Heritage H-575 vs Gibson ES-175 Value?

[Wildcat]

I know there has been plenty of discussion on these two guitars. So forgive me for bring it up again.

Although they look some what the same, they can/are different. So I just don't understand the obvious build value with the Heritage guitar, but the market value of the ES-175 being much greater.

Some years ago I bought a new Heritage H-575 custom. Subsequently I bought, traded and sold probably 6-7 different Heritage guitars over 3-4 years. I really thought allot of the Heritage story, build quality, build design....... I was quite activity in the Heritage forum in support of the guitars.

I don't buy or sell guitars to make money, but the "hits" from buying and selling the Heritages is down right silly or counterintuitive to me. So now I am just shy of them and don't own any at all. If you don't bond with a guitar, then your options can be limited. I guess in the purest sense you buy a guitar to play it and for what if is.

[2bornot2bop]

Regarding the "resell" market, all "Heritage's" aren't created equal. You of course know this.

I've only owned, and sold, one 575. But I've owned enough of the bigger models to know which to buy and for what price to break even. I suspect you know this too.

So, I'm trying to understand what you're saying?

Regarding the 575, '175 comparison, we all know the drill....there is no true comparison, resell or otherwise.

[rpguitar]

You only take those "hits" when you buy brand new guitars. Used Gibsons and Heritages can be flipped fairly easily if you understand the market and don't overpay initially. A Gibson 175 holds its value better because it's an iconic guitar. A Heritage 575 is not. It can be a great guitar, better than some 175s for sure, but it's not iconic. Again, this is moot if both are already on the used market and reflect fair used prices. The only issue there is buying used from a retail shop, then selling privately. You'll usually find it hard to avoid a hit there (but not always).

I own a terrific 575 Custom with a spruce top and a couple of 175s. Good examples of both are certainly well worth owning.

[Greentone]

This is a truly tough subject to get a good handle on. Many of us have owned both Gibson and Heritage guitars. Many of us appreciate both makes and many of the models in each line. I am a devotee of both Gibson and Heritage guitars.

Let's be practical, though. Just as Martin flattops are easier to resell, all other things equal, than Gibson flattops, Guild flattops, or Taylor flattops for that matter, Gibson archtops are easier to resell than most Heritage archtops--at or near the price you paid.

It's a matter of supply and demand mechanics. People are deeply affected by the long standing reputations of both Gibson and Martin. By comparison, Heritage has only a little over 30 years of reputation as an active builder of admittedly great guitars.

I have not and would not hesitate to purchase a Heritage. For me, the Heritage Johnny Smith, Golden Eagle, Eagle Classic, and Super Eagle guitars represent superb price/quality/playability points in the guitar universe--for someone interested in a jazz guitar. FWIW, many of the best jazz guitars have always come out of Kalamazoo.

GT

[2bornot2bop]

Let's be practical, though. Just as Martin flattops are easier to resell, all other things equal, than Gibson flattops, Guild flattops, or Taylor flattops for that matter, Gibson archtops are easier to resell than most Heritage archtops--at or near the price you paid.

Are you saying "new" or "used?"

I've bought and sold both Gibson and Heritage, but none new. The problem one has with reselling a Gibson, especially nowadays, is if you're selling a nice L5CES, you've got to find that buyer whose willing to pay even $5500 for it, much less $6500.

Lot of resell is timing, and random purchases...like being at the right place at the right time.

Both being equal, and buying used, I'd move a Heritage faster than a Gibson because there are a lot more buyers available for the Heritage than the Gibson. That's been my personal experience.

I've watched, from the cheap seats mind you, this entire resell market crash, in a matter of 2 years, where I don't want to sample anything much any more, for it's a BUYERS market...and selling anything, marked even as a steal, and it's tough finding a buyer...as an example: MINT, absolutely MINT, as new L4CES available for $2700 and no takers. I've seen many available used guitars priced equally as well...sitting...it's like the sound of crickets for many sellers in this market.

The days of Gibson price recovery in this market....I'm not seeing it. Who remembers the blonde L5CES available for $5400 on this forum's for sale pages? That sat for 3 months....yes, crickets..........

[Wildcat]

Regarding the "resell" market, all "Heritage's" aren't created equal. You of course know this.

I've only owned, and sold, one 575. But I've owned enough of the bigger models to know which to buy and for what price to break even. I suspect you know this too.

So, I'm trying to understand what you're saying?

Regarding the 575, '175 comparison, we all know the drill....there is no true comparison, resell or otherwise.

But I've owned enough of the bigger models to know which to buy and for what price to break even. I suspect you know this too.

