1963 ES-175D restoration

[Stringswinger]

did you put patent #'s in there?

Early Patent sticker pups (pre T-top). They look like PAF's but do not have the purple wire. AFAIK the only difference is the insulation material on the wire. They sound magnificent. Better than any reissue.

[Fred Archtop]

Great instrument. Congrats.

Best to you and your music.

[jazzbow]

That is some fantastic work and totally worth all the coin you have invested in her.

I'm not jealous, no, I'm not........

[vinnyv1k]

Ahhh....it is funny how a guitar introduced as a economy guitar by Gibson became the most loved and iconic jazz guitar in the world. I have never meet a guitarist that didn't like the 175. Even rock guys love them.
No one will ever be able to touch Gibson designs. Yes they copy them in looks but not in sound.

[Stringswinger]

Ahhh....it is funny how a guitar introduced as a economy guitar by Gibson became the most loved and iconic jazz guitar in the world. I have never meet a guitarist that didn't like the 175. Even rock guys love them.
No one will ever be able to touch Gibson designs. Yes they copy them in looks but not in sound.

I have a Super 400, and L-5 and three vintage D'Angelicos and my favorite guitars to play on a gig are my 175's.

IMO, there are three iconic jazz guitars and Gibson made all three, the L-5, the Super 400 and the ES-175. Epiphone copied the L-5 and Super 400 as did John D'Angelico. Guild copied the L-5 and the ES-175. Jimmy D'Aquisto copied all three.

Now that I have this vintage 175 dialed in, I think it will overtake my 97 as my number 1 gigging axe. There really is something special about the old wood and the old PUPS.

[Stringswinger]

I played my first gig last night with the 63 175.

What a difference frets and pickups make! Tall frets are so much easier to play than low frets as your fingertips are never in contact with the fretboard. Stainless is so nice on the fingertips as well. If your fingertips come into contact with a fret, they just glide over them.

And pre-T-Top Gibson buckers are da bomb. This guitar is much warmer with the earlier PUP design (Remember, I replaced an early 70's T-top in the neck position). The closest a new PUP comes to my ears is a 57 Classic. Frankly, I would think that rock and blues guys would prefer the T-tops, as they are brighter. Perhaps today's PUPs like the many Gibson PAF clones or the Lollars or the Duncan Antiquities will sound this good 50 years from now, who knows? I won't though, by then I will be on the other side of the astroturf. I actually bought 3 of these pre-T-top Gibson PUPS for this project (It was a wholesale buy, $1500 for the trio....they retail today for $1,000 each). I was going to sell the third PUP, but after hearing the tone, I am thinking that it might belong in one of my other guitars. I always thought that the premium for old Gibson buckers was all about bragging rights not tone. I stand corrected. Once again I am reminded that the best things in life usually do cost more.

[Stringswinger]

Here is a close up of the neck showing Sean's perfect re-radiusing of the fingerboard. It plays like a new luthier built archtop and sounds like a million bucks.



Sean has a waiting list for builds and repairs and gets my biggest thumbs up. Any of you Bay Area guys would be wise to consider him in the future. He mostly builds Nylon string acoustics, but he was building an archtop BASS guitar when I was at his shop last. He has been at it a long time and can do it all.

[Max405]

Hey, I'm glad to hear about the frets. Now it must be effortless to play.
It really looks to be in great shape Marco.
I'm glad you are happy bud. Nice job.
Joe D

[stoneground]

I played my first gig last night with the 63 175.

What a difference frets and pickups make! Tall frets are so much easier to play than low frets as your fingertips are never in contact with the fretboard. Stainless is so nice on the fingertips as well. If your fingertips come into contact with a fret, they just glide over them.

And pre-T-Top Gibson buckers are da bomb. This guitar is much warmer with the earlier PUP design (Remember, I replaced an early 70's T-top in the neck position). The closest a new PUP comes to my ears is a 57 Classic. Frankly, I would think that rock and blues guys would prefer the T-tops, as they are brighter. Perhaps today's PUPs like the many Gibson PAF clones or the Lollars or the Duncan Antiquities will sound this good 50 years from now, who knows? I won't though, by then I will be on the other side of the astroturf. I actually bought 3 of these pre-T-top Gibson PUPS for this project (It was a wholesale buy, $1500 for the trio....they retail today for $1,000 each). I was going to sell the third PUP, but after hearing the tone, I am thinking that it might belong in one of my other guitars. I always thought that the premium for old Gibson buckers was all about bragging rights not tone. I stand corrected. Once again I am reminded that the best things in life usually do cost more.

Stringswinger,

That looks like a beautiful restoration.

However, in some ways I wish I hadn't read what you are saying about the early patent number pickups sounding so wonderful in a 175. I have an early '65 345 (cherry stoptail) with these pickups and the guitar's electrics have not yet been tampered with. I play jazz on this guitar but never use the bridge pickup and probably never will. The neck pickup sounds great and warm as one might expect. When I was considering pickup swaps for my 165 a couple of years ago I was seriously considering trying the bridge pickup from the 345 but in the end I lost my nerve and put a classic '57 in instead which, to my ears, is also a great pickup. Is the experiment worth the risk? Do I disturb the originality of the 345 for what might be only a marginal improvement in tone over the classic '57? How much value would the 345 lose for two non-original solder joints? At the moment I have a guitar with probably about $1000 worth of unused pickup. I suppose the swap only makes sense if I was prepared to reverse it before selling the 345 which I probably won't do. Sensible advice please!

