Gibson 1954 ES-175 Reissue

[mr. beaumont]

I'd have a hard time buying a new Gibson. Just waay too many good old ones out there at very competitive prices.

Living in Chicago, I've been a chronic haunter of Chicago Music Exchange, I've played dozens of used and vintage Gibsons over the years...they're all over the map, naturally, and general internet wisdom doesn't necessarily apply (some of the best 175's I've ever played were dreaded "Norlin" models) but the good ones are kind of unforgettable.

[vinnyv1k]

Wood is wood period. A good 2016 L5 will in 50 years sound as good as a 1966 L5 sounds now. Of course seasoned dry wood sounds better but trees are trees. I am sure a lot of you believe in evolution so technically trees should be continually getting better. I am a creationist so that's all nonsense to me.

[Archie]

This second "test" is just as badly done as the first. Just commenting on the test methodology, not implying that old Italian violins must needs be better than new violins. These tests just aren't enough to elucidate any differences. At the end of the day, it is just a test of preference happening within those two 75-minute sessions in those spaces to those ten violinists. And imply nothing more than that.

Edit: 12 violins, two 75-minute testing sessions. 6.25 minutes with each violin in each space. 12.5 minutes with each violin in all with travel time to be accounted for and different times on possibly different days. 6.25 minutes each session? I doubt if the violin or the violinist is even warmed up at the end of each 6.25 minutes. Sorry but a FOOK OFF to the test! Or

I hate bad science!)

As with anything that is subjective, the mood of a person also plays a part in affecting his evaluation of anything, be it a pair of jeans or a violin. There is also no consideration that the cognitive ability to tell differences get wearied and increasingly unreliable with rapid changes from to the other and in time. At the end of a 75-minute sesssion with 12 violins, your cognitive ability at the end of it is remarkably lower than when you started out. What would be interesting to see is in what order these violinists' favourite violin lies in? It would probably be one of the first 3 when the senses are freshest.

Any violinist worth his salt also considers that the bow is part of the equation on how a violin sounds, feels and plays. How come nobody ever talks about the bow? And what about the strings? The violinists have no preferences when it comes to strings? No differences amongst strings either?

(Two 75-minute sessions in a rehearsal room and a space for 300 because they are "representational" of the typical spaces that violinists find themselves in? Don't make me laugh at such bad premises. The premises are already flawed from the get-go. This is terrible reductionism. Try living with the violins in a room that you are intimately familiar with for one year and then tell me. I just rearranged the furniture in my living room and the acoustics changed. This is a space that I have lived in for the past 49 years. As it is, my one-year time parameter is also a flawed premise based on a hunch that it requires me at least one year to say I know a person. And my own experience with guitars that I have owned and played now continually for over 5 years. Two 75-minute sessions? Where did those palookas pull that one out from? "Oh, we can't spare the time." Then don't do the "tests" and pronounce the results.)

As I've said before in a world where the colour of the plate will change the way you enjoy your food even though its the exact same food, goes some way to proving that everything is bollocks ;-)
But lets be honest, what are we all here to do :-))

[Archie]

But alas, mahogany is not the same. Even gibson acknowledges this and they have resorted to weigh relieving les pauls because the mahogany they are using today weights 1.5x what they used in the '50s and '60s.

And there are different species of woods that are considered mahogany, not to mention different climates, etc. All this effects tone. Just because a guitar is made out of plywood doesn't mean it's any *LESS* about the tone of the woods.

When I get around to demonstrating my '63 Kessel with lam spruce and my '65 Kessel with lam maple you'll be amazed at the difference in tone. Folks have told me that spruce vs maple makes no difference. Well, these 2 guitars couldn't be more different sounding. It's night and day.

Attachment 27499

Well perhaps the mahogany they are using isn't very stable? Luckily it can be heat treated very easily.