I do now. However, to be quite honest I bought into the Heritage story early in my guitar days. For better or worst I just logically thought that the decision was intuitively obvious. The real Gibson guitars. I believed that very much so. I was very naïve about the intangibles associated with iconic models and brands. Silly me to think logically about very a emotional and passionate subject. And yes I did buy my share of new models before realizing what was happening.

[icr]

but the "hits" from buying and selling the Heritages is down right silly

Why would I, or anyone else want a guitar that you don't want. Assuming you know guitars.

[Greentone]

Greg (2bop),

Like you, I tend to be a used guitar buyer/seller exclusively. I also tend to buy used cars. I let other people take the initial depreciation on big ticket items. I even buy houses used--talk about initial depreciation!

There are many excellent _new_ Gibson, Heritage, etc., guitars out there--but I don't like shiny enough to want to take that one-third or so hit on value just to walk away with a virgin instrument.

[jads57]

This is just my opinion, so here goes! Gibson seems to get the details correct as far as playability and aesthetics as well. Just like the 1970's Gibsons the Heritage Owners produced when they were working for Gibson, are basically the blueprint/DNA for much of their lines playability and aesthitic. If that rocks your boat, then Heritage is for you.
If you care for the Golden Age Gibsons 1950's & early 1960's, you will be happier w/ newer Gibson products overall.

While you can specify custom options from Heritage, you will rarely find used ones w/ bigger necks or nicer inlays than the stock offerings. So if that's important to you, you need to order new. Other wise used Gibsons are your logical choice.

[2bornot2bop]

I know you didn't just blame the 70's Norlin era on the Heritage builders, while at the same time claim the 50's 60's were built by Golden Era craftsmen. How many of the Heritage ownership built both guitars?

I'm not taking the bait for another Heritage vs Gibson debate. No way Jose. They're silly.

[Jabberwocky]

Gibson



Heritage



Mutts make great pets, too.

[Lobomov]

That has little to do with Heritage as such. You take a bath on most new guitars when you try to sell them used. So the sane thing to do is flip used guitars as already stated.

That being said, I'd buy new if something unique captures my fancy. The new ES-275 might be a candidate. I really like a lot of it's features. The thinner body, the les paul neck and mhs pups. But if I buy that it is well knowing that I'll lose up to half of what I paid for it, if I ever decide to sell it

[GNAPPI]

I'm off anything new from Gibson but in the past had bought many new. Fender and Japanese Gretsch I will still buy new but others no.

It's funny how players will get all misty eyed for the rare Gibson with nice wood and sunburst but an exceptionally well done "other" brand will barely get noticed.

[Wildcat]

Why would I, or anyone else want a guitar that you don't want. Assuming you know guitars.

I don't understand the question? Many used guitars are bought and sold on this forum. What works for one person does not necessarily work for another person.

[Wildcat]

That is absolutely hilarious !!!!!

Gibson



Heritage



Mutts make great pets, too.

[Wildcat]

Sorry didn't mean to go down that road. Maybe I'll just pull the plug on this thread.

I'm not taking the bait for another Heritage vs Gibson debate. No way Jose. They're silly.

[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.

I was just in the market for a guitar of this spec. And I bought a 175. Why?

Knowing full well about all the upgrades Heritage includes, knowing I could probably get a 575 cheaper, knowing that I wont open the case one day 15 years from now and see that all my gold parts are now green.. I bought the Gibson. Because that's what I wanted. The reasons for it vary by person to person and all reasons are valid. Because its what's in the individuals heart, not what I say or do..

As far as making your money back on a guitar.. How does that happen? I have never come close to breaking even on a guitar. And most of the time, I hand a better instrument to the next owner than it was when I got it. In this market, I think we need to understand that these are really not investments anymore. They cost too much when they are new and they continually drop in value. Then, they plateau and then vary by an index that is established by a who knows what market 20 years later.. Lets face it friends, there are a lot less youngsters taking up the guitar and even fewer that are loving Jazz..

Rant over.
L,J

[John A.]

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.

The top is a pretty gigantic "exception". 575 and 175 are different guitars. They look similar, and arguably Heritages offer better value for the build quality and playability, but they sound significantly different. The market wants one sound more than the other. As far as vibe, mojo, whatever you want to call it -- to me that's a branding thing, not an objective thing. For whatever reason, Heritage's attempt to portray themselves as the true custodians of the Gibson's mojo and tradition never really worked for reasons that have little to do with the guitars themselves. Gibson is the brand the market recognizes, outside of a niche of cognoscenti, as with Fender/Music Man/G&L. It is what it is.

John

[mr. beaumont]

Heritage's history is very short compared to Gibson. Iconic versus niche. Gibson makes guitars everybody knows, Heritage makes guitars guitar players know.

One is not better than the other. I own a 575. If I find the right 175 someday, I'd definitely like one of those too.

[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.

[agentsmith]

The following is my opinion...

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 Gibson left MI. This was just internet folklore as Gibson made offers to the best luthiers. Many left, a few stayed.

What *IS* true and is unusual to me is that heritage does not have 4" body mold templates which is why their archtops are thinner than gibson's. So if you buy an eagle, it's a thinline compared to an L5. Because of this, the heritage guitars do not have the dynamic range that a gibson has. This translates both acoustically and electrically.

I also think heritage has made some questionable choices from an ascetic point of view. Everyone talks about the headstock and I agree it's ugly but some of their guitars with the cloud inlays just look horrendous to me. And to transition from the cloud inlays to rectangular inlays on the same instrument just looks like a hack. The sunburst pickguards and the odd shape don't work for me either...

Having owned 5 or 6 Eagles as well as 5 or 6 Gibson L5s, I can tell you that the gibson sound quality was more consistent. The heritage guitars were all over the map tonally depending on how the tops were carved, what kind of bracing they used, etc. Also, the HRW pickups that heritage uses as standard are very mid rangey and don't sound nearly as good as the gibson classic '57 or the burstbuckers.

A couple years ago, I owned an L5 and a Heritage Eagle simultaneously. These two instruments were culled as the "best in breed" based on having played nearly a dozen of each model to come up with the best.

Practically every L5 CES or Wes I have played sounds very similar to what I consider the standard. The heritage eagles vary so much that it's hard to define what is the standard but the one I had exhibited an L5-esque sound quality to it. The heritage top was carved thinner and it had more velvetyness and sweetness to the tone and sounded absolutely stunning for block chords and octaves ala wes. I ended up selling the L5 because I felt that for 1/2 the money invested, the eagle a better guitar. It did not sound exactly like an L5 but it was definitely in the same family.

The 175 and 575 differ in even more ways. With the smaller body size, the thinner depth of the 575 becomes more significant IMO. Having a solid top yields an attack without the thunk of the plywood 175 and IMO, a 575 is much further away from it's gibson counterpart than the eagle is.

I also don't like the look of the 575 with it's dot inlays, no binding, etc. IMO, for the money you should have a bound fingerboard and nicer inlays.

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.

[wintermoon]

"What *IS* true and is unusual to me is that heritage does not have 4" body mold templates which is why their archtops are thinner than gibson's. So if you buy an eagle, it's a thinline compared to an L5. Because of this, the heritage guitars do not have the dynamic range that a gibson has. This translates both acoustically and electrically."


this is something I never understood. the full size archtops are thinlines in comparison to a Gibson.
that and the thinner top isn't helping the electric sound.
some people might like the thinner body from a comfort standpoint but I think the majority of folks want the deeper body/deeper sound that a Gibson has.
it can't be from being too lazy to make new forms, it must be a conscious decision on their part.
all the aesthetic appointments aside, I just don't get it...

[ESCC]

Its unfortunate that there aren't quality music stores that carry both Gibson and Heritage so one can make an onsite informed decision when considering the two brands and assessing their similarities and differences. I am not one who has the patience to buy and sell guitars online until I find the right instrument.

I am currently gasing for a Gibson single pick-up L-4CES or a 16" WesMo, they don't exist so I begin looking at other brands, a Heritage Sweet 16 with a single set-humbucker is close but different and many are selling for the price of a Gibson. A single pick-up 575 is in the neighborhood, but still different and hard to come by. I do not believe that Heritage is a drop in quality ( I've owned one since "93), but as Agentsmith said they are different from a Gibson and as many have stated, nothing is a Gibson but a Gibson and I agree with that, Heritage is similar and they make excellent instruments, but different.

[jads57]

Agentsmith has explained it extremely well in his elaborate description. It's not that there aren't some very nice Heritage guitars out there. It's that there all over the map, especially w/ their archtops. This could be said of Gibson as well in the 1970's especially. But you would think with a smaller company, consistancy would be much higher.
Having owned several Heritages H-535,550,Roy Clark,Milleniun Ultra,etc. thinlines and laminates seem to be their strength overall.

[Wildcat]

+1

Its unfortunate that there aren't quality music stores that carry both Gibson and Heritage so one can make an onsite informed decision when considering the two brands and assessing their similarities and differences.