Disappointed in 1970 Gibson ES-175 from Dave's Guitar.

[vernon]

Perhaps I was just lucky, but I bought two nice archtops on the internet without being able to play them. A Heritage Eagle from Mass Street Music, and a 1974 ES-175 natural (mahogany neck) from Elderly Instruments. I bought the 175 in January and have been smitten. I can't stop reaching for it day after day. Started years ago with a Gibson ES-335 and thought that might be my jazz guitar. Then I reached a bit to get the Heritage Eagle... wow! That's the sound! I finally decided to sell the National Resolectric I'd been pretending to learn to play (dobro). Sold in one day and I just happened to go to Elderly's website and saw the norlin era natural 175. After readjusting the bridge slightly (off center) and hunting down the random buzzes (bridge pickup bracket and cabling inside the body rattling), I began to fall in love with the tone and the feel and the THUNK. Frets are getting a little low and might need a refret in a couple years, but the 175 is a very special guitar.

[yebdox]

There is a distinct difference between my VOS '59 and my Sadowsky JH. I really like both of them, but Jack is right, the "thunk" isn't there. I'm still shopping, looking at early 70's and early 60's, but the 60's models seem to be consistently rising in price.

Will be interested to see what you finally settle on, Jack. Happy Hunting!

[lawson-stone]

It seems to be an impossible task. Every time someone makes a 175ish guitar, they "improve" the design and the end product sounds nothing like a 175. Whether that's good or bad is subjective.

• Eastman 371
• Holst laminate
• Tom Painter
• Benedetto Bravo
• Heritage 575
• Gibson '59 reissue

I even asked heritage about this in a rare opportunity to influence their product line. i was told that the 575 was a huge improvement over the 175 and they weren't interested in taking a step backwards to make a laminate version.

In the case of the eastman, holst painter and gibson '59, the tops are too thin and resonant so they actually don't cop the classic 175 tone. They do sound louder and more lively but the classic thunk is not there. The benedetto is spruce so it's not really a 175 clone to begin with but it has a somewhat sterile tone and no thunk. The 575 actually sounds gibsonesque and very sweet but not really 175ish.

have you had a chance to play the Epiphone? Your experience and clarity about what you're looking for would make your specific evaluation of the Epi ES175 Premium very valuable.

I have one and like it a lot, but I haven't played a lot of ES175s so I don't have a lot to compare it to. I liked all the 175/165 type guitars I've played, but I couldn't comment on their continuity with the historic tone of that instrument.

[agentsmith]

Yes, i played the epiphone and was not impressed.

I also want to respectfully disagree with stringswinger regarding the consistency issue. At least in terms of tone. I have found that '60s, '70s, '80s 175s to be EXTREMELY consistent in tone. Each era has a distinct tone however. Taking the mid decade as an example, a '65 '75 and '85 175 will sound totally different from each other but in general I've played and owned over 30 of these guitars and I can conclusively say that they were consistent tonally within their age group, assuming a similar string / pickup setup.

What is not consistent is the setup. I have found that the older 175s (like any older archtops) tend to experience top sinkage and tail rises and almost all will need a fingerboard planing and refretting and the quality of that work varies by a large degree. Very few instruments from 30+ years ago still play great without some fingerboard/fretwork and so there is a high degree of inconsistency from that point of view.

have you had a chance to play the Epiphone? Your experience and clarity about what you're looking for would make your specific evaluation of the Epi ES175 Premium very valuable.

I have one and like it a lot, but I haven't played a lot of ES175s so I don't have a lot to compare it to. I liked all the 175/165 type guitars I've played, but I couldn't comment on their continuity with the historic tone of that instrument.

[agentsmith]

meh, that's just the typical straw-man argument you hear around here all the time. I know what I like and what I'm hearing and if I heard something that sounded great that had "Bradley" on the headstock I'd be the first to admit it. I've actually done lots of demos of lesser known equipment that didn't have Gibson's name on the headstock and have been happy to report that it sounded great. I've also been quick to point out that even Gibson doesn't known how to make vintage gibsons anymore. Their 175s of recent years including their '59 reissue don't sound like a real gibson from the '50s and don't have the vibe of something from the '50s, '60s, '70s or even '80s. My '89 sounded killer. i've played a bunch of them from the '90s on up to modern era and they just don't sound as good. I know that pisses off people who like 'em nice and shiny but I call 'em as I see 'em.

