Heritage H-575 vs Gibson ES-175 Value?

**Wildcat** · 11-01-2016, 01:33 PM

Interesting point.

Originally Posted by jads57

But you would think with a smaller company, consistancy would be much higher.
.

**Wildcat** · 11-01-2016, 01:40 PM

Excellent point that I did not know. As I mentioned I was naïve. Also the Gibson complaints probably fed into my thinking.

Originally Posted by agentsmith

I think some of the heritage hype is over the top. I don't hear this much anymore - maybe because the principals are all gone - but I used to hear how heritage guitars are made by all the best gibson luthiers who didn't want to move when .

**Wildcat** · 11-01-2016, 01:50 PM

1.Outstanding analysis and an opinion based on extensive real experience.Just what I was looking for. Thank you.
2.My thinking was back then I was buying the best that Gibson/Heritage had to offer after moving. So I did overpay at that time.

Originally Posted by agentsmith

Resale value is a real problem with heritage too. Even if you buy used, it's hard to find what you want at a reasonable price so it's not uncommon for folks to pull the trigger on an instrument and pay $400-$500 too much and then when they go to sell it, have a difficult time getting their money out of it. .

**agentsmith** · 11-01-2016, 01:53 PM

one reason for the inconsistencies is that every heritage guitar is made by hand (to order) so the top thicknesses, bracing and other characteristics vary from guitar to guitar whereas gibson makes them to a very specific specification. This can obviously be good or bad depending on what's asked for. I often think carvin shoots themselves in the foot - for example - because they offer options that don't make sense sonically even though they look amazing.

Regarding the body depth, I tried to order an eagle in an L5 thickness and was told explicitly that they couldn't do it because they didn't have body molds that thick.

Seemed incredibly odd given that the narrative is that their guitars are what Gibsons are supposed to be. I also contacted them about making a true 175 copy and was told that solid wood is better and that the 575 is actually a better 175.

OTOH, i don't want to bad mouth them because the hand picked eagle I had *DID* sound (subjectively) better than my L5 for what I was looking for.

It's basically just a totally different guitar. It's a misnomer that it's "better" than gibson. Just different. If you happen to like it, that's cool but IMO, if you want a 175 or L5, gibson is the only thing that will work. Neither a holst, a benedetto, an eastman, a d'quisto, a sadowsky nor anything else will sound exactly like a gibson.

**Wildcat** · 11-01-2016, 01:53 PM

My point exactly.

Originally Posted by Max405

You know, on paper the 575 should be the guitar to buy. As far as I can see, they are pretty much the same guitar as the 175 (spec-wise), with the exception of being fully solid carved as opposed to laminated, Duncan pickups, A polished non outgassing ebony pickguard and better bindings. These are costly, desireable add-ons, make no mistake about it. Coupled with much better customer service than the soul-less robots at Gibson provide.

So, if you are in the market for a 16" 24-3/4 scale guitar, why wouldn't you get a 575? On paper, it really is the wise choice.

**Wildcat** · 11-01-2016, 02:06 PM

Maybe I just should buy the Ibanez Pat Metheny PM-120 for sale on the forum.

**Stringswinger** · 11-01-2016, 02:08 PM

I am guessing that there are at least two reasons that Heritage guitars differ from their Gibson counterparts:

1. The founders wanted to make their mark in the world of guitar construction. They did not want to start a company based on copying the designs of Gibson; and

2. There were legal reasons (They did not want Gibson to sue them and needed Gibson's cooperation to get started).

I have played some wonderful Heritage guitars (Mimi Fox's H-575 comes to mind) and owned one (A H-535 with Duncan PUPS). I like their headstock (The pointy pickguards are not only unpleasant to my eye, but seem....dangerous?) and I think less binding and inlays on a jazz guitar is OK particularly if the guitar is at a much lower pricepoint than it's Gibson counterpart.

They do seem a bit more "inconsistent" than their Gibson counterparts, probably as a result of being a bit more "handmade".

Like it or not, for resale, the only brands that consistently do well are Gibson, Fender and Martin. That said, a used Heritage vs. a used Gibson may be a wash these days if one is ready to move on. Buying new and holding long term, the Gibson may well be a better choice based on past performance, but I would not bet on past trends to continue.

