My 2007 Gibson ES-175 Sounds more like a 50's with some modification

[jazzjames]

I have been reading this forum for a long time. I'm a professional Jazz guitarist full time. This is my first post. Thanks for reading.

I have owned a 2007 Gibson ES-175 D since 2010 or so and I have loved it. When I first got it I was over the moon...until I played a 1953 Es-175! It seems to me that originally the 175 was an acoustic guitar that happened to have a pickup in it whereas the newer ones are electric guitars that happen to be hollow. My 175 in comparison to the 53 was acoustically dead and muddy through the amp. I tried a ton of things in order to make my 175 more like the 53...I tried pickup changes (Charlie Christian in humbucker size and some benedetto B6 pickups, etc...). All of these, while helping to give a more woody sound never really satisfied me. I eventually acquired a 1949 Epiphone Blackstone (16 inch, 25.5 scale. non-cutaway with a carved spruce top, laminated maple back and sides, and I fitted a hand-wound Armstrong floating PAF).
I loved the more acoustic feel although it was more prone to feedback given the small stages I regularly play on necessitate my amp being close. I longed for my more modern sounding 175 to have more of what the epiphone gives me because the neck feels like "home'.

Recently I decided to change my pickups again to Duncan Seth Lover non-wax-potted PAFs and also changed the stock wiring harness to a "1950's style" harness with 500k pots all around and 0.33 bridge and .015 neck oil and paper tone caps. While not making my 175 into a clone of the 53 175, I feel that getting away from the inexpensive disk capacitors and 300k pots installed at the factory by Gibson has improved the tone of the instrument dramatically. I feel to a degree I have found the "best of both worlds": a modern instrument free from the vintage issues inevitably experienced by 50 or 60 year old guitars that is more feedback resistant while maintaining a high quality archtop tone with improved resonance through the amp and more high and high-mid content.

In my experience, there is no 175 tone per se. Each one I have played sound very different from another. Kreisberg's tone is different from Pass, Ellis, Hall, John Hart, or Metheny.

I think that trying to improve the individual sound of each guitar for it to be what you need is the way to go for me. The 175 is a great platform for a quality archtop sound and to me feels great.

I don't think I have done anything ground-breaking with the Seth Lovers and harness but I hear so many bemoan the acoustic deadness of modern gibson archtops that I thought I would address the changes that can help the issue.
Thanks for reading!

[Stringswinger]

Welcome to the forum!

PUPS, wiring, caps etc. all do change the sound of the guitar. I recently had some restoration work done on my 63 175 (new frets and replaced later Gibson PUPS, to wit, T-Tops with period correct Gibson PUPS, to wit, not T-Top patent Sticker PUPS). The guitar is WAY warmer (and the new frets are stainless, which some claim makes a guitar brighter).

I think the 57 Classics that came on your 2007 are very dark and being wax potted, have a very electric sound compared to the Duncans that you installed. I also think your assessment of the early to mid 50's ES-175's is correct. They were far more acoustic. Particularly the one PUP models.

I had a 2008 175. I did not love the sunburst (It had the "pick" pattern on the back) and I thought the neck was a bit chunky. I have had a 67, 70, 77, 82 and the 2008 in addition to the 63 and a 97 that I currently own. My 63 and 97 sound remarkably close (probably why I have kept the two of them), they both are dark and smoky, and that works for me.

[jazzjames]

Stringswinger,
Thanks for the response. Wow! It must be something to have owned all those 175s! I spent years trying to make it happen with compromises before I got the 175. I had a Korean-made Epiphone Joe Pass back in the early 90s. Then I got an 1989 Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion. I played it for 20 years before getting the ES175. The 175 made a huge difference for me and I never looked back.

What is your opinion about a 175 getting better over time? Mine seems to have improved somewhat over the past ten years...

[Stringswinger]

Jazzjames, I do believe that they improve over the long run. Wood dries out, PUP magnets lose strength and the vibrations from being played change things.

Here is why I sold the 5 175's that I no longer own:

1967 ES-175 (Single PUP). This guitar was a factory second with a terrible burst and had the narrow 1 9/16 nut. I did not love it.

1970 ES-175D I was 22 years old and playing in a rock band. I needed a Strat and Les Paul and selling that 175 was the only way to make it work financially at the time (that was a great guitar, I wish I still had it.)

