-
Joe Pass and Steve Howe both played the 175 from this short era (5 years). These guitars have a super slim neck with a wide nut. They have either late PAF PUPs or Patent sticker PUPs (which other than the label are the same thing. All wood bridge (Brazilian Rosewood) and a mahogany neck with Brazilian Rosewood fretboard. Single ring Kluson tuners and a zig-zag tailpiece complete the package.
These guitars are more heavily built than the early 50's single pickup models but are way lighter than all of the post Norlin production models.
I play a 1963 example. Here is a picture of me using it on the job at a Big Sur California gig last month:
I really like the 3 tone Burst that Gibson was doing in those days. The guitar has a fair amount of acoustic tone (though like all laminated topped guitars, it is not loud) and has a very detailed and round tone. It is a superb example of an electric jazz guitar. Being a devotee of Joe Pass, this guitar was on my bucket list and is a keeper.
Who else among us is fortunate enough to have one of these guitars in their arsenal?
Cheers,
Marc
-
11-30-2015 09:00 PM
-
sold my mint '59 a couple yrs back.
I much prefer the sound/feel of an L-5 or Super 400, both long scale guitars.
but Herb and Joe made some great music on them...
cool looking venue, btw
-
I had a 1961 I bought when working on a Yes tour. After Steve Howe calmed down that I had beat him to the deal he dated for me and said it was the twin to his. We got to be friends for the rest of the tour after that, he's normally very quiet and just want to be left alone to practice/play.
I kept it about five years, but the neck was so thin I really didn't like it that much. So I took the stickered PAF's out and sold the guitar, Yes I told the guy I sold it to that I had swapped the pickups with the ones from my 335 which I still have with those PAF's in it.
-
SS, I don't have a 175 let alone one from that era. But I had to jump in here. I think Joe sounded best when using his early 60's 175, hands down.
That is a great picture. What a beautiful venue. Did they actually pay you to play there or was it the other way around? Just kidding. You look great up there. Outstanding.
JD
-
That really is a gorgeous venue. I have a '63 as we discussed on here once, since it has the wrong double ring tuner buttons for the year but the right neck/nut and other parts. It really is very nice, albeit a one trick pony in copping the Joe Pass vibe. I experimented with a TOM saddle which did make it more modern sounding. The rosewood is back on there now.
I like the neck. It's not my absolute favorite profile, but for fingerstyle it feels good. Mine weighs under 6 lbs and is very comfy to hold and play.
I'll bet you sound great playing yours with that band, Marc.
[Edit: Just swapped the flats for some Pearse nickel round wounds, and did a setup. Much better! Thanks for the inspiration.]Last edited by rpguitar; 11-30-2015 at 10:38 PM.
-
Roger,
Anytime you get a 175 under six pounds you have a winner. Mine was six, even, and it was just super. Like many, it had considerable acoustic energy--though not as much as some of the examples from the early 50s. (Herb Ellis' 175 played and sounded like a non-electric archtop, for Pete's sake.)
Great guitars, guys.
Docbop, naughty guy.
-
Curious why the period of 1960-1964 is called out in the thread title. I'm just getting into learning more about vintage time periods and not sure what is different from that period compared to say a 1965, '66 or other '60s.
I saw this 1965 listed on Craigslist in the Tampa area when I was on vacation last weekend, but didn't have time check it out. Honestly I don't know what would make this 1965 different than a 1960-64.
https://tampa.craigslist.org/psc/msg/5330144340.html
-
Can one of you 175 aficionados explain when the 175 changed body shapes?
-
Originally Posted by Steve Z
Gibson's like any production instrument made changes over the years, like the thin neck we are talking about to fat necks in other years. They change what they finish the guitars with, the pickups, and on and on. Same with Fender and everyone else. Especially before CNC machine started bring more consistency to the build process.
-
I agree, it's too bad that they left all of the guys that were not color blind in Kalamazoo :-) Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
@ Wintermoon I'll bet that 59 was a nice guitar. With the fat neck, the 59 is a different beast than the 60-64 models. I have a Super 400 and an L-5 as well, but I do like the short scale of the 175 for playability and sound.
@DocBop. The thin neck is not for everyone. I happen to be a fan. Apparently Joe Pass was as well. His signature Ibanez model, the JP-20 has the same thin neck.
@Roger Mine came with a TOM bridge. I put a Brazilian Rosewood saddle on and like it way better. Mine is pretty light (5.7 pounds). With the unpotted PUP and the light body, it has lots more "detail" than my 97 ES-175.
@Steve Z The 1965 175's have a different nut (1 5/8) from 1966 through early 1969 the nut was even smaller (1 9/16). Also in 1965 Norlin took over and the guitars have different construction, paint and hardware. The 1960-1964 variant has not been reissued and is the best ES-175 IMO. Other's like the late 50's models and some like the 1949-1956 P-90 variant. Different strokes and all that.
Does anybody other than Roger and myself have one of these? Did anyone have and sell one other than DocBop?
-
I had a '61 for a few years.
It was a nice enough guitar, but I never liked the wide-flat neck. I prefer the '50s necks.
I still have the original taipiece, in great shape, if anyone needs one for a repair or restoration.Last edited by Hammertone; 12-01-2015 at 02:47 PM.