For jazz guitar, Gibson has an iconic sound. Heritage, Ibanez, Guild and perhaps a few others build perfectly serviceable jazz guitars. If they work for you, great. I have two ES-175's. I have considered the Heritage 575, but for me, Gibson's rule. YMMV

**GNAPPI** · 11-01-2016, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Hammertone

Form factor is a slippery concept to some. The ES-175 and H-575 look very similar is some ways, but very different in other ways. They perform very similarly is some ways, but very differently in other ways. I voted with my wallet - I don't own either of them.

HT, if by your pic you are illustrating that being a look alike is NOT being like an original, I agree, boy do I ever.

I for one am tired of cookie cutter cars designed in a wind tunnel that if the logo were not there you couldn't pick out the brand.

Give me a Lotus Europa, Volvo 1800es, Jag S type, 80's Pontiac Firebird or other HUMAN DESIGNED car and I'll give up a few MPG happily.

Anyway since git makers do not have wind tunnels yet, the cookie cutter designs are the fault of buyers.

**Jabberwocky** · 11-01-2016, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by ESCC

...I am currently gasing for a Gibson single pick-up L-4CES or a 16" WesMo, they don't exist ...

But they do exist!

https://www.archtop.com/ac_10L4CES.html

https://www.archtop.com/ac_09L4CES_915.html

Heritage H-575 vs Gibson ES-175 Value?-421x556x10l4_-jpg-pagespeed-ic-g1cgmqio6q-jpg

Heritage H-575 vs Gibson ES-175 Value?-421x556x10l4_-jpg-pagespeed-ic-g1cgmqio6q-jpg

Heritage H-575 vs Gibson ES-175 Value?-444x600x09l4_-jpg-pagespeed-ic-vhb8i7r3ro-jpg

I bought the Blondie from Joe V. in Jan 2011. I posted a PSA here about the 2009 ASB when it was for sale at Sprucetree, and then about a year later at Joe V's.

**Hammertone** · 11-01-2016, 02:53 PM

When it comes to shorter-scale (24 3/4"), smaller (well, 16 1/2") guitars, I prefer this sort of thing. No wind tunnels involved:

**wintermoon** · 11-01-2016, 02:55 PM

you should change your user name to Hofnertone

**Max405** · 11-01-2016, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Stringswinger

I am guessing that there are at least two reasons that Heritage guitars differ from their Gibson counterparts:

1. The founders wanted to make their mark in the world of guitar construction. They did not want to start a company based on copying the designs of Gibson; and

2. There were legal reasons (They did not want Gibson to sue them and needed Gibson's cooperation to get started).

I have played some wonderful Heritage guitars (Mimi Fox's H-575 comes to mind) and owned one (A H-535 with Duncan PUPS). I like their headstock (The pointy pickguards are not only unpleasant to my eye, but seem....dangerous?) and I think less binding and inlays on a jazz guitar is OK particularly if the guitar is at a much lower pricepoint than it's Gibson counterpart.

They do seem a bit more "inconsistent" than their Gibson counterparts, probably as a result of being a bit more "handmade".

Like it or not, for resale, the only brands that consistently do well are Gibson, Fender and Martin. That said, a used Heritage vs. a used Gibson may be a wash these days if one is ready to move on. Buying new and holding long term, the Gibson may well be a better choice based on past performance, but I would not bet on past trends to continue.

For jazz guitar, Gibson has an iconic sound. Heritage, Ibanez, Guild and perhaps a few others build perfectly serviceable jazz guitars. If they work for you, great. I have two ES-175's. I have considered the Heritage 575, but for me, Gibson's rule. YMMV

SS, Nailed! Some great points. Let me add another.

