-
quite a lot of stuff on e.g. the '59 175 re-issue
but i haven't heard anyone with experience of both the re-issue and the original saying anything about how good the re-issues are
i have a '59 re-issue and love it - and i'm going for a '54 re-issue too - so i'm pretty invested in the re-issue instruments. just wanted to know if anyone is in a position to evaluate these re-issues in terms of how they stand to the instruments they are meant to replicate
thanks in advance
-
07-03-2017 10:59 AM
-
I've posted a little before. I've had a good experience with two '59 reissues and been able to compare them to a '57 original (also a '51 and a '52, but those have p90s).
Originally Posted by Groyniad
The '57 is a single pickup model, while the '59 RIs are 175Ds. Visually, the RIs are pretty good mimics, but in hand they feel quite different. They are definitely heavier with a thicker finish. Tonally, the vintage 175s make reasonable acoustic instruments. I would not say the same for the RIs. Plugged in, one of the RIs had a similar warmth to the '57 and wasn't too far off. I liked the sound a lot. The other RI tended to be much brighter and had a significantly different overall tone profile than the vintage 175s.
All of the guitars were set up nicely and played very well. The RIs did not require anything more than some light tweaking of the truss rods and bridges to play extremely well.
-
I have a real '61 ES-175 and a '59 reissue ES-175. I find the reissue to be a bit lighter and livelier.
-
I'm 60 years old and have either owned most of the vintage Gibsons,Fenders when I was much younger and they were affordable. It was much more hit and miss with the vintage instruments. Some were great while others not so much! I own both a Historic 1958 CS Les Paul, and a Memphis Historic 1958 ES-335. Both are spectacular representations of great Gibsons! And most Gibsons are very consistant from one to the next as well.
Gibson is building the best guitars right now on a consistant basis. Are they expensive? Yes but no more than other high end offerings from say Collings, PRS,etc. If you want a great Gibson buy one now, used if you can and save some $$
-
jads57 - thanks for that
i have had a number of new gibsons recently and i have a 56 es 135 too - i can't imagine that they could have built them much better back in the day - i'm encouraged by what you have to say about contemporary gibson guitars
great stuff
-
Originally Posted by MaxTwang
i get the feeling that they just got heavier and heavier as the years went on - so as to handle louder and louder levels of amplification
do people think that a 56 is heavier than a 49 for example?
i wouldn't be surprised if 61s were heavier than even 59s
the more rock and roll there has been in the world the heavier the great culture-making axe got
-
I played a buddy of mine's '60 (or '61?) in an A/B situation with my VOS, and we agreed that they were awfully close. Maybe a touch more sustain on the vintage guitar, but it was a few months ago. Will have to try it again when we can spend more time. Made me happy with my purchase, though.
-
Good thread. Thank you, gentlemen.
-
The main thing is they are very consistantly excellent from one to the next. That can;t be said about the old ones. Also they don't have the bad electronics or skinny frets,etc. of the old ones. Believe me I'm very particular about guitars, and I ve owned way too many from Vintage to Boutique (Benedetto) and I'm back with newer Gibson guitars again and incredibly happy!
Also they make several versions of the ES-175 with different construction (Vintage and Modern)
-
I tend to view vintage guitars like vintage cars. Some of the best had style, class, great designs and pure sex appeal. But most were technologically inferior, prone to overheating, breakdowns and in worst-case scenario...spontaneous combustion. But due to our youthful memories, nostalgia and fading memories of the faults of those old vehicles, we desire the 'good old days'.
Guitars of the '50's and '60's were likewise a crap-shoot in my experience. I'm much older than my childish, guitar seeking behavior belies. (Just ask my wife!) Nowadays, builders like Gibson and Fender are attempting to tap into our Baby Boomer memories of cool guitars and the guitar playing superstars of the day that introduced and seduced us on the old Ed Sullivan Show, Glen Campbell Show, Midnight Special, Soul Train, Shindig, Dick Clark and Hullabaloo.
Now with CNC aided building, Plek technology and other technical advances, guitar building SHOULD be better than the old days. Just look at Heritage. They continued for almost 30 years doing it the old fashioned way...and to some darn good results. But with the new owners came an influx of cash (that dusty old dilapidated Kalamazoo building needed it!!), much better guitar building, increased production of still and made guitars. They had to do that if they were to survive.
Gibson has been criticized for its goofy technology, designs and 'limited edition' marketing, but they've shown that they can produce a quality product...most of the time. Their reissues are some of their best work in my view. Those are the models I look at first. Their Custom Shop Historic (aka Hysteric) new prices are too high...stupid high in my opinion. But great bargains are out there if one is patient.
Bottom line...Used Gibson reissues can be a best buy...and many times head and shoulders better than the original vintage model it replaces.
-
I also love that back in the golden age of guitars that it was modern/futuristic ideas sold the product. i.e. Humbuckers,tuneomatic bridge, easy playing necks,etc. Now it's the old wood or Brazilian Rosewood,etc. I doubt anyone could feel or hear the difference of Brazilian vs, Indian Rosewood much less an old plywood guitar vs. a new plywood made of the same materials.
My brother always told me Eastman Kodak sold Feelings rather than Film,LOL!
-
I had a 1961 175 and later sold it didn't like the neck. Then for years wanted another and price or just didn't feel right kept me from one until recently I got a 1999 175 from a friend. It has the neck shape I like and compared to my '61 is a bit brighter and more acoustic. What I don't like about the 1999 and newer Gibsons in general is that goopy finish.
To me at best the reissues are the same neck profiles, wood types, PUP wound similar, type and thickness finish. But what makes a real vintage instrument great a reissue will never have is the years of wood drying out, with todays machine built guitar won't have the combination of minor variation old method produced, and most important the years of being played in. All those years of musical vibration making the guitar setting in is what give it it's unique soul. That's the mojo that make old guitar great, years of being played and a reissue imitation until it has a couple decades of music played on it.
So buy a reissue if you like the spec's from a particular year, otherwise just buy whatever guitar that feels good to you.
-
This. Originally Posted by docbop
-
Originally Posted by jads57
i've tried lots of boutique instruments
and i am also back with contemporary gibson instruments and am very very happy
i've been lucky enough to be able to exchange my one-man-shop instruments for newish gibsons - and i've tried a few on the way too.
they have all seemed to me to be fabulous - both in terms of design/construction/finish/appearance - and more importantly of course, in terms of sound and feel. only a new L5 came close to the price of the boutique instruments - and it was just out of this world (compared to slightly more expensive boutique archtops with similar specs).
i turn out to prefer the laminated archtops - and after trying a new style 175 (stunning instrument in every way - but not quite my cup of tea compared to the older style instruments) for a year or so i now have a '54 re-issue and a 59 re-issue 175 - and an old 50's 135 (posh 125). they are all great - but the new ones, once they get a chance to settle in a bit - seem to me a really great take on the old ones. they sound way better to me than more expensive 'hand made' archtops - and the quality of workmanship is as good as you could want it to be. (if you get to see the whole range - or nearly the whole range - it makes quite an impact).
my older instrument has what you might call a mellow quality which comes with a great deal of detail and definition, 'depth', in the sound - that the pretend old re-issue guitars don't quite have. that friendliness makes the 135 just a joy to use - but the newer instruments will warm up a bit with use, and they're already better than anything else i can find by some margin.
(and the re-issue is cheaper than the original - 3k ish rather than 4.5k - and its a lot cheaper than originals in near perfect condition)
i think they're doing amazing stuff - stuff that makes genuinely musical and not just commercial sense
-
Although not a RI or a jazzbox, I recently picked up a Gibson Les Paul "2017 Faded T" in worn brown brand new for the equivalent of US$692 and I'm quite blown away by the quality. They have definitely improved their quality control so I'm not surprised to hear that the RI guitars are getting nice reviews.
(anybody looking for an affordable back-up solid body should check out these Les Paul "2017 Faded T" models, the ones with the dot inlays instead of block inlays. They have a very jazzbox feel to the fit and finish...no binding, thick rosewood fretboard, fairly flat radiused fretboard, perfect fretwork, reasonable weight from "weight relief", and the 490 neck pickup sounds superb through my Henriksen Alfresco - just guitar>cable>amp, and that's with the factory strings which are roundwound 9's.)
-
Although the vintage instruments usually had premium wood as standard. And time has allowed finishes to cure,etc. The newer proccess of baking wood seems to have the same effect. If you haven't tried some of the guitars with this proccess I highly encourage you to do so. The side effect is it smells good as well,LOL!
-
When I had a crisis with my ES-175 Reissue 1959 VOS I once had an short A/B session with a guy who was selling his real deal ES-175 from 1958. Before we met I was prepared to start selling my VOS but after about an hour I just loved my guitar!
The 1958 had very tiny and middy sound. Nearer a banjo than my Reissue. My guitar started to sound very balanced instrument! And this was the acoustic sound, electrically the difference was even bigger (no, it had not a real PAF anymore).
Of course it might have needed new similar strings than my git, maybe a fret job etc to be a fair comparison but anyway.
I have had about dozen Gibsons thru the years, some hollowbodies, semi hollows and many Les Pauls. No vintage ones but Gibson USA, Norlin era and three Custom Shop guitars. The CS guitars (LP R6, LP R8 & ES-175 VOS) are the only ones I still have. Great instruments.
The crowd in My Les Paul forums has brought up the news that the key persons in Gibson Custom Shop division has been fired. They think it means that Gibson is driving the Custom Shop down. I don't know but if it is true the already made CS guitars might get pricier.
Rick Gembar no longer at Gibson? | My Les Paul Forum
Or cheaper because the baby boomer generation starts to buy medicines instead of guitars? Hmm.
(I am not that generation, I am a 1963 made Reissue of the classic 1929 & 1931 models [dad and mom I mean].)Last edited by Herbie; 07-05-2017 at 08:49 PM.
-
@Herbie: If you are born in 1963, you are a boomer, albeit a late one.
Regarding vintage Gibsons: Many need a lot of attention due to the ravages of time. Neck resets, refrets, new nuts, cleaned pots etc., so often a vintage example might not seem up to par compared to a top shelf new one. My feeling is that there is something special about the old woods and PUP magnets that cannot be duplicated, but the care given to the reissues makes them often superb guitars as well. In any case, as the guitar was a much less popular instrument prior to 1965 when the Beatles made everyone (including me) want to be a guitar player, pre 1965 guitars are much more rare and will probably always command more value. Do not expect your (somewhat) mass produced R-9 to be an appreciating collectable.
I would add that in both cases (vintage and modern) lemons exist. Guitars are made by humans and are therefore imperfect.
-
Guitars are made from wood and are therefore inconsistent. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
the difference between my 2 re-issues and my 'real' '56 135 is very marked
the original is very obviously the nicer instrument since it is both gentler (softer attack?) AND more detailed (more tonal nuance and depth)
but the re-issues are still way better than anything else i've tried (i prefer them to a new L5, a new-style 175 and a series of andersens, comins, campellone guitars) - and they play a little faster and cleaner (maybe they do have slightly better clarity or definition than the '56). the necks are also better - and the fact that they are in totally perfect working order and the finish is fantastic adds to their appeal
i can't help thinking that the 125/135 has certain advantages over the 175 (even back in the day). its wider (16.5 rather than 16.25?) - and has no cutaway - this adds to its 'presence' or something i think.
if jabberwocky is around he can tell us if the '54 re-issue has the same body shape as the '59 re-issue - i fancy it is slightly more pinched at the waist - but his eye is way better than mine with these details. certainly the neck on the '54 is not so fat and chunky as the neck on the '59. the descriptions of the '54 also claim that the guitar has solid maple rims - unlike the '59. if this is true - and it has a different body shape and neck shape - they are certainly putting a lot of effort into making their re-issues sensitive to the guitars on which they are modeled.
-
Sorry about a bit off topic but this is interesting: in the USA I would be part of baby boomers (1946-1964)... Originally Posted by Stringswinger
@Herbie: If you are born in 1963, you are a boomer, albeit a late one.
Baby boomers - Wikipedia
...but here in Finland I am not in that crowd (called 'suuret ikäluokat' in Finnish, something like 'the great generations' 1945–1950):
Suuret ikaluokat – Wikipedia
And then back to Gibsons!
-
My experience in this topic is very limited, therefore I shall of course generalize ...
I once played a '58 335. I did not find it to be magically, qualitatively better than the various reissues I've played. I'll go against the grain here and say that 335s are fairly consistently good and similar to each other, at least in big-picture terms. Yes, there are visual differences, differences in neck profile, pick-up differences, etc. It's possible to focus on and obsess about these differences, but in the grand scheme of things these are minutiae. IME, ditto for Les Pauls and 175s. The one broad exception is the 60s models (true generally of Gibson) with narrow nuts and skinny necks -- to my hands these feel different enough from other generations to constitute more than minutia. I think the mythos of old vs new Gibsons is greatly exaggerated. For Fenders, I think the differences are more significant -- ca. 67 through the end of the CBS era, build quality really is worse than pre-CBS and post-CBS Fenders. I am continually amazed that people pay "vintage" prices for 70s Strats and Teles that don't hold a candle to more recent ones.
John
-
Vintage guitars are in your head
-
I wonder if Plumbers get as exited over their tools, LOL!
-
for me - not being able to try the instruments i buy before i buy them (for me to 'try' an instrument i have to buy it and use it - carefully - for a year) i'm put off vintage because of the range of possible issues that could effect the playability of the instrument
i'm just not prepared to mess around with a guitar that has important construction-type issues
that has always inclined me in favour of nearly-new instruments
the 135 i now have makes me think that there can be something very distinctive about the older instruments
but i love the re-issues too
after a year or so i'll probably be playing the 135 most of the time
Reply With Quote
Julian Lage Trio - Sat 27th April - Marciac,...
Today, 03:57 PM in The Players