-
I have a '59 Natural and a '69 Ice Tea SB. I have owned the '69 since new and it has a very comfortable neck with a 1 11/16" nut. It's a great guitar, but I prefer the sound of the '59 with paf's and the fatter neck feels great too. I have played a lot of gigs on those two guitars. Nothing beats a 175 for a reliable gigging guitar.
Keith
-
The guitar I posted in from the Tampa Craigslist also has a rather old Reverb listing (though price has dropped)... seller states that the neck is 1 11/16". Perhaps an early 1965? Originally Posted by Stringswinger
https://reverb.com/item/229165-reduc...pictures-added
Anyone familiar with what the going price ranges are these days for vintage ES-175s.
-
I have a 1961 sunburst which I bought in 1973 . It too has the slim neck (normal 1 11/16" width). I haven't played it much in later years - have been more into 25.5 scale, fatter necks and 1.75" fingerboards. By now, it could need some loving care from a luthier - refret etc. It seems to me that the tone is no longer the same as it was back then. OTOH it has been with me for all those years and I just can't see myself parting with it.
Last edited by oldane; 12-01-2015 at 10:36 AM.
-
Steve, the nut width on that Reverb guitar looks normal to me. You can tell by getting a sense of how the truss rod cover centers under the strings - how much edge remains on either side. I'd say the price of $3,800 is in the ballpark. My '63 was a few hundred less, but had a couple of mitigating cosmetic issues that I didn't consider important. I had to refret it and get a new nut made, though, so in total my investment equals what you'd pay for the Reverb guitar + shipping. Check eBay for finished auctions to find out some real world prices.
-
[QUOTE=Also in 1965 Norlin took over and the guitars have different construction, paint and hardware.[/QUOTE]
I believe the Norlin era started the end of 1969. However some feel that the quality starting dropping in 1965. Personally I have liked my Gibsons that are from the mid-late 60's. Ones I have played from 1970-1980's I do not find appealing at all. Pickups and nut width changed in the mid 60's.
-
I had a PAF '62 for a few years, with a trapeze tailpiece which can't have been original. I replaced it with a repro. The person who sold it to me sold it on the basis that the neck had been 'shaved', but the original neck lacquer said that it hadn't. I loved the sound and everything about it, but couldn't get used to the thinness of the neck, so it eventually went. Nothing wrong with the neck, and personal taste, of course.
I agree about the finish; it's the s/b best Gibson did. By contrast, I once had a 70s 350 that had the worst, awful 'clown burst' finish I have ever seen; thick stripes with little or no shading. I tried to live with it but eventually refinished it blonde. Sacrilege maybe, but I was a lot happier playing the thing after that. In those pre- vintagedays, it didn't hurt resale value either, maybe even helped...
ooops, pic in wrong place.
-
Not too much love expressed here for the thin neck on these guitars. Perhaps that is why they have never been reissued. I have a ES-335DOT reissue that has the so called "slim 60's neck" and it is not as thin as the neck on my 63 175. I played a 1960 Les Paul Standard that also had the super thin neck. That is a super rare bird as it was only made in one year.
I can adapt to thicker necks, but my preference is for the thin ones (with a full size nut).
I guess for me, Gibsons from 1960-1964 are the Golden age.....
-
This thread has surprised me. I would have expected the 175 with thin necks and narrow nuts to be as maligned (due to neck size) as the 60's ES-150? Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Anyway, I read that ECL/Norlin bought/took over Gibson 69-74, NOT when McCarty left in 1966?
-
I'd have to go back to the history books, but IIRC there was some buyout/management change in 1965 that brought about major changes in the way the guitars were made. The Norlin takeover in 69 made things even worse.
I had a 68 175 with the narrow nut. I did not like it at all. I also did not think the sunburst was well applied.
Having owned a bunch of 175's and having played may others, the one thing I can say for certain is that there is a lot of variation in these guitars. Figure out what you like, and play before you buy!
-
The early 60s neck profile being referred to is thin from front to back, but has a normal size nut width. It makes the fingerboard feel wide, but the neck is slim to grasp.
The late 60s neck profile is chunky from front to back, but has a 1 9/16" nut. It feels beefy once you get past the first few frets, but in those first few positions it feels narrow for chording.
I have one of each, and neither is my favorite, but I can get along fine on either just the same. They are not terrible - just not the best that Gibson has offered.
-
Well, there is the Steve Howe reissue, but I don't know if they replicated the thin/wide neck or whether Howe's '64 has that neck. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
this would be just the ES-175 I'd want- thin 1 3/4" neck. It's an electric guitar.
-
I have an all-original 1964 ES-175D, which I used at a gig last weekend.
An elderly member of the audience kindly surprised me afterwards with a sketch that she had made during the performance.
Last edited by Geechnyc; 12-12-2015 at 08:14 PM.
-
Geech, that is a beauty in repose. Love how the original sunburst has mellowed into a dark tea burst. And the maple grain! Oooh la la.
I CALL DIBS!
P.S. I see you use a footstool and play classical-style. With all that's been said about lower back pain due to the twisting of the spine associated with the footstool, have you considered a Neck-up or a Dynarette?Last edited by Jabberwocky; 12-14-2015 at 01:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thomastik Jazz BeBop 12 set - $10.
Today, 06:35 AM in For Sale