-
Mines maple i think - certainly a brighter guitar than I was expecting playing other 175s.
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
A matter of taste. I like the snappiness of mine. But I didn't really have preconceptions .... a darker one would have been cool too....
-
12-23-2016 10:46 AM
-
I'm also not a fan of the 'old wood is better' argument as older (pre-Norlin Gibsons) tend to be lighter construction, which I feel is more significant that the age of the wood. A similarly built guitar with new woods will have many of the same qualities as the old guitars. Some of the wood roasting techniques look promising for aging & stabilizing wood, but a few years of playing achieves much of the same results. Originally Posted by yebdox
Can anyone spot the new wood vs old wood? The fist pic is a 2015 1959 ES-175 VOS, the 2nd & 3rd pics are my 1960 ES-175 . Gibson's new VOS' are missing all the glue squeeze out on the kerfing and bracing - so much for the 'care and craftsmanship in a vintage guitar' argument, the new construction is much cleaner (and therefore not 'vintage correct'). The newer guitars are also missing the cans around the pots and jack.
As far as tone - if I had to get rid of one, it would be the 1960. The 2015 is much livelier (this is one of the 59's that CME is blowing out for $3k. I've played a couple and both were livelier than my 1960).
Last edited by MaxTwang; 12-23-2016 at 02:31 PM.
-
I have a quick es175 question as well, that I dont thinks merits its own thread. I tried a es175 59ri, that my local shop just received today ... and I was surprised that it had a huge valley between the pup making the neck pup point upward. Then the top curved the other way making the pup selector look like it stood on top of a hill. Is this normal?
I do not have much experience with archtops. I own a Ibanez PM100, but it doesnt curve like this.
-
Actually a lot of these have the pickup mounting ring turned around the wrong way. My VOS 1959 was that way too, and I just unscrewed the mounting ring, rotated it 180 degrees and all was well.
-
Yeah, but the old glue was a lot better. For one thing, the horses in the old days (from which they made the glue) were a lot better. A '65 Mustang had a lot of get up and go, and it had a 289 engine that put out probably 100 horsepower. Nowadays they have sport SUV's that require 400 horses to get really good performance. Originally Posted by MaxTwang
I'm also not a fan of the 'old wood is better' argument as older (pre-Norlin Gibsons) tend to be lighter construction, which I feel is more significant that the age of the wood. .
Can anyone spot the new wood vs old wood? The fist pic is a 2015 1959 ES-175 VOS, the 2nd & 3rd pics are my 1960 ES-175 . Gibson's new VOS' are missing all the glue squeeze out on the kerfing and bracing - so much for the 'care and craftsmanship in a vintage guitar' argument, the new construction is much cleaner (and therefore not 'vintage correct').
Clearly, horses today are not what they used to be.
-
Ok and the very pronounced curved top going between the pups and curving up so the pup selector ends on top of a small hill is just as it should be then, right? Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
The old wood is such an interesting topicHave spoken to guys that make acoustic guitars starting at $10,000, they say the old guitar thing is a myth. Some say that a well made guitar may peak at around 3-5 years and as they settle in and the mids settle down as opposed to a cheap guitar which is all treble and bass designed to get off the showroom floor asap but will only sound worse over time as no mids in the design. A good guitar should hold its sound for about 30 years but after that who knows? Speaking to builders that have played 100 year old arch tops they do not speak highly of their sound quality at all.
Then there is the issue of the old thought process that the back and sides should vibrate but today the view is its all about the top and not losing energy through the back and sides, any sound going through the back is lost energy etc
I too love my 175 but man I would love it more if it had p90 or p94s installed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Here's mine played solo (In the Wee Small Hours). It's a 1976, which I later found out is not held to be a good year! But it feels and sounds fine to me.
Trivia fact, this one belonged to Gerry Rafferty of 'Baker Street' fame. (He had just sold some of his guitars to the shop I bought it from in 1982).
-
This is mine played acoustically (fingerstyle). I think it gets a bit of that Joe Pass 'Virtuoso' sound.
-
The ES-175 is so variable instrument to instrument. I got curious about them after picking up a Heritage H575, now try every one I can find. And someday will own one. The trends and eras mentioned here can to some degree predict what you find, but it mostly comes down to individual guitar personality. Best one I encountered: an early 90s example, ratty looking, not well cared for, repaired headstock. I should not have waited. It was alive, resonant and responsive. Most I try are not like that. Drove a long way last year to try a pretty 2006 ES-175 with P-90s. It was heavy and dead. Pretty cause it had not been played.
Since I love P-90s so, and would love to have an early ES-175 so equipped, the older ES-125s are a pretty natural substitute. Finding they are just as variable. The other "sorta like" guitar I could suggest is a Guild X-175. Golden Age in NJ had a '75 example years ago. No money at the time, but that guitar had it, had a lot of it. Warm, pretty sound, effortless player, light.
MD
-
It so happens that I got a chance to play a mid 50's P90 model last week and while it had new flats it was the hardest git to play I've ever played.