[vinnyv1k]

Sorry but that's naive. Trees are trees of course, but wood densities don't lie. If I were to extrapolate your logic, your thoughts would be that a weight relieved Les Paul that currently weighs 8.5lbs will weigh 5.5lbs in 50 years? lol

Quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't say Jack. And you wonder why so many members here get hostile towards you. I never said or would think a 8lbs guitar will weigh 5lbs in 50 years.

[vinlander]

...When I get around to demonstrating my '63 Kessel with lam spruce and my '65 Kessel with lam maple you'll be amazed at the difference in tone...

That will be very interesting.
Since you got your first BK, I can't wait to see a video of you with it; I am sure I am not the only one...
Comparing both would be even more interesting!

[grahambop]

some of the best 175's I've ever played were dreaded "Norlin" models

Glad to hear that as my 175 is a dreaded Norlin! At the time I bought it I didn't know anything about which years were most desirable, etc. It was just the only 175 I could find in the area.

[mr. beaumont]

Glad to hear that as my 175 is a dreaded Norlin! At the time I bought it I didn't know anything about which years were most desirable, etc. It was just the only 175 I could find in the area.

Yeah, the only thing is in the 70's, Gibson forgot how to spray a nice burst for a while But that has no bearing on how good a guitar plays/sounds.

[Stringswinger]

My biggest problem with Norlin era 175's is the volute. I can live with the small volute that they were putting on the Les Pauls, but that giant volute on the 175's simply looked terrible.

I had two 175's from the Norlin Era (1974-1986), a 1977 and a 1982. Both were superb guitars. I never should have sold the 82. The volute on the 77 was a deal killer for me (Norlin had dropped the volute on the 82....what took them so long to figure that out?). Both had chrome hardware instead of nickel. No problem for me, chrome is an upgrade. The bursts on both were excellent (the 77 even had a burst neck and sides, another upgrade). The 77 had chrome tuner buttons (yet another upgrade). The 77 also had a maple neck (I am neutral on this, I think the cheaper mahogany neck adds warmth to the lam maple body, but maple is an "upgrade" wood).

Both of my Norlin 175's were better than my 2008 175. But My 97 175 is (IMO) a better 175 than either Norlin 175 that I owned. I even like it better than my 63 175 (which is considered a holy grail guitar by many).

The year of manufacture of a Gibson is not a guarantee of greatness. They have built great guitars and lemons in every year.

[vinnyv1k]

Another thing I didn't like about the volute is I just love the black stingers on the carved hollow's necks even more so on the 3 piece neck of old vs the 5 piece of today. I really dug the double stingers also that they did on a few old L5's. That blue Byrdland in the For Sale section has the double stinger.

[vinnyv1k]

Your claim was that in 50 years, the modern guitar would sound like a '60s guitars. Simple physics dictates that the density of the mahogany that they are using now - which needs to be weight relieved in order to get it to the weight of the equivalent '60s mahogany - is going to sound different. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was drawing a conclusion based on your statement.

I only have one mahogany guitar. A 2014 L4CES and it is light as a feather. Much lighter than my 175. All my other guitars are spruce and maple and my reference was a L5. I don't play or never will play a Les Paul for one.
You are clearly talking about mahogany guitars and I am talking about spruce/maple guitars. I could give a darn about solid body guitars like that Albatross of yours that you are trying to sell.
If you are such of a guitar wood expert why do you buy so many guitars only to try and sell them weeks later ?
Yes their is limited supplies of great wood like rosewood and ebony these days but you will never convince me that you can't get a new guitar with fantastic sounding wood. Sorry Jack I will never buy it. I will say the older a guitar gets and the more it gets played the better it will sound and that today's wood isn't seasoned properly before manufacturing.
Just drop it Jack. We disagree period. I love my guitars and you yours. End of story.

[Bebop Tom]

Your claim was that in 50 years, the modern guitar would sound like a '60s guitars. Simple physics dictates that the density of the mahogany that they are using now - which needs to be weight relieved in order to get it to the weight of the equivalent '60s mahogany - is going to sound different. I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was drawing a conclusion based on your statement.

