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

[agentsmith]

Sorry but not even close to being a good test. Sitting in the room with the guitar vibrating against your body is a completely different test than listening to a guitar on a youtube video. It also calls into question the ear of the listener, the capture device and the physics of how the audio was captured.

The only valid blindfold test would be frequency analysis by software but due to the inconsistency of guitars, strings and even the player, it's impossible to perform a true blindfold test. Plus, this ain't science. It's art. And feel matters. One of the reasons jazz guitar is so difficult is that there is an inherent feedback loop between the feel and touch and sound of the instrument and how the player reacts to it and the rest of the band which is also reacting to the the music that the guitarist is playing. This feedback loop is extremely different on guitar than say electric piano or organ because the sound of the band actually effects the tone of the guitar. This is one of the reasons that playing guitar with a drummer can be feedback prone whereas playing loudly by yourself in your bedroom may not be.

So, it sounds good to talk about double blind tests on guitar but I haven't seen one yet that actually captures the whole story.

Now, in terms of what sound comes out of the amp and is captured by the recording device, you have a point but that's not the only part of the equation.

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)

[joaopaz]

I wasn't, of course, talking about blindfold tests from my perspective - as an YT listener. No need to go that way.

I wasn't the one being tested, Rob was, and he had the guitars in hands, set up the same way, and coming from the same amp which didn't change position during the test relatively to his ears - the ones being tested, and his hands and his feel.

And of course even that is not a scientific test, hardly. That's why I was careful to use "context" (between quotes).

My point is that the kind of arguments being thrown here are rather useless. Because as much as you may want to be focused and impartial, you still know what guitars you're playing and your emotional response to that will always be huge.

BUT if you can put a blind and pinpoint *the* Gibson ES-175 among 10 good copies set up exactly the same way, impartially, pickups and adjusted to produce the exact same output, action and nut measured to same 10th of milimeter, etc etc - just by playing them through the same amp, - and if you spot *the* Gibson then my hat's off to you. ...... and to Gibson.

Sorry but not even close to being a good test. Sitting in the room with the guitar vibrating against your body is a completely different test than listening to a guitar on a youtube video. It also calls into question the ear of the listener, the capture device and the physics of how the audio was captured.

The only valid blindfold test would be frequency analysis by software but due to the inconsistency of guitars, strings and even the player, it's impossible to perform a true blindfold test. Plus, this ain't science. It's art. And feel matters. One of the reasons jazz guitar is so difficult is that there is an inherent feedback loop between the feel and touch and sound of the instrument and how the player reacts to it and the rest of the band which is also reacting to the the music that the guitarist is playing. This feedback loop is extremely different on guitar than say electric piano or organ because the sound of the band actually effects the tone of the guitar. This is one of the reasons that playing guitar with a drummer can be feedback prone whereas playing loudly by yourself in your bedroom may not be.

So, it sounds good to talk about double blind tests on guitar but I haven't seen one yet that actually captures the whole story.

Now, in terms of what sound comes out of the amp and is captured by the recording device, you have a point but that's not the only part of the equation.

[lawson-stone]

...

My point is that the kind of arguments being thrown here are rather useless. Because as much as you may want to be focused and impartial, you still know what guitars you're playing and your emotional response to that will always be huge.

BUT if you can put a blind and pinpoint *the* Gibson ES-175 among 10 good copies set up exactly the same way, impartially, pickups and adjusted to produce the exact same output, action and nut measured to same 10th of milimeter, etc etc - just by playing them through the same amp, - and if you spot *the* Gibson then my hat's off to you. ...... and to Gibson.

Actually I would slightly disagree on one point. For someone who hasn't played a lot of Gibson, maybe there would be an emotional bias. But if you have a player who has played a whole lot of instruments ranging from cheap knock-offs all the way up to expensive vintage, you get a kind of attitude that isn't precisely cold objectivity, it's more like a kind of jaded "been there heard that" feeling. You pick up an guitar and you think "Okay, impress me or die." Even a Gibson. Because an experienced player knows Gibson has some dogs and Aria has some jewels.

I'd say I've played a lot of archtops. I love Gibson, but I can get really excited over a budget guitar that punches above its class.

But my experience doesn't hold a candle to people on this forum like Joe D, Stringswinger, Hammertone, and our own Agentsmith. These guys buy, play, and sell Gibsons so much, I suspect they are slightly calloused, rather than biased.

In that case, I tend to trust their judgement or, at least, see their opinions as based on a large accumulation of experience and impressions that a lot of folks don't have.

My $0.02, ymmv.

[joaopaz]

Actually I would slightly disagree on one point. For someone who hasn't played a lot of Gibson, maybe there would be an emotional bias. But if you have a player who has played a whole lot of instruments ranging from cheap knock-offs all the way up to expensive vintage, you get a kind of attitude that isn't precisely cold objectivity, it's more like a kind of jaded "been there heard that" feeling. You pick up an guitar and you think "Okay, impress me or die." Even a Gibson. Because an experienced player knows Gibson has some dogs and Aria has some jewels.

I'd say I've played a lot of archtops. I love Gibson, but I can get really excited over a budget guitar that punches above its class.

But my experience doesn't hold a candle to people on this forum like Joe D, Stringswinger, Hammertone, and our own Agentsmith. These guys buy, play, and sell Gibsons so much, I suspect they are slightly calloused, rather than biased.

In that case, I tend to trust their judgement or, at least, see their opinions as based on a large accumulation of experience and impressions that a lot of folks don't have.

My $0.02, ymmv.