It wasn't the action, amp (a deluxe repro Fender) or strings, I simply could not extract a sound I liked, it was like struggling to swim against a current... it seemed to resist me. It may sound weird but it's exactly how it seemed.
At nearly $5k that would have been a very expensive mistake if purchased online with the added risks of shipping.
Age and name on the head do not make for a great guitar.
-
I'm somewhat of an expert on 175s having owned them in every era gibson made. There is no "best" but several eras were known for different properties. The late '50s ones have very thin tops and sound much more like a carved top instrument. They sound "lighter" and have less thunk. They also feedback more. In general, as time went on, gibson made the top thicker and thicker to combat warranty issues having to do with top sinkage. For this reason, many instruments in the '50s and '60s will have significant issues in this area so look for the bridge pickup and bridge being adjusted very high to combat this. You can also see the top sinkage in some cases with a side view of the instrument.
Top sinkage is not necessarily a deal breaker if the top is relatively stable but it's something to consider if you plan on having an instrument for more than 10 years.
The mid '60s gibsons had slightly thicker tops and more thunk. '70s were even thicker still with gibson switching to 3pc necks and even maple necks which went from '73 to '82. I personally don't like the maple necks but Jon Kreisberg plays one and sounds great. I had a '73 at one point which was an earlier one prior to them going to the maple neck. It was a 3pc mahogany and overall was probably my favorite 175, all other things considered (playability, thunk, feedback, etc).
In the early '80s Gibson switched to mahogany plywood back and sides, switched back to maple and then switched back to mahogany in '88 and '89 and then switched again to maple where it has stayed ever since. The mahogany versions also happened to have shaw pickups in the early years and some type of hybrid in the late '80s. The combination of the mahogany and the pickup made the guitar really dark sounding and super thunky. My 2nd favorite 175 was an '89 with mahogany back and sides.
After that, they thickened the tops again and I have liked very few of the ones made from the '90s to present day. To me, they just don't have "it". Gibson reissued the '59 175 with different pickups and a thinner top and they sound cool but to me, they don't sound like a "real" '50s 175.
I hear a big difference between the guitars made prior to 1990 and the ones of today and personally wouldn't own a 175 made after 1990 but it depends on personal taste.
The other thing to realize is that if you do get an older Gibson, be prepared to have the fingerboard leveled and pay for a refret. Almost every 30+ year old Gibson hollowbody I have played or owned had a tailrise in the fingerboard and needed some work. If you find a good one, it's worth the money you put into it. Both of my '60s barney kessels and my '89 175 were planed and refretted. The nice thing is that the older wood is typically less prone to future movement.
-
Helpful commentary, Jack, thanks. I always wondered about Kreisberg's git, could only find him stating it was from the early 70's, never a mention of the neck. I can hear the difference in tone and clarity with the lower register, but don't know how much of the classic 175 tone is generated by the mahogany neck. Love Kreisberg's clarity and warmth.
What do you think about mahogany vs maple for neck stability?
i did have a chance to A/B my VOS with a buddy's very nice '61 and was very hard pressed to tell a difference with tone or playability.Last edited by yebdox; 12-24-2016 at 11:36 AM.
-
Disagree that there is little difference among plywood guitars. I've owned plenty of solid carved top gibsons including a 1948 super 400, '64 L5, '70s, '80s and '00s L5, Johnny Smiths from several eras, etc. There is a huge difference in sound quality among plywood guitars. One of the biggest myths ever is that the quality of wood does not matter with plywood guitars. It reminds me of the naive comments I sometimes read where folks claim that when amplified and with a humbucker, there's no difference in tone between a solid body and an archtop since the pickups are magnetic. There is a huge amount of physics involved with a guitar and seemingly insignificant details often sum to make big differences in tone.
Last edited by agentsmith; 12-24-2016 at 12:12 PM.
-
I personally think the maple neck makes a huge difference in the attack. I've often felt that the maple neck guitars have a chirp coming off the pick attack that is missing on the mahogany neck versions. I personally prefer the mahogany neck models and feel that they are better examples of the classic 175 tone but all subjective of course. And another factory which I forgot to mention is that the maple neck guitars are a lot heavier. The newer 175s are much heavier as well (the '59 reissue is an exception). The heavier builds contribute negatively to the classic tone IMO.
-
Ha! I tried very carefully to craft my comments so there would be nothing to disagree with, but you proved me wrong, Jack!
I thought I was suggesting that everyone is entitled to like the sound and instrument they like, that guitars from different eras could vary widely in tone, thereby suggesting that older and newer lams could both yield desireable and undesireable tones, that no era is consistent, as evident in your endorsement of later models of 175's for the reasons you state. I tried carefully to avoid falling into the trap of "old wood is always good", though it probably was consistently better, including the stuff that lams are made from, then and now.