I think the problem is that if you had two identical Gibson ES-175's and you changed the headstock logo on one of them, people would swear to their graves that it "just isn't the same. HAS to be a Gibson. The one without the Gibson logo is clearly inferior."

[jasaco]

...Their 175s of recent years including their '59 reissue don't sound like a real gibson from the '50s ... i've played a bunch of them from the '90s on up to modern era and they just don't sound as good...

How much of that do you think might be due to the ageing of the woods, I wonder?

[lawson-stone]

meh, that's just the typical straw-man argument you hear around here all the time. I know what I like and what I'm hearing and if I heard something that sounded great that had "Bradley" on the headstock I'd be the first to admit it. I've actually done lots of demos of lesser known equipment that didn't have Gibson's name on the headstock and have been happy to report that it sounded great. I've also been quick to point out that even Gibson doesn't known how to make vintage gibsons anymore. Their 175s of recent years including their '59 reissue don't sound like a real gibson from the '50s and don't have the vibe of something from the '50s, '60s, '70s or even '80s. My '89 sounded killer. i've played a bunch of them from the '90s on up to modern era and they just don't sound as good. I know that pisses off people who like 'em nice and shiny but I call 'em as I see 'em.

Your consistent praise of the Aria "Herb Ellis" model comes to mind as an example.

[rlrhett]

meh, that's just the typical straw-man argument you hear around here all the time.

Kinda cuts both ways, no? "I've played 10,000 ES-175 copies and NOTHING is the same," is a straw-man argument. How can anyone challenge it? How can it be substantiated or proven? You say your ears can just "hear it". No one can get in your ears or your head. There is nobody who can tell you that your ears are "wrong" or "right".

Still, people here must understand that an ES-175 is not built by hand. It is stamped out of an industrial press EXACTLY of the same kind that stamped out door panels for a Chevy Bel Aire of the 50's. It is made with maple and poplar veneers and urea glue. The thickness of the veneers, the molds, and even the kind of glue are spec'ed out to Epiphone in Quing Dao, and are well known in the industry. There is nothing artisanal about an ES-175.

It is possible that the glues have changed. Less formaldehyde, fewer VOC's. Although in China they can use radio active waste, if that helps them undermine global markets. The wood ages, as does the glue over time. Perhaps that has something to do with the different "tone" of the older ES-175. Old pickups mellow with a change in magnetism. But that isn't a result of brand magic.

Call them "straw-man" arguments if you want. No one can convince a true believer their "ears" are wrong. But there are real world reasons why Gibson brings nothing unique to a ES-175, not to mention convincing blind tests of recorded instruments of the same vintage.

[agentsmith]

All you have to do is weigh the instruments of different eras to realize that it's not like carving an instrument out of a man-made material. Even plywood is ultimately made out of wood which is organic. And in fact, one thing they have done over the years is to make the top stiffer and stiffer via thicker plys and bracing. This is due to warranty complaints of top sinkage. When gibson started offering lifetime warranties, this became a huge issue with the accounting departments.

And if you truly researched this you would discover that the specs change ALL THE TIME on guitars that have the same model name. Have you ever played a '50s 175? It's about 1lb less than any current 175. It's got a very thin top and sounds more like a carved than a plywood top.

I have owned 175s from EVERY ERA from 50s up through 201x. Have you? I can tell you that they have changed the design of the cutaways, neck angles, bracing, neck material, body material, bridges, tailpieces, nuts, tuners, materials, etc.

So I disagree with your claim is that they are stamped out and exactly the same. If you're talking about a current era instrument, I would agree with you but not over the lifetime of the product line.

Kinda cuts both ways, no? "I've played 10,000 ES-175 copies and NOTHING is the same," is a straw-man argument. How can anyone challenge it? How can it be substantiated or proven? You say your ears can just "hear it". No one can get in your ears or your head. There is nobody who can tell you that your ears are "wrong" or "right".

