Gibson ES-175 from circa 2000

[Groyniad]

can i get any help from experts about 175 vintages - i know this is a recurring topic, but i can't find anything that addresses just the issues i have - so i'm risking boring everyone.

is 2000 a good year (i know a lot of people are keen on 90s 175s - and 80s too)

any views on how good they've been in the last five years or so - 2011, 2013 sort of thing.

any help much appreciated

my hunch is that they could be very good from pretty much any period. but its very hard to go for a 175 without trying it because of how many people insist that they vary in quality enormously.

[GNAPPI]

This post should open up a can of worms :-)

The longer I own a 175 (1995) and the more of them I play the more convinced I am that of all the Gibson models it's the most variable in three categories, appearance, playability and sound. A triumvirate if you will I think rarely come together to please many? For example, even though the current guitar is maple, you don't often see one with any kind of decent figure on the top, and the tobacco burst goes from black rim to a light brown more than other Gibbys. To me it's the worst color variation they catalog.

Maybe there's truth to the generation thing, but I've played a couple of recent models that played and sounded excellent. One natural finish early 2000 model in particular was in a shop and I couldn't put it down, I just couldn't get past the horrid condition (nearly 100% finish checking and severe sweat stained top) and huge price tag affixed to it. Then again I've played some from the 90's to current selections that were a dull thud.

I think for a premium guitar Gibson does not pay enough attention to something the Asians builders are CLEARLY better at in getting people to part with their money and that's wood selection. Sadly, I have come to a point that it's the only Gibson guitar I will not buy online with the exception of the possibility of a trusted owner giving me a personal assessment of it.

On the positive side, prices on 175's are relatively low and if you find one that you like, you'll never be sorry you bought it. If you're not so fussy about the eye candy part then selection is a bit easier, but I personally have a problem with a $4000 guitar with the plain appearance of a 1960's KAY. I wish Gibson would actually deliver 175's that look like the one on their web site :-)

[pubylakeg]

For example, even though the current guitar is maple, you don't often see one with any kind of decent figure on the top,....

If we're talking about current models i.e. the 1959 ES-175D (VOS), then Gibson specifically offer an extra cost, figured top variant.

Gibson Memphis 1959 ES-175D Figured

In relation to the OP, the 175 at that time was still called the ES175D RI (re-issue), you know with the flame etc, but at that time some of them were coming with gold hardware and the colour shading was toned back a little from the quite extreme black to yellow sunburst on the 90's model. Still essentially the same guitar though. IMO, I dont think 175s' circa 2000 are any less variable than any other of the past 25 years, particularly when it comes to instruments that were imported to the UK by Rosetti, prior to Gibson setting up their own European distribution.

[GNAPPI]

You are correct, they"DO" offer an upgraded model but... the 175 "figured" is a retail list uplift of $1400 over the price of a standard 175. That uplift is actually over the full list price of a whole Ibanez AF-155 with a FREE figured top :-0

I KNOW it does not cost Gibson $1500 to make the tops with nice wood. I can buy a piece of BEAUTIFULLY figured maple veneer for less than $10 RETAIL, so Gibson has to deliberately select crappy wood in order for you to pay another grand or more for a $10 (or MUCH less) piece of veneer?

As I said, the Asian builders have it all over Gibson hands down.

[rpguitar]

I know that looks matter, but I'm sure we're not evaluating these 175s on looks alone in order to judge Asian guitars as superior - "hands down" over Gibson my arse.

I own three Asian guitars and would happily sell all of them. They pale in comparison to my Gibsons in feel, setup, and sound. They were much less expensive but I couldn't care less! I fully appreciate having a smaller budget, and if one is limited in that way, then by all means - the field is wide and filled with Asian guitars of decent or even excellent quality. But they are what they are.

A 2000 ES-175 is a 15 year old guitar at this point; similar examples are numerous on the market and can be had at a competitive price. No need for hand wringing about how brazenly Gibson steals one's money in order to force one to own such a guitar.

[Groyniad]

no - i don't want to get into gibson hysteria here - even though i've recently become deeply smitten (once more) by the gibson brand

i'm very interested in what gnappi says about how variable they are. i don't want a dull thud! this matters to me because there's almost no way i'm going to get to try the instrument out before i buy it.

so the variability alone makes me think that however keen i am on the model - i should get an L4 or a tal farlow instead....

please - any more views about how good 90s vs 2000's vs 2010-15 175s TEND to be....

and i'm not that concerned about appearance - i want a musical partner not a one night stand...

[StanG]

Sounds like you should only go for it if you can return it, no questions asked, if you don't like it.

[icr]

The year of a guitar is important; to know what the specifications are supposed to be. Otherwise how on earth would anyone even attempt to universally classify a year as good or bad. Like what would the criteria be?

[docbop]

I got a 1999 ES-175 about a year ago in a trade. I had a 61 ES-175 for a number of years that's a reference for me.