[Stringswinger]

Stringswinger,

That looks like a beautiful restoration.

However, in some ways I wish I hadn't read what you are saying about the early patent number pickups sounding so wonderful in a 175. I have an early '65 345 (cherry stoptail) with these pickups and the guitar's electrics have not yet been tampered with. I play jazz on this guitar but never use the bridge pickup and probably never will. The neck pickup sounds great and warm as one might expect. When I was considering pickup swaps for my 165 a couple of years ago I was seriously considering trying the bridge pickup from the 345 but in the end I lost my nerve and put a classic '57 in instead which, to my ears, is also a great pickup. Is the experiment worth the risk? Do I disturb the originality of the 345 for what might be only a marginal improvement in tone over the classic '57? How much value would the 345 lose for two non-original solder joints? At the moment I have a guitar with probably about $1000 worth of unused pickup. I suppose the swap only makes sense if I was prepared to reverse it before selling the 345 which I probably won't do. Sensible advice please!

You can always reverse the operation if you ever decide to sell the 345. I seriously doubt that two non original solders will cause much value loss. IMO, 57 Classics do sound pretty good for jazz and the early patent sticker PUP, while better, will not improve the tone dramatically.

When I was doing the restoration, I thought long and hard about the bridge PUP. I spent $500 on a PUP that I never use. I justified the expense on the theory that the rare PUP is worth having in any case and adds value to the guitar.

Are you sure that the PUPs in your 345 are not T-Tops? I have heard that by late 65 Gibson was using both types of PUPs. The only way to tell for sure is to take the covers off (and there would go another pair of ancient solders). I would not replace a 57 classic with a T-top.

Your situation is a tough call. If it was mine, I would probably leave the 345 alone. I am neurotically honest and would feel compelled to disclose the non original solders upon sale. And while I do not think that it would be that important to most buyers, to some buyers it might be.

If you are looking for a warmer tone with your 165, you should also consider ditching it for a 175. My experience is two PUP archtops are a bit warmer than single PUP models. I had a vintage single PUP 175 and found it a bit on the bright side.

Good luck figuring this out. Remember this though, there are a lot of guys who would love to have your dilemma!

[stoneground]

Are you sure that the PUPs in your 345 are not T-Tops? I have heard that by late 65 Gibson was using both types of PUPs. The only way to tell for sure is to take the covers off (and there would go another pair of ancient solders). I would not replace a 57 classic with a T-top.



Hi Stringswinger,

From the s/n and '64 spec it seems to be an early 65 es345. I exchanged mails with Charlie Gelber (335.org) about this sometime ago. Being gold plated apparently increases the chances of the pickup being an earlier patent no. along with the tooling marks, Phillips screws etc. Anyway, since you say that the sound would not be dramatically better than a Classic '57 I am inclined to leave well alone. The motive wasn't because I wanted to warm up the tone of the 165 since I am more than happy with it, it was just a compulsive curiosity to see if would sound even better with the vintage pickup.

Sorry to hijack your thread and thanks for the advice.

[Stringswinger]

Are you sure that the PUPs in your 345 are not T-Tops? I have heard that by late 65 Gibson was using both types of PUPs. The only way to tell for sure is to take the covers off (and there would go another pair of ancient solders). I would not replace a 57 classic with a T-top.



Hi Stringswinger,

From the s/n and '64 spec it seems to be an early 65 es345. I exchanged mails with Charlie Gelber (335.org) about this sometime ago. Being gold plated apparently increases the chances of the pickup being an earlier patent no. along with the tooling marks, Phillips screws etc. Anyway, since you say that the sound would not be dramatically better than a Classic '57 I am inclined to leave well alone. The motive wasn't because I wanted to warm up the tone of the 165 since I am more than happy with it, it was just a compulsive curiosity to see if would sound even better with the vintage pickup.

Sorry to hijack your thread and thanks for the advice.

No worries, we are all here to learn and your interjection about PUPs is on point for this thread as far as I am concerned. I forgot that the 345's were gold plated. That does increase the chances that it is not a T-top. If you are happy with the tone of the 165, it would make no sense at all to break those old solders. I'll bet that your 345 sounds great. Does it have a 1 11/16 nut? I know that sometime in 1965 Gibson switched to 1 5/8 (In 1966 through early 1969 they went to 1 9/16). Any ES with a full size nut and pre T-top PUPs is a rare and valuable guitar and a keeper for sure.

[stoneground]

No worries, we are all here to learn and your interjection about PUPs is on point for this thread as far as I am concerned. I forgot that the 345's were gold plated. That does increase the chances that it is not a T-top. If you are happy with the tone of the 165, it would make no sense at all to break those old solders. I'll bet that your 345 sounds great. Does it have a 1 11/16 nut? I know that sometime in 1965 Gibson switched to 1 5/8 (In 1966 through early 1969 they went to 1 9/16). Any ES with a full size nut and pre T-top PUPs is a rare and valuable guitar and a keeper for sure.

Yes it has the 1 11/16 nut.

Still jealous of your 175....