Still, people here must understand that an ES-175 is not built by hand. It is stamped out of an industrial press EXACTLY of the same kind that stamped out door panels for a Chevy Bel Aire of the 50's. It is made with maple and poplar veneers and urea glue. The thickness of the veneers, the molds, and even the kind of glue are spec'ed out to Epiphone in Quing Dao, and are well known in the industry. There is nothing artisanal about an ES-175.

It is possible that the glues have changed. Less formaldehyde, fewer VOC's. Although in China they can use radio active waste, if that helps them undermine global markets. The wood ages, as does the glue over time. Perhaps that has something to do with the different "tone" of the older ES-175. Old pickups mellow with a change in magnetism. But that isn't a result of brand magic.

Call them "straw-man" arguments if you want. No one can convince a true believer their "ears" are wrong. But there are real world reasons why Gibson brings nothing unique to a ES-175, not to mention convincing blind tests of recorded instruments of the same vintage.

[agentsmith]

For anyone following along, I just placed an order for a '73 Gibson 175.

Unfortunately, something must have gone awry with the 3d stamping mechanism on this one because it's got a refretted, Brazilian rosewood fingerboard and bridge, T-Top pickups and 3pc maple neck. Damn it, couldn't anyone program a CNC machine properly in the early '70s?

[rlrhett]

All you have to do is weigh the instruments of different eras to realize that it's not like carving an instrument out of a man-made material. Even plywood is ultimately made out of wood which is organic. And in fact, one thing they have done over the years is to make the top stiffer and stiffer via thicker plys and bracing. This is due to warranty complaints of top sinkage. When gibson started offering lifetime warranties, this became a huge issue with the accounting departments.

And if you truly researched this you would discover that the specs change ALL THE TIME on guitars that have the same model name. Have you ever played a '50s 175? It's about 1lb less than any current 175. It's got a very thin top and sounds more like a carved than a plywood top.

I have owned 175s from EVERY ERA from 50s up through 201x. Have you? I can tell you that they have changed the design of the cutaways, neck angles, bracing, neck material, body material, bridges, tailpieces, nuts, tuners, materials, etc.

So I disagree with your claim is that they are stamped out and exactly the same. If you're talking about a current era instrument, I would agree with you but not over the lifetime of the product line.

Of course not over the lifetime of the product. Over 70 years specs change. All the more to prove that there is no one "Gibson" ES-175. There probably is more difference between Gibsons of different eras than between Gibson and Aria of the same era.

But if you are trying to argue that Gibsons are somehow special and can't be reproduced on another assembly line using the same equipment and specs, that just goes off into magic pixie dust territory. Nor is there anything magic or unknowable about those evolving spec's.

And, BTW, yes. The soundboard, back and rims are stamped out exactly the same every time. I assume you have been to the factory in Memphis. Watch them make the tops. No one is hand selecting veneers to get a special "tone". No one is sussing out whether this will make the appropriate "thunk". They grab a sheet of show maple, a sheet of poplar, and a sheet of utility maple. A machine applies the glue and into the old hydraulic press. Wood may vary, but nothing Gibson is doing takes that variation into account.

[John A.]

Kinda cuts both ways, no? "I've played 10,000 ES-175 copies and NOTHING is the same," is a straw-man argument.

No it isn't. A straw man argument is a fallacy wherein you falsely attribute a claim to the person you're arguing with and refute that claim rather than what the person is actually saying. Jack's saying he has played N guitars and basing his opinion on that is nothing like a straw man.

John

[agentsmith]

Again, more strawman rhetoric . NOBODY ever said otherwise. I never ever claimed there was magic dust and that only gibson can make a great guitar. You are very conveniently taking the bits and pieces out of what I said and attempting to spin them into something that makes your point.

For the record, I have 3 guitars. One is an ibanez, the other is a fender strat clone, and one of them is a '63 Gibson archtop. I think this was a very special period for them and I have heard nothing including high end luthier pieces that can cop the vibe of this guitar. If you don't agree, that's fine. I really don't care but as an archtop maker, i find it a bit disingenuous of you to try to claim that my thoughts on archtop guitars are invalid. I could turn around and say that your attempt to discredit my opinions might be motivated by your own business interests.

