Gibson ES-175 1959 VOS Edition

[lawson-stone]

Honest, honey, I didn't mean to buy that guitar. It just sort of... followed me home. Yes a couple weeks back I wandered in the Chicago Music Exchange with no plans to buy a guitar. I'd just acquired a heart-stopper Gibson ES165 from Joe DeNisco (and you know what that means about the guitar!) and thought I was impervious to GAS. I wandered into the store with a fully loaded credit card, a round in the chamber, and the safety off. After an hour of playing this Gibson ES175D 1959 VOS Re-Issue, and looking at an unexpectedly low price tag, I found myself, or some other spirit occupying my body, saying, "Sure, I'll take this... can you ship it?"

A few days later the free shipping delivered this bad boy to my door. Since he's supposed to be old-school, I've posed him with a nearly 3000 year old krater (large food serving vessel, typically beverages) excavated from ancient Israel from the times of David and Solomon. Both have their rustic, old-time charm and appeal.

I'll go ahead and tell you: like the ES165 that preceded it (by a few weeks), this guitar totally fulfills the "Why I thought I wanted a Real Gibson" yearning. It's wonderful in every way.

[djelley]

Congrats! I LOVE the '59 Reissue. Mine is blonde and I'm a little jealous because I really wanted sunburst, but the price was too good to pass up.

[lawson-stone]

Congrats! I LOVE the '59 Reissue. Mine is blonde and I'm a little jealous because I really wanted sunburst, but the price was too good to pass up.

The sunburst really does capture the effect of the old-style burst finish.

[vinnyv1k]

A sweet axe Lawson ! I just love 175's. Congrats ! Gibson out priced themselves. The dealer deals are starting to flow to move inventory. It is coming back to a buyers market.

[neatomic]

that's an expensive way to get that zigzag tailpiece you wanted isn't it??

haha

lovely guitar...enjoy


cheers

[lawson-stone]

that's an expensive way to get that zigzag tailpiece you wanted isn't it??

haha

lovely guitar...enjoy


cheers

All so I can mount on an Epiphone... Wait... I knew something wasn't right about that...

[SamBooka]

Ok... now you have to get to know both guitars and then find a real late 50s early 60s 175 and compare them.

I find the VOS fall right in the middle.. heavier than vintage but lighter than the 165 (well maybe less so with the double hb but that should only be few hundred grams.

[citizenk74]

Nice guitar, Lawson. ES-175s are cool (love mine). I find having multiple instruments helps to tide me over those situations where maybe the strings are starting to go a little bit and maybe I don't have the time or gumption to deal with it, what with the probable loss of blood during a string change (one must approach these things with a clear mind and a steady hand, not to mention a set or three of spare strings). I just switch to another axe to maintain musical momentum. Yeah, that's it. It's thrift! And when the strings on the second guitar start to go, I switch back to the first, and find that the strings weren't that bad, and eke out a few more hours of practice, and so on. Thrift. And guilt is such an unproductive emotion.... Play 'em in good health!

[neatomic]

ah friend citizen74, if you were local i'd have fresh strings /setups on those guitars for you anytime...nothing like new strings...that period between breaking in (with all the little tweakings needed) and finally fading..pure bliss

fresh strings and what's needed to make them sing- makes huge difference

a simple new gauge string change can be a 2-3 day affair!!....(to get it truly right...for awhile, anyway)

cheers

[Jabberwocky]

You lucky so-n-so. I can't believe that you scored that one for $1999. I don't see anything wrong with it; it's not as if it's got an ugly headstock...

So, I'm still trying to suss out the angle on this one. Gibson stopped making them so hang on to it.

Play it in good health.

[lawson-stone]

You lucky so-n-so. I can't believe that you scored that one for $1999. I don't see anything wrong with it; it's not as if it's got an ugly headstock...

So, I'm still trying to suss out the angle on this one. Gibson stopped making them so hang on to it.

Play it in good health.

Are you serious they stopped making it? I think this one was made in 2014. The CME guy said they'd just changed something about their relationship with Gibson and this was old stock they were selling off. I took that with a grain of salt, of course, but CME seems to be a pretty straight-shooting outfit.

I so far have seen absolutely nothing wrong with this guitar. I cranked the truss rod down maybe 1/8 a turn, put on TI Swing 13's and played. I can't find a flaw in the finish, fit, anything. Also, the "aging" they do to this model to my eye really makes it look like a well-preserved vintage instrument. I like the look very much.

It is quite light, also. Like the early 175s, it weighs right at 6 pounds or a bit less. I have used it for a few posts over on the Jimmy Raney study group thread, but those are very short; so I need to post a clip just to get the sound of it out there. I like the Class 57 pickups on it a lot.