1977 ES-175D I did not like the volute on the headstock nor the brown sunburst (that was nevertheless, a great guitar and at times I regret letting it go)

1982 ES-175D I had a business failure and needed to sell it to pay some debts (I wish I hadn't. I would still own that guitar)

2008 ES-175 As I mentioned earlier, I did not love the burst or the neck profile.

[jazzjames]

So out of the 7 you owned you liked 5! That is a pretty good percentage!

You know, I hear so many stories about gibson quality not being up to par but I really have not experienced that at all. I see a few cosmetic things here and there (overspray on my binding...) but nothing that stops me from playing 6 gigs a week on average with respectable tone and playability. Sometimes I feel that the complaints come from people who want to stare at the guitar and caress it more than actually playing it. I get it to a degree...spend big bucks and it should be "perfect" but no one really pays list for these things (currently $6500. list vs $4500. online) and used prices are even better. Vintage prices are up but almost always there is work to make it right between neck resets, collapsing tops, etc...

Mine looks like this:

With figured top, side and back maple and pearl inlays in the fingerboard with nickel hardware. I changed the black tophat knobs for gold speed knobs. They look MUCH better.
I wish they would go back to the smaller F hole of the 50s! that is about they only thing I don't like about my guitar!

[citizenk74]

ES-175s are mighty fine.I love my '06!

[Stringswinger]

Jazzjames, here is a pic of my 2 ES-175's side by side:

There are many differences, the neck, the cutaway, the f holes, the headstock, the knobs, the tuners, the inlays, the tailpiece.

[archtopeddy]

Hi Mark. Is the SB the one you lent Robin Nolan to play at DjangoFest NW a few years ago? Whichever guitar it was, it sure sounded great!

[Stringswinger]

Hi Mark. Is the SB the one you lent Robin Nolan to play at DjangoFest NW a few years ago? Whichever guitar it was, it sure sounded great!

Nope that was my 77. It was a great guitar indeed. I hope you are doing great Ed, it has been way too long!

[archtopeddy]

Yes indeed, the 77 sounded great; and yes indeed, it been too long. Hopefully we will correct that sooner than later!

[jazzjames]

Those are great. Here are mine...

[Ray175]

One non-invasive solution you may want to consider is using a decent EQ pedal.

I've been using a Princeton Recording amp for some years and for most situations it's great, but with only a 10" speaker dosn't give the full low-end I want from time to time.

Rather than increase my amp collection, I bought an MXR M109 pedal with 6 bands and +/-18dB for each band. After some tweaking I'm delighted with the results. Some purists will consider this a cop-out, but it works for me.

[pingu]

Jazzjames did you ever try one of the new
Es175 vos 1959 ?

I d be interested what you thought of those

[jazzjames]

The one that got away was a 1953 blond ES175 I could have bought for $3k on 48th street back in 2002, but lost my nerve. In contrast, I've never found a modern 175 I had any interest in owning.

i love Seth Lovers, and, like you, preferred them to Gibson Classic 57s. I used Seth's for 10 years playing Jazz and Blues on my 70s Les Paul, and they're the pickup in my Heritage Super Eagle that's been my favorite box for almost a decade. I find they're nice and clear without a sterile hi-if sound.

But, wouldn't P90s and a good tube amp be a better way to a 50s sound? And how do you compensate for the lack of resonance in the newer 175s? The 50s era guitars sound lighter. That's why I find the lighter built a Heritage laminates like the 525 closer to the 50s 175 than the modern heavier build Gibbies (Jack Zucker disagrees, then again I prefer carved tops whenever possible and don't care about "thunk").

You are definitely right about the 50s sound being singlecoils and a thinner top. My 1949 Epiphone does that very well...I just love the 175's neck. That Acoustic "pop" that a thinner top provides is impossible to duplicate with electronics and that was the biggest difference in my 2007 and the 1953. I probably should check out the 59 VOS...I would need to play a few to find the "right one". I played one once...but not thinking of getting one. It's a whole other thing to me: checking out a student's new guitar VS thinking about buying one. I worry about the aged look. I play so much that I will probably shine the duller parts where my arm goes, etc...

I alreaedy use a tube amp!

[jazzjames]

Jazzjames did you ever try one of the new
Es175 vos 1959 ?