So let's just agree to stand-down other instead of turning this thread into a flame-war.

And, BTW, yes. The soundboard, back and rims are stamped out exactly the same every time. I assume you have been to the factory in Memphis. Watch them make the tops. No one is hand selecting veneers to get a special "tone". No one is sussing out whether this will make the appropriate "thunk". They grab a sheet of show maple, a sheet of poplar, and a sheet of utility maple. A machine applies the glue and into the old hydraulic press. Wood may vary, but nothing Gibson is doing takes that variation into account.

[John A.]

I've owned 5 metheny guitars. (2) PM-100s and (3) PM-120s. Not a single one can even hold a candle to a good 175. I wouldn't pay attention to what metheny says. Pay attention to what he uses. He hated the PM120 so much that he preferred the korean copy and used that on tour more often than the japanese one. Not sure which one he's using on tour these days but i can't convince myself to pony up $4k to buy one and they are special-order-only so you can't even try one out but based on my substantive experience with Ibanez guitars, I can't imagine it'll nail the 175 tone. heck, their 175 copy didn't!

And Jim Hall's D'Aquisto did not sound like a 175 and neither does the Sadowsky and the premium Epiphone 175 I played wasn't comparable either.

Maybe you should get a 175 ...

John

[Stringswinger]

Jack,

I think you and I agree with more of the disputed points on 175's than we disagree. I accept your premise that a lot of the variations in 175's from the same eras are due to set up and/or maintenance. I also agree with you that guys who spend more money for examples that have had little playtime or maintenance are not getting as good a deal as guys who buy well played and well maintained examples.

But I do think that 175's from the same era can vary a bit based on two things:

1. Every piece of wood is different, and even plywood body guitars with multi piece necks will have some tonal variance and;

2. Guitars get played differently (or hardly at all) and that contributes to a different tone over the years.

So I stand on my assertion that the best way to find the right guitar is to play it first. Another way is to buy and sell a few from online sellers till the right one shows up.

And there is no doubt in my mind that 30-60 year old guitars benefit greatly from neck/fingerboard/fret work. Buyers and sellers often do not take this into account. And that is a mistake. Especially for the buyers. ;-)

[deacon Mark]

The last 175 I saw was one from 1982 that I re-fretted. Other than the frets it was in good shape. Plugged it into a friends twin reverb from 1970's. Have to admit a 175 is not my guitar of choice mostly for body size, but it sure sounded great. New frets gave it some real help. I might add the fingerboard was fine needed no planing or work, that is the problem. It is all over the map on a guitar after even 10
years of good use.

I had one from about mid 1970's to re-fret and the FB dropped and had a few dips. Outside of replacing the board it was a challenge. Radius and big frets worked. To tell the truth the guitar sounded great....the guy played the hell out of it. I agree you just keep searching and that takes mail order unless you can travel easily.

[Alter]

And there is no doubt in my mind that 30-60 year old guitars benefit greatly from neck/fingerboard/fret work. Buyers and sellers often do not take this into account. And that is a mistake. Especially for the buyers. ;-)

that was the case with a friend's 175. It's really old, it was an ok guitar, great in sound but problematic as a player's guitar. He bought it dirt cheap and had a good luthier do quite a bit of work on it. Now the guitar is killing.

there 's a pic

[agentsmith]

stringswinger - Yes, I agree. I didn't mean to just dispute your entire premise. Of course, there is inconsistency. I do think that the plywood guitars are more consistent than say the solid top guitars.

[NSJ]

I have never understood the mentality of mainly collectors who are incensed that certain original parts are no longer part of the guitar (pickguards/tuners/original frets, etc)

Would someone who is buying a used car be angry because the 100,000 mile car no longer has the original factory tires on it?

I think not.

A guitar has parts that wear down or disintegrate. Tuners and frets wear down, pick guards can disintegrate.

An old guitar with a top of the line fret job can make the guitar sound FANTASTIC! New tuners that hold the intonation much better than the original ones can make the guitar sound FANTASTIC.

Isn't that the purpose of it?

I just had had an older 1970s Gibby guitar that I bought for cheap (definitely under-market): had them get rid of the disintegrating pick guard, put on gold EVO frets like Max4605 got put on his Johnny Smith here.