The crappy wood that Gibson uses on non-custom shop guitars is sometimes weight relieved. The good wood that the custom shop uses on historic Les Pauls is not weight relieved. The historic Les Paul aficionados would not tolerate that. Yet most of the historics are lighter weight than 70's Les Pauls, and more in line with what the originals were. The difference today is there are so many guitars being built by so many companies that standards have lowered for what wood can be used. Regardless, even at the same weight, I find that older guitars still sound better and would not buy a new 175 for the same price as one from the 1950's. More care was put into the instruments back then and their playability and tone reflect that. Then, when the wood ages, they get even better.

[Tag101]

Serious question. If wood sounds better dry to some people, why do they sound so shitty dry to me, and so much better when humidified to 40-50%??? And it takes several days at that humidity to sink deep into the wood, even on my guitars with ultra thin finishes and no finish on the necks.

[Tag101]

Another example from today. I played a 40s Gibson L5 acoustic. My 2014 gibson custom shop l5 P blew it out of the water. The old one was louder, but far less resonate, and the new one had none of that plinky, high end piercing I hear on many old guitars. New one much fatter on the high E and B strings. Imo, this is not old or new, its THAT particular guitar compared to mine. Interesting to note the necks felt almost identical and the weights were both in the lower 6 lb range.

[Herbie]

Going back to the title of the thread: this is great news!

Maybe they send the good VOS ones to here in northern EU but I have now 2 VOS Les Paul Ri's and one ES175 and they all are best guitars I have ever had (during ~40 yrs).

I have been seeking P90 ES175 from Ebay and at least the starting prices are in same figures as the MAP of this '54. So was the '59 RI at start, I recall. In couple a years I found my '59 ES175 VOS used for half of that price. So I'll start waiting them to here in Finland!

Meanwhile maybe I can now put the humbucker back to my gtr...

[Tag101]

Talking about R9s, I think from 2013 on up they are the best sounding LPs Gibson has ever made. The pups are off the charts.

[Ob Com]

I bought one of these 1954 RI P90 ES 175's and love it.

Its a dream come true for me to be able to get a 175 with P90's, I had been waiting and waiting hoping Gibson would reissue them after they did the 59, which I bought but always missed not having P90's.

Over here in the UK there are not the supply of vintage guitars that are available in North America, and vintage prices seem to be higher imo. Also I would be worried about picking up a basket case as I would be easily fooled I think, my knowledge of vintage guitars is that of a layman.

I found an original 54 175 once which was perfect- the neck fitted my hand like a glove, quite uncanny, but I could not afford it at the time and always swore to myself that if Gibson ever re-issued those and I could find a good one, I'd not miss out again.

Blow me down, they have gone and done it! So happy.

The pick ups are wonderful btw- very much a Jim Hall ball park sound on the neck, and sizzling, punchy, raucous rock and roll on the bridge.

Sounds great, feels great, plays great.

[goldenwave77]

Re: wood usage and old v. new wood

Anybody here with solid forestry information as to what really happened here in the U.S.?! The 30's saw little bldg. activity overall, I think. Foreclosures all over the place...not much new bldg., but some did take place. The house I grew up in on LI, outside NYC was built in 1938.

Wartime production?! How much wood was required for this...surely some, though steel and aluminum was maybe more in demand....remember Howard Hughes' plane the "Spruce Goose"....largest ever built.

Postwar years saw a bldg. boom, rise of the suburbs...my mother taught in Levittown...slab production of housing using WW II SeaBee construction techniques....the guys who would put up airstrips on captured Japanese islands in 2 days!

Still, I think Jack Z. makes some pts. Drive across eastern New England...can't find ANY old growth timber...same in Michigan from Detroit until you get a few hrs. north. I read a book on Great Lakes shipwrecks the last time I visited the gf in Detroit....Great Lakes shipping was a BIG industry...the "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" came at the end of the era (1960's), but in 1954, Detroit was the busiest inland port in the world. Lots of trees cut down to support that industry and to build Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, etc.