A lot more than $0.02 - and that's a valid point, I recognize that. So thanks for that.
But still note that you went from one emotion to a very different one, but still an emotion - and it's only natural (I think) that it may trigger an also emotional response to an instrument put to test.

In the long run, experience has a real, trustworthy value, that's what you're saying. I fully agree.

In any event I also feel that even the most seasoned player may have a few surprises, if having the courage to put themselves in an uncomfortable situation to put their own, hard-won knowledge to test - having just their ears and their body to use.

[ThatRhythmMan]

I can't say anything about the consistency of 175s from the 60s through the 90s, but I can comment on the 50s (particularly the p90 versions) and the '59 reissues.

The 50s p90 ES-175s I've played have been fairly consistent. I've come to expect them to sound and feel a very certain way.

On the other hand, I have two '59 reissues in my possession right now (both for sale). These two guitars feel very similar, but sound remarkably different, despite me setting them up as close to the same as possible and only being made a few months apart. The sunburst one sounds remarkably similar to my 1957 ES-175 with an original PAF. It has a much rounder and warmer tone than I would expect out of such a new guitar. The natural one, however, is markedly brighter and somewhat brittle to my ear.

I was actually going to keep the sunburst one and even played one gig with it. Then I got lucky and got my '57. As good as this '59 reissue is, it still loses out to the '57 in my opinion.

[Guitarbean25]

Geez Jack. Why do you put yourself through this?

Vintage instruments scare me too much...let alone newer acoustic ones coming from different climates.

[Cunamara]

The ES-175 was basically not a professional grade instrument when it was introduced- that was the L5, ES-350, etc. But they got something right with the ES-175 and it stands unashamedly on its own as a voice for jazz guitarists. But I can't fetishize the ES-175 for some reason (nor any other Gibson guitar except maybe the Johnny Smith). They are factory guitars. Now, a real D'Angelico...

It all depends on the sound you want. For me the "thunk" doesn't work (and if I want it, with the right strings I can get my GB-10 to approximate it)- I don't play beboppy really at all. For someone else the thunk is just the thing that enhances what they play. My favorite ES-175 sound is Jim Hall's before he switched to the humbucker. Not much thunk but wonderful warmth and depth.

Good luck, Jack, in finding a replacement for your '89. You went through a lot of guitars to find that one. But I have always suspected that you enjoy the hunting almost as much as the having.

[Jabberwocky]

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.

LMII has the EVO Gold listed as the FW9665. Jescar has it listed as the FW47104 BUT you have to be sure to specify EVO Gold as FW47104 refers to the size and could also be nickel-silver.

FW9665 is what I chose for my two Borys builds.

[Lobomov]

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

Hasn't he been pretty faithful for the last 25 years or so. I can't recall many instances before he got the Slaman a few years back, where he didn't play an Ibanez on the road.

[agentsmith]

Because I haven't played a newer instrument in years that I liked as much as my vintage instruments though I do have a fabulous Ibanez S5521Q . To me, the pain and sacrifice are worth it. Plus, I don't care about chips, scratches and faded finishes. In fact, I prefer it.

Geez Jack. Why do you put yourself through this?

Vintage instruments scare me too much...let alone newer acoustic ones coming from different climates.

[jads57]

"You say Tomato and I say Towmatto!"

[agentsmith]

So, i got an email today from reverb saying:

-------------------
Hi jack,

The Gibson ES-175 Early 1970's Sunburst you are watching on Reverb has been relisted. If you're still interested in this item, you can check it out here:

---------------------

Dave's didn't bother to contact me saying they had received the guitar back and indicating when I should expect my refund...

[Doctor Jeff]

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?

There are a lot of trends in collecting, and guitar aficionados are not immune to this.

25 years ago the idea was get something old, refinish it and make it look like the day it was made. Preferably shiny and glossy. If an old part didn't work well, replace it with something that did.

In the last 15 years or so it changed to minimal restoration with a good cleaning and replacing broken parts (preferably with period-specific), but preserve the patina at all cost.

Nowadays the holy grail is unrestored, absolutely original parts. You see this with cars, guitars and my other collecting hobby, handtools (specifically, handplanes). Don't even wash off the dirt. An attic or garage find--that's all anybody wants. The other stuff is just for chumps.

Personally, while I'd love to find a pristine ES-175 that was under someone's bed for 75 years, or a Corvette or Mustang that was parked in some farmer's barn since the 60's, a) it wouldn't be functional and b) I'd prefer something that was used but not abused and has had obsessive maintenance, even if parts were replaced or updated.

[lawson-stone]

So, i got an email today from reverb saying:

-------------------
Hi jack,

The Gibson ES-175 Early 1970's Sunburst you are watching on Reverb has been relisted. If you're still interested in this item, you can check it out here:

---------------------

Dave's didn't bother to contact me saying they had received the guitar back and indicating when I should expect my refund...

Jack
As a professional photographer, do those photos look doctored to you? If I was looking for an ES175 of that vintage and had the cash, from the photos that looks utterly pristine and I'd be tempted. But the pictures look a little over-saturated or contrast-enhanced somehow.

[agentsmith]

no, it looks like maybe they used a saturation/sharpness filter but it's pretty accurate for how the guitar actually looked.

[jads57]

Jack have you talked directly with Dave Rogers of Dave's Guitar? I highly suggest you do so and explain your experience with him. I seriously doubt he's aware of your unhappiness with the transaction. He truly is an honest business man, who want's happy customers. I've witnessed this first hand several times while visiting his store. He should also be made aware of the salesperson you dealt with, so this won't happen again.