And the guitar sounds KILLING! And it is so much easier to play.

That's the point of it, no?

[Lobomov]

I've owned 5 metheny guitars. (2) PM-100s and (3) PM-120s. Not a single one can even hold a candle to a good 175. I wouldn't pay attention to what metheny says. Pay attention to what he uses. He hated the PM120 so much that he preferred the korean copy and used that on tour more often than the japanese one. Not sure which one he's using on tour these days but i can't convince myself to pony up $4k to buy one and they are special-order-only so you can't even try one out but based on my substantive experience with Ibanez guitars, I can't imagine it'll nail the 175 tone. heck, their 175 copy didn't!

When I saw him last year .. He was rocking his Daniel Slaman Sisterhood guitar
Guitar for Pat Metheny - New Vintage Guitars

It's more of a Charlie Christian vibe and nowhere near the 4k range

[agentsmith]

i often wonder how ibanez feels when they make him a guitar and he doesn't use it?

When I saw him last year .. He was rocking his Daniel Slaman Sisterhood guitar
Guitar for Pat Metheny - New Vintage Guitars

It's more of a Charlie Christian vibe and nowhere near the 4k range

[Klatu]

I have never understood the mentality of mainly collectors who are incensed that certain original parts are no longer part of the guitar (pickguards/tuners/original frets, etc)

Would someone who is buying a used car be angry because the 100,000 mile car no longer has the original factory tires on it?

I think not.

A guitar has parts that wear down or disintegrate. Tuners and frets wear down, pick guards can disintegrate.

An old guitar with a top of the line fret job can make the guitar sound FANTASTIC! New tuners that hold the intonation much better than the original ones can make the guitar sound FANTASTIC.

Isn't that the purpose of it?

I just had had an older 1970s Gibby guitar that I bought for cheap (definitely under-market): had them get rid of the disintegrating pick guard, put on gold EVO frets like Max4605 got put on his Johnny Smith here.

And the guitar sounds KILLING! And it is so much easier to play.

That's the point of it, no?

What size EVOs did you go with?

[deacon Mark]

I am going to answer. Those Jescar evo's are the best fret I have used. I personally use nickel silver but the gold are nice. Stainless steel I charge more they are hard on tools but I recommend the what in effect is the medium/high frets. Last re fret I did with those just a cut above other frets. The higher fret always better results. I have not used the wide or had any requests from them. If you want the specific ones I will look it up to lazy now other than medium/highest

[Klatu]

I am going to answer. Those Jescar evo's are the best fret I have used. I personally use nickel silver but the gold are nice. Stainless steel I charge more they are hard on tools but I recommend the what in effect is the medium/high frets. Last re fret I did with those just a cut above other frets. The higher fret always better results. I have not used the wide or had any requests from them. If you want the specific ones I will look it up to lazy now other than medium/highest

Thanks.

I refretted an Epiphone Triumph with Jescar EVO 10447, and have really enjoyed the sound and feel. I was wondering what size my fellow forum members gravitate towards.

[joaopaz]

There are things debated here that could be easilly tested with a blind test: unfortunately those aren't easy to do in really similar conditions.

But I recall a video on YT where Rob Chapman (not a jazz guy, but an incredible player nonetheless) was doing a blind test on Telecasters. The tech guys at Anderton's had them all set the same way. Rob was playing with a blind and had the guitars in hands - he was just asked not to touch crucial parts that could give away the real identity of the guitar.
As the test unfolded you could see his discomfort, and... in the end we thought the Squier Tele Classic Vibe was a Fender Tele Custom Shop.

This for me is a valuable argument.
What we all say about our own experience, as valid as it may be - bears little against the brutal reality of facts checked in a "scientific" context.

When you can change the height of a single polepiece and twist the character of a guitar... (let alone different strings, or same strings st up yesterday or a month before...) I'll never be convinced by arguments like "I played" or "I owned" any given number of guitars.

Put yourself through a convincing, (make-no-prisioners) rigorous test .. and then we're talking.

My point is - any generalization being made on guitars based on their brand is as strong as a house of straw (to quote that old child's tale)