I remember seeing an exhibit in the NY Mus. of Nat. History on the deforestation of the Eastern woodlands....there is probably more timbered land in the East today than in 1910, but it is "new growth stuff"...small trees...the wood is probably not as dense.

I think I probably even agree with Jack that the Gibson "amplified electric sound" is more usable. Heck, I'm just a hobbyist enthusiast, but jamming against a backing track in my ofc. the Benedetto type floater sounds a little boomy and loses something, even at a moderate volume. The L4-CES sounds creamy and rich and just holds up better against other sounds, without disappearing. Guilds are kind of right in the middle...tonally...more clarity and evenness in the tone. Some of this can be EQ'ed away, but not all.

Everyone says there is LOT of variability....I once had my heart set on a Martin o-o-o....went and played a dozen. Some were clearly better than others... I held off.

The world is a big place...lots of room for different sounds.

[abelljo]

https://reverb.com/item/1284358-gibs...FcETHwodCMsPhA

Asking $4860.00

[GNAPPI]

>>SNIP<<felt that the sunburst was not up to par for a guitar of that price range.

If I have one bone to pick with Gibson, that's it.

[nopedals]

This thread is all over the place. The OP was about a 50s RI ES-175 that lists for over 5K. It is, I think, indisputable that later 175s were made with thicker laminates, and, of course, after 1956, with humbuckers. Is an early 50s ES-175 better than later Gibsons? I think the correct answer is, it depends on what you want. Later ones are more feedback resistant, and if you prefer HBs to P90s, that would factor in as well. An early 50s ES-175 would have some finish wear at a minimum, and some people very much prefer shiny guitars.

But, assuming you want an early 50s style ES-175, the first question is, did they get it right? The second, whether it is an old one or a new one, is it well built and sounds great? Can you live with player wear?

But, of course, there is another consideration. What will it sell for 5-10 years from now? Here is an example. In the mid 90s, when the 1934 L5 RI came out, the real ones and the RI cost about the same dough that we are talking about here; about 5K. Fast forward 20 years, and a used RI is what, 3-4K, and a real one is probably double that.

Personally, I would buy a nice old 175 over a new one every day of the week.

[Jabberwocky]

Thought that I would bump this right up with a PSA: http://www.niconico-guitars.com/html...roduct_id=1254 .

A 2006 ES-175 with P90s for JPY228 000 or about $2028.00! Postage by Japanpost EMS is about JPY15000. No import duty for USA-sians. Shipping to the EU would be about the same. Factor in import duty/VAT/MwST. Asians, Africans and Antipodeans, please enquire.

Anyone innerested?

Just for the record, I paid $2450 and $80 shipping for mine used.

[Bill C]

My biggest problem with Norlin era 175's is the volute. I can live with the small volute that they were putting on the Les Pauls, but that giant volute on the 175's simply looked terrible.

Is the volute a solution to the dreaded headstock break though?

[Stringswinger]

Is the volute a solution to the dreaded headstock break though?

That was the idea, but I have seen Gibson's with the volute that had headstock repairs....

[Encinitastubes]

Thought that I would bump this right up with a PSA: http://www.niconico-guitars.com/html...roduct_id=1254 .

A 2006 ES-175 with P90s for JPY228 000 or about $2028.00! Postage by Japanpost EMS is about JPY15000. No import duty for USA-sians. Shipping to the EU would be about the same. Factor in import duty/VAT/MwST. Asians, Africans and Antipodeans, please enquire.

Anyone innerested?

Just for the record, I paid $2450 and $80 shipping for mine used.

I'm glad to see this thread come back around to the original topic. The best sounding/feeling guitar that I own is my 2006 175 with P-90s. It is not a custom shop, obviously not old, and is on the heavier side of the 175 family. It sounds phenomenal. These seem to pop up fairly regularly in the mid-$2K range.

I also have a recent model '59 RI VOS that I love as well. It is lighter and did not come alive to my tastes until I installed a tune o-matic bridge. I chose that one because I liked the beefy neck. I'm beginning to think that all guitars can sound good and the feel is the most important aspect for my tastes.