The 1999 is beautiful very flamed maple top with a tobacco burst finish. It has a chunky neck which I like the 61 had a thin neck is part of the reason I eventually sold it. What I don't like is the thick finish that Gibson uses, I have other archtops and they all have thinner finish. The guitar plays nice and I played it a lot for about four-six month before going back to my favorite guitar only.

What I don't like is its sound is on the bright side and I've been fighting a rattle coming from the bridge pickup. The guy I got it from said he thinks it has Gibson BurstBucker's PUP's in it. I have roundwound strings on it so that is adding to the brightness too. I plan to keep it if I ever sell it, it would be because of that thick finish. I am thinking of switching pickups to something a little fuller sounding (SD Seth Lover or Pearly Gates) and maybe going to flatwounds and make this my traditional sounding Jazz box. Oh it has a TOM bridge and that's another thing I might change to knock some of the brightness of the guitar down.

[Groyniad]

docbop - its just that brightness that worries me. i think if you get one that isn't really really good - you get a harsh cutting top end that is very hard to live with.

[docbop]

docbop - its just that brightness that worries me. i think if you get one that isn't really really good - you get a harsh cutting top end that is very hard to live with.

But I'd rather have bright guitar and do things to add bottom than the other way around. I haven't played it in a few months so I need to pull it out. Putting flatwounds on and a wood bridge could really change the personality of the guitar a lot.

[Max405]

I've never played a 175 that wasn't excellent. Regardless of the year. For me, As long as it follows the recipe, (16" wide x 20.5" long x 3.5" thick with a 24-3/4 scale) its a magical guitar. My own personal preferences would steer me away from the "vintage" treatment that are used on some of the 175's. But the majority of the people actually love that.

[GNAPPI]

"I know that looks matter, but I'm sure we're not evaluating these 175s on looks alone in order to judge Asian guitars as superior - "hands down" over Gibson my arse. "

I never said in sound or playability, though some Asian gits are very good. Now in appearance for sure my hands down is a fact. Anyone who thinks a $4000 guitar should look as plain as it does... hey brand loyalty is blind but a $1500 uplift for a $10 piece (retail) of veneer is obscene.

[gggomez]

I have a 2011, I think is a Custom VOS (does that mean vintage modified or something like that). It is highly flamed.

The vintage thing means nothing to me. What is important is I tried to dislike the guitar spending hours in the shop. The neck is a bit fat but its sound rang my bell. I tried every guitar in the shop about 30 Gibsons, 10 Heritage some cheaper guitars. I played with my eyes closed. I tried to tell myself it was not that good, it was a crazy aount of money, the neck is terrible. It diid not work. I just love this guitar. I think it is our first anniversary. If you are interested you can follow the link to my youtube page and the Round Midnight video shows off its look.

I had been looking at a used one, same price, I think it was a 96. The former I played theorugh a standard Deluxe the latter a Princeton the silver face copies so not a same comparison. The 96 had a more comfortable neck but amazing the lacquer was already looking like crocodile hide. The mids in the 2011 seemed more pronounced and I liked its sound more.

[Groyniad]

interesting that you preferred the 2011 to the 96

[Encinitastubes]

I have a 2013 '59 Reissue that had that thuddy sound; sounded just like that Joe Pass Joy Spring sound that has been discussed so much on this board. A cool sound, but I wanted more of a resonant tone while maintaining that 175 sound. I got it when I replaced the wood bridge with a Tune-o-matic. So, to a certain extent, you can tune a particular 175 to your preferences.

[gggomez]

2 other things that make a huge difference to your sound (obviously goes for any guitar but we need to remember when comparing):

1. strings.

I think I will go back to the Gibson strings that were on it when I purchased the guitar, they gave it an edgy smokey sound that I prefer over the Thomastik bebop strings which I have on it at the moment. I am not sure what the strings were they had a wound G, I am not sure if they were the discountinued L5 strings or something else;

2. amp volume

Especially if you are using a Fender tube amp (probably most tube amps). Sterile and lifeless no matter what the bass and treble settings or guitar settings at volume 1 and 2. Crank it to 4 or if you can 5 (why I now have a Princeton and not a Deluxe which was too loud at 3) turn back the bass and wow a transformation of the sound. It is enhanced in all the right ways - projection of the mids and that wonderful dynamic of being on the edge of break up whilst being able to pull it back to super clean with your pick attack. Your guitar comes alive.

I recently went to a guitar makers festival (boutique acoustic guitar builders). Many of them discussed how many guitars are made to sound good in a shop. A scooped sound - big bass and nice top end. They said that is the best those guitars will ever sound and it sells guitars. They warned that over time they will get mushy. They recommended buy on the strength of the mids. The guitar may not sound at its best initially (they were not saying bad just that the mids may be a bit over prominent initially) but in a year or so it will improve and it will be a guitar for life.

[gggomez]

oh and apologies for incomplete info.

The room i tested the 96 in had polished floorboards where as the room I tested the 2011 was carpeted. Obviously this also make a huge difference and not a fair test for the 96.