[Ol' Fret]

Is the soundboard lamination of this ES175 NOS Edition really as thick as it looks on the pics? Or is there some additional reinforcement around the soundholes?

An archtop guitar and a wooden Yale thinker chair could be a nice pair - both should be full of (good) vibes. If only their age would fit halfway. Just kidding... enjoy the guitar!
The nearly 3000 year old krater is not bad either, though, personally, I'd prefer to adore the (lit) lamp that Diogenes supposedly carried through Athens in daylight "looking for a human being".

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) -

[lawson-stone]

I mic'd the thickness at the f-hole at .194" which is almost exactly the same as my Peerless Monarch solid-formed top thickness at the f-hole.

[Ol' Fret]

I mic'd the thickness at the f-hole at .194" which is almost exactly the same as my Peerless Monarch solid-formed top thickness at the f-hole.

Thanks! I was asking because in the 1950's and 60's the average lamination thickness was considerably smaller. While my three early 60's BK's (softer spruce) show something between .170" to .0180", some large-bodied Kays (spruce) show more of .150", whereas the smaller Kay K-37 with a mahogany top (more dense, similar to maple) naturally sport around .120".
I don't know the exact dimensions of other vintage Gibson archtops, but in the same period in Germany an incredible variety of guitar laminates (both spruce and maple) existed. Nearly all of them fall under .130", and this reduced plate thickness, IMO, could be one reason why some almost unknown pearls of whom today you'd describe as small shop 'custom' makers sound great acoustically alone. Btw., up to the mid 60's many of these guitars were designed to be pure acoustic guitars without OEM pickup(s).
This is compliant with the general trend that has been going towards thicker soundboards or more electric guitars. Some say, like the players of postwar Epiphone electrics (which featured thinner boards, yet were prone to feedback), this was done to fight feedback issues. Not sure here, I think it has more to do with actual warranty issues.

While being a fan of plywood archtops with thinner laminations, the most outstanding (as well as surprisingly well feedback-resistant) carved plates show a full graduation from c. .120" to .275" or more.

[Herbie]

Happy NGD Lawson!

Some 1,5 years ago I switched from ES165 (w/ a floater) to ES175 VOS 1PU. I had both for a week and the difference with the heavy ES165 and the light and resonant ES175 VOS was so big that when I had to decide which one I'll keep it was easy.

These have a perfect neck and sunburst. Plus they are joy to play and listen!

Enjoy!

[lawson-stone]

Ok... now you have to get to know both guitars and then find a real late 50s early 60s 175 and compare them.

I find the VOS fall right in the middle.. heavier than vintage but lighter than the 165 (well maybe less so with the double hb but that should only be few hundred grams.

Actually I was mistaken on the weight.

I re-weighed the guitar using a hanging scale and it weights exactly 5 pounds!

[EDIT: 4/28/2016-I re-weighed this guitar on a postal scale in my office and it came up 6 pounds 8 ounces... so I regretfully admit my error, a rather large one, on this. The guitar still "feels" very very light in my hands, but 5 pounds was too light. No wonder my baggage has been drawing over-weight charges!]

See below! (Why does the uploading turn the pictures 90 degrees?)

[Greentone]

Five pounds! Wow! That's a keeper.

[voxss]

just looking at my epiphone premium 175 and your pics...envy..not really....well a bit.....

[Max405]

Lawson,
You are living a dream. You work hard and you deserve it.
When you look at the 2 Guitars, its really hard to believe the 165 is almost 15 years older than the 175.

5 lbs.. Wow. That is amazing. You would think all the hardware alone weighs 5lbs.. Amazing.

Lots of luck and joy with the guitar. Im happy for you LS.

Joe D.

[lawson-stone]

Lawson,
You are living a dream. You work hard and you deserve it.
When you look at the 2 Guitars, its really hard to believe the 165 is almost 15 years older than the 175.

5 lbs.. Wow. That is amazing. You would think all the hardware alone weighs 5lbs.. Amazing.

Lots of luck and joy with the guitar. Im happy for you LS.

Joe D.

Thanks Joe. I actually felt a twinge of guilt getting this so soon after acquiring your beauty, but this was one of those "How can I walk away?" situations. That 165 still inspires in me a kind of awe I have not felt for a guitar in many years. Maybe my long-lost Heritage Golden Eagle was the last guitar that had that effect. This 175 is such a different sounding guitar, for all the similarities, that I just don't feel any overlap. The 175 responds to different attack, picking style, even amp adjustments so differently from the 165. The 165 in some ways feels more like a classic solid archtop with a floater, except it has that underlying "punch." The 165 is a princess with a black belt in karate, if that makes sense? A lovely lady who can play the bad girl if she needs to. Pretty special.