I can't quantify this on the 175 vs 575 debate because I never played an H575. But on my JS's there is a distinct difference in the feel of the necks and the fretboard. The Gibson seems have a very slight gentle rounding off on the treble side of the fret board, into the neck. The Heritage feels sharper, or pointier in the same spot. The Gibson neck is much more comfortable to play because of this. Also, I believe the Gibson has more of conical fretboard than the Heritage does. To me, the strings follow the contour of the radious of the neck better on the Gibson. There are pairs of notes that I flat out cannot play past the 14th fret on the Heritage that are a piece of cake on the Gibson. The result is a very easy surface to play on. Its almost subliminal because its so subtle, but its there. Without question.

JD

**aboutIt** · 11-01-2016, 03:51 PM

Obviously the Heritage is the superior instrument. Gibson has the 175, but the Heritage is a 575. Gibson might be number 1, but the Heritage goes up to 5, see. The thing I don't understand is why Ibanez doesn't just end the game with an A-OK1175.
-- Nigel

**mr. beaumont** · 11-01-2016, 03:56 PM

It's 400 more, innit?

**jads57** · 11-01-2016, 04:02 PM

Wow Heritage superior? Different I agree, but not superior at least to me and many others here in this thread. Solid tops and backs sound different than laminate ones. Gibson also offers this in their L-4CES and ES-336,356,Pat Martino, Johnny A etc. For me I found when it comes to electrics I prefer laminates over solid tops w/ few exceptions.

Feedback sometimes becomes an issue w/ solid tops vs. laminates. Also there are tonal differences which you can hear.
Most of the Iconic records were recorded w/ the original Gibsons 175,335 Tal Farlow, as well as solid top L-5CES, Johnny Smith etc. So I think those are the tones most people are chasing.

Nothing wrong w/ different designs and sounds from newer designs. In fact I love both my Benedetto Bambino Std as well as my ES-339 Studio.

**mr. beaumont** · 11-01-2016, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by jads57

Wow Heritage superior? Different I agree, but not superior at least to me and many others here in this thread. Solid tops and backs sound different than laminate ones. Gibson also offers this in their L-4CES and ES-336,356,Pat Martino, Johnny A etc. For me I found when it comes to electrics I prefer laminates over solid tops w/ few exceptions.

Feedback sometimes becomes an issue w/ solid tops vs. laminates. Also there are tonal differences which you can hear.
Most of the Iconic records were recorded w/ the original Gibsons 175,335 Tal Farlow, as well as solid top L-5CES, Johnny Smith etc. So I think those are the tones most people are chasing.

Nothing wrong w/ different designs and sounds from newer designs. In fact I love both my Benedetto Bambino Std as well as my ES-339 Studio.

Might have been a bit of Spinal Tap humor behind aboutIt's post, i think...

**wintermoon** · 11-01-2016, 04:09 PM

yep, tongue firmly in cheek

**2bornot2bop** · 11-01-2016, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by agentsmith

Resale value is a real problem with heritage too. Even if you buy used, it's hard to find what you want at a reasonable price so it's not uncommon for folks to pull the trigger on an instrument and pay $400-$500 too much and then when they go to sell it, have a difficult time getting their money out of it.

I respectfully disagree. Since 2011, I won't say how many Heritage, as well as other brands, I've acquired that were sold under their market value. And then later resold, and not a one for a loss. You're intelligent. You know how the acquisition-sell game is played. I know you know how to buy and sell Jack. Isn't it disingenuous to suggest good buys aren't to be had from both Gibson and Heritage. Yes, selling in todays market is problematic, because it's a buyers market. But don't plead ignorance about knowing how to buy to "flip." You've had an association with archtops decades longer than I, and I know how to buy/sell. It's common sense. There's no mystery to it.

**Jabberwocky** · 11-01-2016, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by aboutIt

Obviously the Heritage is the superior instrument. Gibson has the 175, but the Heritage is a 575. Gibson might be number 1, but the Heritage goes up to 5, see. The thing I don't understand is why Ibanez doesn't just end the game with an A-OK1175.
-- Nigel

Tufnel, that you? I can hear the lisp.

Late to the party...again. Dang!

**Wildcat** · 11-01-2016, 05:29 PM

Gentlemen,

I love the comments, opinions, passion, and deep analysis and thoughts. But don't let me be "that guy" that lit the fuse to set off the fireworks. I have seen it before and can be a slippery slope.