I d be interested what you thought of those

I have! They are nice...but I can't justify the expense right now. Maybe later though! I would probably still have to change the pickup (I would want a single pickup version) to a Seth Lover.

[jazzjames]

One non-invasive solution you may want to consider is using a decent EQ pedal.

I've been using a Princeton Recording amp for some years and for most situations it's great, but with only a 10" speaker dosn't give the full low-end I want from time to time.

Rather than increase my amp collection, I bought an MXR M109 pedal with 6 bands and +/-18dB for each band. After some tweaking I'm delighted with the results. Some purists will consider this a cop-out, but it works for me.

That is definitely worth trying out! I like the Empress Para EQ. Rotem Sivan has one in his rig...He plays a Gibson Howard Roberts custom which is a carved-top 175 with a round soundhole!

[Max405]

JazzJames,
Welcome to the forum. You are a breath of fresh air.
I am certain that your 175 will open up and someday sound closer to the 53. I have an 07 and I tried something last week. I put on my sons sound deadening beats headphones and I played Frampton's "Baby I love your way" and Americas "Tin Man" for about an hour. Strumming as hard and accurate as I could. I swear to you, after I took those headphones off, my 175 became a different guitar. It opened and it stayed open. No joke.
The problem with archtop guitars is that they take a while to open up. Most of the time because they are not played hard. I noticed my Tal open up after playing an open mic night at Sam Ash.
Anyway, once again welcome to the forum.
Joe DeNisco

[jazzjames]

JazzJames,
Welcome to the forum. You are a breath of fresh air.
I am certain that your 175 will open up and someday sound closer to the 53. I have an 07 and I tried something last week. I put on my sons sound deadening beats headphones and I played Frampton's "Baby I love your way" and Americas "Tin Man" for about an hour. Strumming as hard and accurate as I could. I swear to you, after I took those headphones off, my 175 became a different guitar. It opened and it stayed open. No joke.
The problem with archtop guitars is that they take a while to open up. Most of the time because they are not played hard. I noticed my Tal open up after playing an open mic night at Sam Ash.
Anyway, once again welcome to the forum.
Joe DeNisco

Glad to be here! Thanks for the kind words. I'm going to try your tips for opening it up! It certainly makes sense. I play chords mostly with my fingers or fingers and a pick so the 175 never really gets strummed as I would strum a flat top.

I remember seeing a device some time ago that attached to the strings and caused vibration (ToneRite...) but I have been skeptical of spending $150 and feeling foolish for being taken! I'm going to strum away instead. Having examined the F hole thickness of older Gibsons that are more "open" the tops do not seem to be dramatically thinner than a modern 175 to my eye. I continue to have hope...I'm 48 years old and hoping I have enough years left to experience a more acoustic instrument. I can't afford another 175 because I'm almost 50! I need cash for my blond girlfriend I hope to meet soon and a musclecar! I'm thinking something with a Hemi...

Actually, I'm hoping for a (single pickup) blonde one day like in Stringswingers 175 photo above! I need a couple of years to find a VOS single pickup blond used...

[jads57]

The earlier 175's unil probably the early 1970's , were made with a different laminate construction than the newer heavier laminate construction. One isn't better than the other in my book, just different from each other. It seems like the newer heavier construction cuts down on feedback a bit, but other things like p/ups also should be considered in that equation as well.

For me I ended up with 1992 ES-775 which was a great guitar and basically a fancier 175 with a maple neck,ebony fingerboard, slightly changed neck p/up position. Played that guitar for quite awhile until I finally switched to a Benedetto Bambino Std. And that guitar improves on the 175 formula at least for me by making the body a smaller thinner shape and extending the scale to 25".

But the original 175 is a hard guitar to beat!

[GNAPPI]

I have owned a 2007 Gibson ES-175 D since 2010 or so and I have loved it. When I first got it I was over the moon...until I played a 1953 Es-175! It seems to me that originally the 175 was an acoustic guitar that happened to have a pickup in it whereas the newer ones are electric guitars that happen to be hollow. My 175 in comparison to the 53 was acoustically dead and muddy through the amp. I tried a ton of things in order to make my 175 more like the 53...I tried pickup changes (Charlie Christian in humbucker size and some benedetto B6 pickups, etc...). All of these, while helping to give a more woody sound never really satisfied me. I longed for my more modern sounding 175 to have more of what the epiphone gives me because the neck feels like "home'.