I was really just commenting on my amusement with someone praising the quality of lam from 1989, as typically folks glorify the stuff from the 50's and 60's. But, we have younger players in this group, so 1989 must seem ancient and mystical to them, the way the 50's do to those of us born then.
Re-read my original post and try to find something to argue with in there, Jack! I always respect your opinion and experience and don't see where I've stated anything to the contrary, and in fact tried carefully to avoid a stance, other than stating my own reaction to changing times and language. Methinks thou dost protest for the sake of protesting. You are preaching to the choir.
-
If your 1960s 175 feedsback, get the telecaster :-)
Seriously I find it comical that people where stuffing things into the f holes of their l5s. What's the point? Why are you bringing a knife to a gun fight?
-
Until recently, I've owned one ES175D since, well, since 1972. It's always been a great playing and sounding guitar. I've read endless threads about this year and that year, different era's like Norlin and Hutchens, yadi, yadi, yah! When I bought it, I definitely wasn't thinking about any of that, only that I played it and liked it enough to lay down the scarce cash. I was dirt poor at the time. The guitar represented my most valued possession next to my car. The car is long gone, but the guitar is still here, and I still love it. Then, last year, I had an hour session with a fairly famous player that told me that I didn't need to bring a guitar, that he had one for me to use. I said, OK, I'll do that. Well, I get there and he's actually staying at his friends house, and it's his friends guitar, sitting in the corner, dusty, strings looked like they hadn't been changed in 5 years, it was an early '50's 175 with P90's. So, I tuned it up, afraid the strings would break, and plugged it in, and played it for an hour with this guy as he helped point me in some new directions. It was a great hour session, and as much as I didn't like the old strings and dirty and dusty guitar, after I left, and for weeks all I could think about was how much I loved that guitar. I even told the guy on my way out the door that if his friend wanted to sell it, I'd love to buy it. It was kind of like falling in love.
Well, a couple of months go by, and I see a decent Eastman in the local Craigs list and call the guy. He says, well, if you don't like the Eastman, I have a '55 175 with P90's it sounds like you might like. I nearly fell off my chair and said, I'll be right over. That was it. I played it, loved it, bought it. Now, I'm a 2 175 guy. A 72 and a 55. Both different and great sounding and playing guitars.
Love 'em both. That's my 175 story.
Cheers!
-
Great story, sky! Is the '55 one or two pick up? I would love to get a guitar from the year I was born (1955).
-
It's an ES175D, and it's a keeper.
Being a northwesterner, American Music on Fremont Ave in Seattle has a mid-50's, single P90. It's a solid guitar, a little rough here and there finish-wise, looked to be pretty much all original. I'd need to refret it if I bought it, but, I'm not. It's been there for a while. I played it a couple of weeks ago. I think they'd deal. Anyway, if you get over the mountains you should check it out, if it's still there. It was in the glass display case right in the middle of the store.
-
Hey, Lawson, thanks for reminding me to look at this. I recalled that Dan Erlewine mentioned somewhere that you could put the pickup ring on a piece of sandpaper and shape and level it a bit at a time to get the pickup to line up better, as well as seat a poorly shaped pickup ring.Actually a lot of these have the pickup mounting ring turned around the wrong way. My VOS 1959 was that way too, and I just unscrewed the mounting ring, rotated it 180 degrees and all was well.
My VOS had the neck pickup slanted opposite the string angle, and that always bothered me, as I figured it must affect the tone, even if just a little, as the bridge side coil was farther away from the strings. So I pulled the pickup, took the ring off, sanded and shaped, reversed it, put it back together, and voila, it's almost perfectly parallel to the strings. The tone seems to have a bit more clarity and is definitely different, although I wasn't sure what to expect. I would have thought that by adding extra signal strength from the bridge side coil as it got closer to the string, it would warm/muddy things up, as in the difference between a coil tapped bucker in single vs. double coil mode. But, it actually seems a bit brighter, maybe by adding signal from a slightly more treble portion of the string (?) - not clear on the physics of it all, but I like it better, and now it's parallel to the strings. An easy fix, overall.
Next: my L5 has a similar cant to its neck pickup. I can see it shaking with fear in the corner, as I pickup my tools and look it's way
-
Mine needed a bit of shaping to get it perfectly parallel. Did you notice any change in tone or volume?
-
The pickup ring on my '59 VOS rattled when I played. Took me forever to figure out the source. I took the ring off; fitted some foam rubber around the pickup; and reinstalled. Now everything is nice and snug and placed well.
-
I didn't notice a change, but I was in the midst of lots of little tweaks and set-up things, so it might indeed have changed. Originally Posted by yebdox
I did NOT reverse the pickup, only the mounting ring. Pulled the pickup out of the ring, rotated the ring 180 degrees, put the pickup back in the ring, re-mounted the ring on the body.
-
Thanks for all the input guys, love reading all the stuff related to the 175
update on my 175 search! Found a 175 from 1964 and the owner is interested in swapping it for my 1968 vibrolux, looking forward to try it out this weekend
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos