the tones I wanted and it also felt cumbersome with its long scale. Just a personal thing, but it certainly showed me that the cost of a instrument is no guarantee of suitability. I expect the same is true with me and the VOS. I'd still like to try one though!
I found it amusing that you had to go to the UK, where I live, for your tailpiece whereas I had to shop in Germany where you are. Gibson couldn't (or wouldn't) supply one but they gave me a contact which actually worked.
Two last points - did the neck of your 1996 165 feel the same as the VOS? Mine is a 1995 which should have the same profile as yours though I believe it changed later in production. Also, did changing the tailpiece affect the tone of your 165 in any way?
-
I have both. I like the 490R on the 165. In fact I like both guitars but they are different. The 175 VOS is lighter and more acoustic sounding, the 165 (which is basicly a modern 175) is heavier but has a lovely sound. Neck is fatter on the VOS but the 165 has a nice full neck. Rick
Last edited by Beanctr; 06-23-2015 at 10:23 AM.
-
Changing the tailpiece did not alter the sound, I got the same chinese tailpiece that was original installed on the 165.
As Beanctr said, the neck of the VOS is slightly fatter. The Neck of the 165 feels nice and full, not too fat but far away from thin.
Maybe my comparison leaves the impression that the VOS is a bad guitar - no! It is a damn fine guitar and I was willing to pay the euros it cost, but the 165 gives me everything I want from an electric Archtop so the decision was easy.
-
is the cc rider set in , or floating ?
Originally Posted by Herbie
-
Thanks Beanctr, that's interesting. I had thought the 165 might sound more similar to the 175 VOS as I'd read that the laminates were the same. There must be other constructional differences that affect the lightness and tone.
Last edited by stoneground; 06-22-2015 at 04:34 PM.
-
Hi redwater, One of the reasons that I wanted to get hold of the original Gibson zig-zag was that the gold plate was actually flaking off the Chinese tailpiece leaving razor sharp edges on which I cut myself a couple of times. It was a bit expensive but I'm happy with the result even though at present I have a mix of nickel and slightly worn gold plate on the guitar. I didn't change the strings when I installed the tailpiece so I don't think that I imagined the subtle change in tone. I don't think the Chinese tailpiece is solid brass under the plating like the Gibson one. My tailpiece hadn't actually broken but I wasn't very happy with the possibility that it might!
Last edited by stoneground; 06-22-2015 at 04:11 PM.
-
It is set in, humbucker size CC. Originally Posted by pingu
At first I tried to tame the harshness of Reissue VOS with hotter humbuckers. Not the right way!
My favourite might be Lollar P90 but they don't fit in the hb hole. Without a lots of work...
-
oh sorry the cc ridet is in the 175VOS Originally Posted by Herbie
so you kept the 165 as a floater yeah ?
-
t is set in, humbucker size CC.
At first I tried to tame the harshness of Reissue VOS with hotter humbuckers. Not the right way!
My favourite might be Lollar P90 but they don't fit in the hb hole. Without a lots of work..
-A Lollar P 90 will fit right into an HB hole,I"ve done that with my L4CES,but you"ll need a lot of the height
adjustment plates(3 or 4 on each side).
-
I haveA 1996 ES 165. If you have questions about the cheap tailpiece let me know because mine is already broken.
I also have a 1964 ES 125 which is structurally very similar to the 175 of that era. I have always said that the 165 is a better electric guitar than the 125. It is much heavier and much less resonant t. Acoustically the 175 from that era is no great shakes but it does give you a more open with your tone I actually don't need both my 165 and 125 but they are so completely different that I can never decide which one to sell. I've been trying to the side for about three years now.Last edited by SamBooka; 06-25-2015 at 02:04 PM.
-
No, I sold it. Originally Posted by pingu
Now I understand that it was close to standard ES175 sound which I like too, but I do not regret selling it because it was a floater. If I want a classic ES175 sound again I can buy an ES165 w/ set in humbucker.Last edited by Herbie; 06-23-2015 at 04:21 PM.
-
Originally Posted by MackBolan
Oh my, thank You Mack! I have to check this route too!
Did You use a soapbar or a dogear version? Apparently a dogear cover but which pickup?
Then I will need another pick guard too. How does one remove this pickguard model of the VOS that turns around like it had a hinge?Last edited by Herbie; 06-23-2015 at 04:21 PM.
-
I have started to think that this ES175 '59 RI VOS is a more like vintage ES125. Open, light and resonant. Originally Posted by SamBooka
Tough decisions!
-
Herbie,
its a dogear,and you don"t need to change the pickguard,only the fumbling with the shimps.
The PU is the standard Lollar P90,Bridge is a Gibson Classic 57 Plus.
-
I've played a couple of the 59 re-issues and they are more light and resident than the ES 165 but nowhere near so as my ES 1 25. I had heard some positive comments about the reissue and went in with an open mind but I was still kind of disappointed. If I didn't already have those two guitars I might've felt differently about it being in the market for an ES 175 but that's not the case so it was not difficult for me to pass it up Originally Posted by Herbie
-
Thanks, Mack! Originally Posted by MackBolan
Next question is harder: which one is better for classic jazz: Lollar Standard Wind P90 or Lollar '50s Wind P90?
I have 50's Wind P90s in my Les Paul and Strat and I love them.
Doesn't the Standard Wind get boomy in the jazz box neck?
(Sorry for hijackin this thread a bit!)
-
It should be no surprise that the 59 VOS is somewhere in between a 125 and a more modern 165 or 175. The VOS is built like a 50s 175 and the 50s 175 was a natural progression in the laminated 16" Gibson line that was previously occupied by the 125. The modern 165s and 175s are again, another progression in the line. Originally Posted by SamBooka
I played a 59 VOS 175 back to back with a new 165 (floater) and bought the 175. To me the modern versions are more like Les Pauls, heavy and solely dependent on amplification for sound. Some say the modern 165/175 is a better electric guitar. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you're into. I would say the VOS 175 is a great electric guitar that maintains some of its acoustic properties.
-
All this chatter about such beautiful guitars, and not a photo to be had anywhere...C'mon man...some of us learned to read by pictures you know!
-
My three blonds.
-
:-)
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions