-
Yes.
I've played plenty of 175 copies. And they're just not 175's.
-
04-16-2015 10:05 PM
-
If you can swing the real thing, go for it. Otherwise try an Eastman 371 and see if it speaks to you and if it doesn't, go for the real thing.
-
You'll get plenty of people who own a Gibson 175 saying the copies are not the same thing. You can read that in a negative light, or you could possibly discover that you like what one or two of them have to offer in their own unique way. No two Gibson 175s are the same either, so you must try before you buy, or at least have a good return policy.
-
I've owned several 175s, including modern, 60s and Norlin models. It's important to say this IMO, 'cos trying one out in a shop, strung with 10s and through whatever amp is available, isn't the same as using one with your own setup for a year or more. I've also had a couple of 175 copies - Ibanez and Greco.
What I'd say is that 175s can vary greatly in feel, responsiveness, neck thickness, whatever. But for whatever reason they all capture a characteristic sound that is recognisable. The sound might be a bit bass-heavy in one particular era, or more acoustic-sounding in another, but 'that' sound is consistently there, at least in my experience. And, it's constantly there with different gibson pickup variants, so for me it's not a p[ickup issue.
The 2 older copies I have named ( can't speak for modern copies) get 90% of the way there, but have their own flavour. You might prefer that flavour - they are definitely in the same area or ball park, but not quite the same. It's difficult to say if that matters until you try. Those older copies typically sell for 50% less.
There's a UK player I know, who's good, and who has started using an old Ibanez 1860 model 175 copy - Sam Dunn. Looking at his Youtube stuff will give you a flavour - try Autumn in new york. I like his sound, but can ( just) tell it's not a 175 - but it hardly matters in the context of what he plays....
-
I have both an 1997 ES-175 and an Eastman 371. Other then the shape there is not much similarity. I love them both. So a copy may really not be a copy in many respects. If it is the sound you are looking for get an actual ES-175, even with pickup changes, various strings, different woods they all do have that 175 sound. I bought the Eastman hoping it would fulfill my desire for a 175, which it did not. The 371 has its own sound a feel which is wonderful. The 371 is much more lively and has an acoustic edge I've never experienced in an 175.
Last edited by rickshapiro; 04-17-2015 at 05:56 AM.
-
I've had the real deal, early 90's Gibson and an Ibanez from the late 70's. I worked full time with the Ibanez and really found it to be superior to the Gibson. That said, as has already been stated, you got to try them and leave your mind open. Don't confine yourself to brands, it's very limiting.
-
As a basketball fan, I love how every newly minted, mobile shot-blocker intimidating big man is described as the "new Bill Russell". The problem is, they never are. Russell was the paradigm, and to my mind, still probably the best---a near Olympic level broad jumper--who did track and field part time---in the off season....also the smartest competitor, IMO, of all time.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Same thing with the 175. Still, there are other fine big men in the game of basketball...David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Akeem "the Dream" Olajuwon, Bill Walton, even Chamberlain, and all of these guys helped teams win championships. But the 175 is the uber-laminate sound, having invented it.
So, you can win with other guys....but if I was choosing up sides for a playground game, hard to pass on Bill Russell.Last edited by goldenwave77; 04-17-2015 at 10:06 AM. Reason: can't forget Bill W., even w/ short career
-
I think the important thing to take away is that better/worse is subjective.
What's NOT subjective is that most of the copies you'll find around today only LOOK like an ES-175. Doesn't mean they sound bad.
-
I've played the new Epi 175, liked it quite a bit, got much of the 175's brighter tones, but the pickups lose a little definition if you go for the darker 175-ish tones.
They have a really thin neck, in profile...thin enough to where I'd say it's love it or hate it. I would never be able to play it for more than a half hour or so without cramping up.
I'll also add that the sunburst looks really wonky in pictures, but in person it's not bad.
-
You had a genuine Gibson Tal Farlow which we know can sound really warm and woody.
If it is the tone you want back, or more specifically the 175 with its Thunk, I don't think a copy will ever satisfy you.
Most of what I have heard from Eastman, Ibanez and even Epiphone tend to sound different than a Gibson.
-
It also may be that the question isn't "is a 175 copy a 175"
It may be a $899.00 vs $4500 question and what is the better $899.00 option.
There would not be a thread here if the 175 was @ $899.00 ....Last edited by jazzimprov; 04-17-2015 at 12:50 PM.