[Chazmo]

I'm glad to see a little love for the VOS. I have had my blond single-pickup for a couple of years and it has become my main gigging guitar. I stand for a lot of gigs and the light weight is really appreciated when I have to have a guitar slung over my shoulder for three sets.

I like the versatility of this guitar. It has a strong acoustic voice for a laminate top guitar, but if I peg the volume knob on the guitar at 10, I get a thick, classic 175 tone. If I dial the volume knob back to 9, it cleans up and the considerable acoustic tone of the VOS comes out.

BTW, my Godin 5th Avenues--standard acoustic and Jazz models--both have much thinner laminate tops and more of an acoustic voice. I'd say the thickness of the Godins is at least half to one third the VOS.

[lawson-stone]

Thanks! I was asking because in the 1950's and 60's the average lamination thickness was considerably smaller. While my three early 60's BK's (softer spruce) show something between .170" to .0180", some large-bodied Kays (spruce) show more of .150", whereas the smaller Kay K-37 with a mahogany top (more dense, similar to maple) naturally sport around .120".
I don't know the exact dimensions of other vintage Gibson archtops, but in the same period in Germany an incredible variety of guitar laminates (both spruce and maple) existed. Nearly all of them fall under .130", and this reduced plate thickness, IMO, could be one reason why some almost unknown pearls of whom today you'd describe as small shop 'custom' makers sound great acoustically alone. Btw., up to the mid 60's many of these guitars were designed to be pure acoustic guitars without OEM pickup(s).
This is compliant with the general trend that has been going towards thicker soundboards or more electric guitars. Some say, like the players of postwar Epiphone electrics (which featured thinner boards, yet were prone to feedback), this was done to fight feedback issues. Not sure here, I think it has more to do with actual warranty issues.

While being a fan of plywood archtops with thinner laminations, the most outstanding (as well as surprisingly well feedback-resistant) carved plates show a full graduation from c. .120" to .275" or more.

I wonder if the change in woods on the 175 played a role? Didn't they start with a maple-basswood-maple laminate and the switched the basswood to poplar? The different density and properties of the wood might have affected the thickness.

[Ol' Fret]

I am puzzled... well, not really - I often find "imprecisions" in the archtop guitar world. So, sorry for being a sceptical mind!

Exactly 5 pounds are 2267.96g. We aren't talking of precision sniper rifles here, so let's be generous and talk of 2.27kg.
Gibson offers phenomenal data precision of their ES-175 1959 models on Gibson Memphis 1959 ES-175D . As far as my old eyes can see, G. don't reveal the overall weight of the guitar, though the interested reader gets informed that, for example, the average neck weight is "471.7361 gm / 1.040 lbs", or the nut width is "4.3282 cm / 1.704" ".

I'm not in the market for such guitars, not expected to ever be, but have just been stumbling on the given overall weights of two of them on German ebay:

The first guitar with serial # A07471 features a vintage burst and weighs 2960g or 6.53lbs

The second one with serial # A07525 is natural and weighs 3060g or 6.75lbs.

I'd say the deviation of 100g or 0.22lb between these two models is entirely within the usual manufacturing tolerances. However, the deviation to the OP's guitar of 690g or 1.52lb (the burst one), and of 790g or 1.74lb (the natural one) is certainly far out of any manufacturing tolerances.

Personally, I favor 17+" archtop guitars with an overall weight of approximately 3kg, so it is not about the absolute weight what is puzzling me. It could well be players who take the supposedly ultra-high precision manufacturing of the 1959 ES-175 VOS at face value, and others who hold the apparent discrepancy between theory and practice for nothing but buffooneries.
I'd be happy if archtop guitar manufacturers would not indiscriminately assume the high precision of their CNC machinery or marketing specialists or whatever else, but train or hire luthiers who still know how to work with their hands.

[lawson-stone]

So I decided to be a bit more precise than using my airline luggage scale and used a postal scale, and your concerns about the accuracy of my guitar's weight seems well grounded. On my postal scale, after zeroing the scale with a light stand on the platform so the guitar will stand freely, it weighed 6 pounds 8 ounces.

So I stand massively in error and appreciative of your checking my information and raising the question. Otherwise, I'd have gone on in ignorance and even a kind of smug satisfaction based on nothing but a Walmart luggage scale.

Come to think of it, I should get my money back on that scale...

Thanks for being a proper skeptic. Without such, we'd all believe anything we read on the internet...

[jbucklin]

I have a 2012 single pickup version of the same guitar. I have to pinch myself daily to make sure I'm not dreaming!