I thank you all and I have learned quite a bit and enjoyed the discussion.

Wildcat

**jads57** · 11-01-2016, 09:09 PM

Cubs or Indians? GM or Ford? It's all good. I can't help if you have bad taste,LOL!

**agentsmith** · 11-01-2016, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

I respectfully disagree. Since 2011, I won't say how many Heritage, as well as other brands, I've acquired that were sold under their market value. And then later resold, and not a one for a loss. You're intelligent. You know how the acquisition-sell game is played. I know you know how to buy and sell Jack. Isn't it disingenuous to suggest good buys aren't to be had from both Gibson and Heritage. Yes, selling in todays market is problematic, because it's a buyers market. But don't plead ignorance about knowing how to buy to "flip." You've had an association with archtops decades longer than I, and I know how to buy/sell. It's common sense. There's no mystery to it.

It's not a matter of knowing how to buy and sell. Sometimes as an artist, you need a particular instrument for a project. If you're strictly a collector you can afford to sit around and wait until an instrument becomes available at the price that makes it a no-lose-if-you-sell proposition. It's not disingenuous to state an accurate fact which is that heritage guitars go for a lower percentage of their retail value than gibsons do so if you do buy high, you *WILL* lose money. I kind of resent the implication that I am being disingenuous here. I have no stake in this game. I call them as I see them even if it pisses off the herd. I stated that the heritage eagle I had worked better for me and was a better bargain than the L5.

I feel like half the disagreements on here are from folks who get pissy over someone saying something bad about one of their children.

Feel free to chest pound but I won't respond further.

**Stringswinger** · 11-01-2016, 10:46 PM

Back to my friend Mimi Fox's Heritage. Mimi's guitar is more like an L-4CES than a 175. It is a carved Spruce top with Carved maple sides and neck. I have played it and it sounds great (I think the neo classical fretboard looks great too). IIRC, Heritage puts this out as a signature model with a different tailpiece than Mimi's personal guitar and with her name inlayed into the headstock.

Here is a clip of Mimi playing her axe:

**2bornot2bop** · 11-02-2016, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by agentsmith

It's not a matter of knowing how to buy and sell. Sometimes as an artist, you need a particular instrument for a project. If you're strictly a collector you can afford to sit around and wait until an instrument becomes available at the price that makes it a no-lose-if-you-sell proposition. It's not disingenuous to state an accurate fact which is that heritage guitars go for a lower percentage of their retail value than gibsons do so if you do buy high, you *WILL* lose money. I kind of resent the implication that I am being disingenuous here. I have no stake in this game. I call them as I see them even if it pisses off the herd. I stated that the heritage eagle I had worked better for me and was a better bargain than the L5.

I feel like half the disagreements on here are from folks who get pissy over someone saying something bad about one of their children.

Feel free to chest pound but I won't respond further.

You know how to buy so you're not at a loss even when you sell, is the only point I was making. And I'm only referring to Heritage guitars on the used market.

I don't buy new guitars, there's too much depreciation in them. And I'm happy for those who choose to own a new guitar who are willing to pay more to own same.

We deal in different guitars, so our experiences are different. However, if I bought a new GE at $5k it will sell used for $4k. Or a new Super Eagle bought at $5k definitely will resell at $4k.

That's the same as saying a new Super 400 acquired for $7500 will resell at $6500. There's a $1k buyers loss either way.

**Jabberwocky** · 11-02-2016, 05:19 AM

I don't know Jack but I know he is not disingenuous. He may be prickly, opinionated (but damn, he backs up his opinions with chops) and can be a bit of a tightass but disingenuous, no.

For disingenuous, all one has to do is trawl through the posting history of whomever one fancies. And you make up your own mind.

The last Super Peagle Natural I saw posted for sale by a man called Drew on HOC dropped to $2600 and it struggled to find a buyer. At $2600. On a fan club. Barely used.

Who pays $4000 for a used Super Peagle? Would you, 2bop?

This IS a $4000 guitar that you paid $2400 for after we told you all we knew about it : https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guita...0-archtop.html .

So, yeah, it can go the other way, too.