-
Can someone define "thunk" to me?
Regards,
Rick
-
That thread might give an idea of how it might be defined here: Originally Posted by rickshapiro
Let's talk thunk
-
Get the 175, then you wont have to explain to everyone why you got the 175 copy and how much you like it. Logical conclusion since you're still talking about the Tal Farlow that you let go.
-
THUNK = 175 with flatwound 13s and a jazz III pick.
-
I'm going to say you need to consider a Heritage 575. It is basically a 175 but I don't consider it a copy because it is superior to the Gibson 175. It's made by the old Gibson luthiers that stayed behind when Gibson moved out of Kalamazoo. I believe they cost less on the used market but new ones price out pretty close to Gibson.
-
I A/B'd a 1982 Gibson 175 against a fairly new Heritage H575 and found the Heritage to be way brighter.
Not a bad sound, but didn't have that thunk. Also, seems to me the tone rolloff was very non-linear compared to the 175, making it difficult to get a good tone. I would certainly consider buying a Heritage, as they are very well-made, but if you're going for a certain dark sound I think you'd want a Gibson.
BTW I had an early 80's 175 back in the day, and for some reason it never spoke to me, so I sold it. But when I played that 175 in a vintage store in Roseville, MN, about a year ago, I thought, that's the sound I was looking for. I just didn't have a spare $2400 that day.
-
I own a 575. Very different. Solid wood, and much shallower. I love it, but if i had a 175, I'd have very different sounds.
-
I have an Eastman AR805 CE, which I do love, so I am really only interested in a laminate guitar to have a contrast from what I already have. The Heritage has my eye as a nice guitar, but not for this purchase.
As to why I don't get another Gibson Tal Farlow? I figured I can try out many more 175's than I could Farlows. I would love to get one but I imagine that I would have to either get very lucky or to buy new.
Thanks for the the discussion so far. What is it about the 175 that makes it so unique I wonder?
-
i've never played a 175 copy that sounded like a gibson 175. I've played and owned holst, eastman, heritage and many others. Gibson's the only one who gets it right.
-
i was just in sam ash today. They had a 1980 and 2012 gibson 175. Neither sounded anywhere near as sweet as my '89. My '89 has ridiculously low action and no buzzing and incredible dynamic range. The '80 has a maple neck and shaw pickups (which are really dark) and the combination of the maple neck and dark pickups didn't sound good to me... Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
Though kreisberg sounds great on his maple neck 175.
P.s.
the sales drone at sam ash told me the shaw pickups "make" the '80 175. He said the woods don't matter.
Last edited by jzucker; 04-17-2015 at 07:40 PM.
-
I don't own a 175, but have been gassing for one ever since I played one a few months back. I have played a number of jazz boxes but none have had that unique and indistinguishable jazz sound of the 175. This thread is very interesting because I still haven't heard any responses.which have a offered a viable alternative to the 175.
-
Ibanez 2355M, its pretty much identical.
If there is any difference it would be in the pick-up or the bracing. They are essentially the same.
There is also the earlier laminate spruce topped ones that imo are better as they sound more like old L4's mixed with a 50's type Es-175.
-
no it's not. It has a thin, 3pc maple neck and a spliced neck heel. And the plywood and pickups are different. Other than that I agree it's pretty much exactly the same. Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
P.S. I had one of the ibanez 2355 guitars and it sounds *NOTHING* like a 175 and my son who also played it for a few weeks can corroborate. (he's also a jazz guitarist)
And no, the lam spruce top ones are not better. The classic recordings of the 175 speak for themselves. Let's not rehash this tired bias for the 100th time.Last edited by jzucker; 04-18-2015 at 11:33 AM.
-
When I played the 175 for the first time it reminded me of the first time I played a Martin HD28 - there was this feeling that I was playing an instrument which is stamped in guitar history. I read about these guitars, listened to recordings, but now I was playing an icon and not just a copy of an icon.
I have never owned and will probably never own an HD28, why? Too expensive. So it's been clones for me. I just know from experience that once the honeymoon period is over, I'm still paying 29.9% interest on this piece of history. I could have probably bought the clone with cash. Tough decisions.Last edited by heymelbs; 04-18-2015 at 11:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
Action height for acoustic fingerstyle archtop?
Today, 08:06 AM in The Builder's Bench