In my experience, there is no 175 tone per se. Each one I have played sound very different from another.

I think that trying to improve the individual sound of each guitar for it to be what you need is the way to go for me. The 175 is a great platform for a quality archtop sound and to me feels great.

I don't think I have done anything ground-breaking with the Seth Lovers and harness but I hear so many bemoan the acoustic deadness of modern gibson archtops that I thought I would address the changes that can help the issue.
Thanks for reading!

Welcome, and GR8 observations on the 175.

In my experience I've yet to hear of a modern hollow body with HB's sound like a vintage model with P90's, your quest seems to have reached a happy medium, good on you.

1967 ES-175 (Single PUP). This guitar was a factory second with a terrible burst and had the narrow 1 9/16 nut. I did not love it.

1970 ES-175D I was 22 years old and playing in a rock band. I needed a Strat and Les Paul and selling that 175 was the only way to make it work financially at the time (that was a great guitar, I wish I still had it.)

1977 ES-175D I did not like the volute on the headstock nor the brown sunburst (that was nevertheless, a great guitar and at times I regret letting it go)

1982 ES-175D I had a business failure and needed to sell it to pay some debts (I wish I hadn't. I would still own that guitar)

2008 ES-175 As I mentioned earlier, I did not love the burst or the neck profile.

WOW! You seem to have most practical 175 HB generations covered except the 1990's and most recent. Bemoaning the loss of three is a testament to the 175, and having had two you did not favor also calls in the variability of the model. Their sunbursts and top wood selection have generally been uninspiring too. Thanks for your comments.

[Stringswinger]

WOW! You seem to have most practical 175 HB generations covered except the 1990's and most recent. Bemoaning the loss of three is a testament to the 175, and having had two you did not favor also calls in the variability of the model. Their sunbursts and top wood selection have generally been uninspiring too. Thanks for your comments.

The ones I kept are a 63 and a 97. They sound remarkable alike. If I had to choose just one it would be the 97. I had the 77 and the 97 and the 2008 all at the same time for awhile and rotated them. The 97 was the best of the three so I kept it.

The 97 has real pearl inlay and very inspiring woods. It has a super nice neck with a slight taper. And with a Brazilian bridge saddle replacing the TOM, it has a warm smoky tone that works perfectly for me. I have 18 guitars, but my 97 175 is the one I gig with the most.

[GNAPPI]

The ones I kept are a 63 and a 97. They sound remarkable alike. If I had to choose just one it would be the 97. I had the 77 and the 97 and the 2008 all at the same time for awhile and rotated them. The 97 was the best of the three so I kept it.

The 97 has real pearl inlay and very inspiring woods. It has a super nice neck with a slight taper. And with a Brazilian bridge saddle replacing the TOM, it has a warm smoky tone that works perfectly for me. I have 18 guitars, but my 97 175 is the one I gig with the most.

Interesting about the 97. Mine is a 95 and also has "inspiring" wood and is one of the nicest I've played. I'm wondering if the 90's were typical in this respect?
Can you post a pic of yours?

[jazzjames]

Interesting about the 97. Mine is a 95 and also has "inspiring" wood and is one of the nicest I've played. I'm wondering if the 90's were typical in this respect?
Can you post a pic of yours?

Wow! That one is beautiful! I have played lots of 90s 175s and they have consistently been great. I don't know if it's the "era" at Gibson, the age of the instrument, or the materials/ construction that has made a difference...but they have all been inspiring. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

[GNAPPI]

>>SNIP<<I have played lots of 90s 175s and they have consistently been great. I don't know if it's the "era" at Gibson, the age of the instrument, or the materials/ construction that has made a difference...but they have all been inspiring. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Inquiring minds want to know. Were the 90's models above average, and more consistent in the experience of the folks/ owners here?

I have to say that I really haven't paid much attention to the 175 decade generations and owner satisfaction.

OH, and PS, nowadays Gibson has a "Premium" with a nicely figured top... for an extra fee that is :-)

[Stringswinger]

Inquiring minds want to know. Were the 90's models above average, and more consistent in the experience of the folks/ owners here?

My 97 is the best 175 that I have played and my 90's L-5 Wesmo and my 90's Super 400CES are as good as it gets as well. I have owned and played Gibsons from all eras and the 90's Gibsons are my favorite.

Here is a picture of me playing the 97 ES-175 on a gig: