-
The deal from GC was too good to pass up. I have played a lot of "budget" archtops, and some very nice ones too, so I had no illusions about what I might get.
Overall, the maple is unremarkable. Not bad, but not what I'd call premium, even for a laminate. The finish of course is the matte, which I don't dislike, but wouldn't choose if I had an option for some other at the same ridiculously low price point. I found fit and finish overall to be good for this price point, though the nut seems a little funky to me. I need to examine it more closely. Also, due (I think) to a massive weather change while the guitar was in shipment, there is some finish checking that I'd be disappointed about in a more expensive guitar, but it is very superficial and it's on the back.
Playability is very good. I like Epiphone's necks and this is not the slimmest, but it's slimmer than the typical Gibson archtop neck. I'll measure sometime to be precise. The body is a tad slimmer than the Gibson. I mic it at 3.291" at the neck join. My Gibson ES175 is 3.412" at the neck joint. To my surprise, thought the neck has a heel splice, I can find no scarf joint. The heelsplice/scarf joint combination is something I have come to expect on budget guitars, but only a heel splice here.
Sound is very nice. I have posted a clip elsewhere, but plan to make a better one once I've changed the strings to my TI 12s. The Gibson Classic 57 pickups of course sound very nice and the pots have a good range and effect.
Last note: the guitar is pretty light. I weighed it on a postal scale and it came out to 6 pounds 5 ounces. My 1959 VOS ES175 weighs 6 pounds 7 ounces, so that gives you some point of comparison.
Pictures:
Last edited by lawson-stone; 11-25-2016 at 02:30 PM.
-
11-23-2016 12:00 PM
-
I find the instrument quite attractive, on the whole, particularly the tonal balance between the neck hues and the body. What we see as grain in wood is a slice in time, the physical evidence of the cell-by cell, year-by year growth of the tree. I look at any piece of wood like I would a Japanese water color - the subtle variations in line and tone can be fascinating, at least to me. It's a shame about the checking, but like the crazing of raku pottery, it again relates a bit of the history of the piece. As you get to know the instrument, and put a few hundred hours of playing time into it, you, too will leave your marks - a little fret wear here, a ding or scratch there, each departure from "perfection" having its' own little tale to tell of a cultural artifact having been created and used for a purpose, a role in the life a human being. But I think you know all this already, Professor Stone.
Congratulations, Lawson, on your new guitar, and play it in good health!
Last edited by citizenk74; 11-23-2016 at 03:33 PM. Reason: Misplaced emoji
-
Good thoughts, all. And my sentiments as well. I actually don't foresee myself selling this guitar unless someone aggressively were to try to buy it out from under me. I see it as potentially a travel guitar, or one I could even leave somewhere that I travel to often and have it to use when there.
Originally Posted by citizenk74
I find the instrument quite attractive, on the whole, particularly the tonal balance between the neck hues and the body. What we see as grain in wood is a slice in time, the physical evidence of the cell-by cell, year-by year growth of the tree. I look at any piece of wood like I would a Japanese water color - the subtle variations in line and tone can be fascinating, at least to me. It's a shame about the checking, but like the crazing of raku pottery, it again relates a bit of the history of the piece. As you get to know the instrument, and put a few hundred hours of playing time into it, you, too will leave your marks - a little fretwear here, a ding or scratch there, each departure from "perfection" having its' own little tale to tell of a cultural artifact having been created and used for a purpose, a role in the life a human being. But I think you know all this already, Professor Stone.
Congratulations, Lawson, on your new guitar, and play it in good health!
-
Congratulations on your purchase.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I ordered one, have not received shipping information yet. My thought was I have enough shinny guitars so it will be a nice change of pace. I want to put TI 12 Swings on it. Did you have to modify the nut at all? Are you using the Swings or Bebops? Thanks.
-
I put the TI Swing 12s on it yesterday. No modification needed and it really crowns the guitars best qualities. I'm a happy camper! Originally Posted by 392Hemi
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Thanks, that's what I want to do. Hopefully I'll get a good one.
-
For what it's worth, I bet that checking is from an impact rather than weather change. It matters not -- enjoy your new box, bud.
-
Might be-it's also very clearly, to direct inspection, superficial. Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
Eventually of course every finish gets some checking, and I love how it plays and sounds, and having a solid, good sounding budget instrument is not a bad idea. It'll be the mate to my MiK Epiphone Broadway. 2 guitars totally well under $1000 spent, but punching well above their weight class.
-
Just a note-I weighed this guitar, and it comes out to 6 pounds 5 ounces, compared to my 1959 VOS ES175, which is 6 pounds 7 ounces.
-
Looks great, played one at the store a while back and thought it seemed nice enough but for what you paid for it you no doubt came out on top. Enjoy
-
I agree. That's a bit of a beat up job, not quite the same thing as checking.? Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
however, no worries. A couple of battle scars? As long as the neck & tone are intact . . .
I have the twin of this guitar and it is a great player
-
Ironically I have a Blonde Epiphone Emperor Regent, I put a KA PU and Gibson Pots on it, bought new 93ish. Put my last set of L5's on it and I am reluctant to change them. Wonderful guitar in every way. I also have a nineteen ninety something Epiphone Sheraton ll with 57 classics on board and a same time period Epiphone LP with 57's. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
Poly doesn't check with temperature changes -- it has much more plasticizer in it, and it's therefore "stretchier" if you'll pardon the invented word. It may well be superficial on this guitar, because the wood can flex under impact; but being poly, I highly doubt it's weather-checking. The pattern of the checking as well, directional into a point, seems as well to indicate a rough stop somewhere along the line. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
But so long as it plays and sounds good, it's good. Forgive my pedantry and play it for all it's worth. I'm a big fan of Epis when they get it right -- I've owned one that was just fantastic -- and no doubt you've gotten one as well.
-
The finish is nitro on Epi 175s, not poly. They save money by calling it vintage, and not taking the time to polish it.
-
If you think satin finish should be called Satan finish, it seems to be thick enough to buff to a gloss, according to this happy owner: NGD Epi Premium ES 175 at blow out price! | Page 8 | Telecaster Guitar Forum Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
Im okay with the satin finish, but if it would buff out into a high gloss, i might give it a try. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
I guess to do this right, I'd have to take the hardware off the top, which is a bit of a deterrent. But doing the back might give me an idea whether it would be worth the effort.
-
Removing the hardware isn't that hard, but threading the controls back into the proper locations can be a pain. There are multiple ways to do it, and the interwebtubez have instructions of varying accuracy, as usual. I'm sure the finish could be polished, with the proper equipment and effort, but it's not worth it to me. I'll just leave mine as it is.
-
I'm usually ok with satin finishes but that buffed one does look pretty good.
-
Virtuoso Cleaner and Polish does a nice job of adding gloss without the elbow grease. I know from experience Originally Posted by 50Hz
Amazon.com: Virtuoso Premium Instrument Polish & Cleaner Combo: Musical Instruments
-
I dig the satin lacquer finish.
I'll bet it will look better & better with time
-
One of the things I'm enjoying about the Epi is the neck. I grew up playing modern C or even thin D necks (I still have a Charvel) and I always struggled with thicker Gibson necks. My only other archtop is a Godin and I play jazz on my tele. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
I know you have other Gibson archtops, have you played any "classic" archtop with a neck similar to the Epi's?
-
I like the neck too. I'm totally good with the traditional Gibson ES175 neck. I also have a 1954 L50 and an Aria Pro II PE180, which has the standard L5ces neck. My MiK Epiphone Broadway has a very slim neck, and my Epiphone Elitist Broadway has a neck a little thicker. The Epiphone ES175 is like the Elitist Broadway neck. Not a thin line, but not quite as thick as the Gibson 1959 VOS ES175. I like all those necks, but the Epi Elitist and the Epi 175 are pretty much perfect.
-
Picked mine up from GC last night. It was packed in a Martin guitar box stuffed with bubble wrap. First impression from the guy at GC was "what a great looking guitar". I agreed, it is different than the poly guitars, I really like it. The guitar came without a flaw looking like it may have never been touched but did not come double boxed with an Epiphone box on the inside. All stickers are on, pickup protectors and USA Pickup tags under the volume control knobs. Fret edges are smooth, the guitar was completely playable although tuning was a bit flat. The neck is bigger than I thought it would be, not thin and not thick. I have thicker and thinner necked guitars the thickest being the Baja Telecaster. The closest neck to it I think is my Emperor Regent. The other archtop I have is the Guild Savoy 150, this one has a very skinny neck. I got home late so I didn't spend much time with it. Played it acoustically and through the Peavey Classic 4/10. Having never played a Gibson ES175 I can't compare the but I have an Epiphone Sheraton ll with Classic 57's an LP with 57's, of course they all sound totally different. At volumes (bedroom volume) played with my other hollow bodies where I get feedback I did not get feedback with the 175. I will crank it up a bit later in the AM. So far I am very happy with the sound, feel and looks of this guitar, especially at $440. One of the new Gibson 175's comes with the 57's at around 4K as does one of the L5's. Not suggesting the Epiphone compares with them but if the 57's are good enough for them, $440 was a real bargain.
Ron
-
Nice review of your guitar. I think different GC's have different shipping processes. Mine was in the Epiphone box but then they packed that inside a Taylor guitar box, with packing paper padding to stabilize it. Still, I had some checking in the finish that might have come from impact. Not enough to be a problem for me at this price, though.
This to me illustrates just how great the Gibson 57 Classic pickup is. A competently built, though not artisanal, guitar body, with a solid, playable neck and decent hardware with cheap pickups will sound like a cheap guitar. That same guitar with 57 Classics will be several orders of magnitude better. If the body is incompetently built, if the neck is bad, the tuners poor, etc. then there is little hope for the guitar. But these Epi ES175s are well built for the budget factory type of instrument, and then they put first-class pickups on it.
BOOM. A budget guitar that punches WAAAAYY above it's class.
-
Good to know, thank you both for the feedback on necks!
Last edited by blille; 12-01-2016 at 11:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos