-
So either I'm crazy, or I'm right...boy, I say that a lot.
Modern 175's are not shaped correctly, right?
When did the body shape change? Does anybody have a good side by side photo to prove me right (or wrong?)
-
07-24-2018 09:22 AM
-
Well, it's difficult to answer without knowing what 'correctly' means....for me, the various 50s/60s/70s/ 80s/ 00s 175s I have owned have been all over the place for consistency. 175 necks, especially. So, not sure what you have in mind as the benchmark..
The two big things that come to mind straight away are the change in cutaway shape, from 50s gentle curve to 70s and later deep curve, and the strange, flat top that you find on 70s 175s, which looks sunken, but actually isn't.
175 necks are a whole different story.
BTW you don't sound crazy to me..
-
Maybe they fixed it and the new ones are correct.
-
Most prominent change that I see is the top of the new ones are not uniform round arch but they are sort of "S" shaped. Between the two pickups the top is a bit depressed. Very clearly noticeable when you hold them. I believe this was done as a solution to the collapsed tops that's seen in older ones. So the solution was, they now come already collapsed from the factory
Very modern ones (like the last few years) have pinned bridge and an additional support brace under the bridge.
-
You can be right and still be crazy. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
I'm crazy about my 175!
Last edited by citizenk74; 07-24-2018 at 03:48 PM. Reason: spelling
-
Having owned nine 175's (four at present) and having played dozens more, I can attest to the fact that there are variations. Neck carves, f-holes, cutaways, pickups, bridges, tuners, wood choices, tailpieces, top shapes, selector switches, pots, caps, pickguards, cases, inlay materials, finishes and bracing have all varied.
Every iteration of this iconic guitar has its fans. None is necessarily better or worse than another. Each player must find one that works well for that player. That is the quest worth taking on.
-
It’s an optical illusion. If you flip the neck pickup ring around the double humps disappear. 2016 Memphis not a VOS
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Most prominent change that I see is the top of the new ones are not uniform round arch but they are sort of "S" shaped. Between the two pickups the top is a bit depressed. Very clearly noticeable when you hold them. I believe this was done as a solution to the collapsed tops that's seen in older ones. So the solution was, they now come already collapsed from the factory
Very modern ones (like the last few years) have pinned bridge and an additional support brace under the bridge.
-
Well let's hope that the second picture is optic illusion not the first one Originally Posted by TedBPhx
-
What does it look like with a straight edge across the top?
-
Optical illusion I believe must certainly be playing a part. Pictures look convincing. When I get home I'll check mine. I do think the top isn't as round as the natural trajectory of the arch would imply. It's sort of more flat than round and the pickup rings are exaggerating the effect. But I'll find out when I get home. Originally Posted by es34569
If it's all optical illusion that would be very interesting. Never thought about that.
-
Actually, it looks as if the direction of the pickup ring is either hiding the sunken center, or accentuating it.
-
Purely for interest, I always found this to be a good and reliable reference by UK based jazz guitarist Adrian Ingram................................
Adrian Ingram: The Gibson 175 - Its History And Its Players Guitare Livre | eBay
David
-
I think the waist is less pinched in on the modern ones.
-
there was something about the upper bout in some of the recent reissues that bugs me. maybe it was the burst pattern. and sometimes it looks like the horn shape varies ever so slightly.
that aside, i don't know. i'm not an expert. they all certainly resemble each other, though i don't see a real reason for variance other than it being gibson.
-
If you turn them upside down, they all look like sisters.
-
The cutaways have been wonky for years, but it seems like the 59VOS models are back to the 50s shape.
-
I love my '59 VOS, but there was something that always bothered me visually that I've gradually gotten used to. We measured the upper bout distance straight across the pickup switch with my buddy's '60 (which looks visually correct) and the '60 is nearly 1/2" wider, which makes the waist look narrower and the upper bout rounder. The re-issues have a more square-ish intercept with the neck than the 50's, 60's and 70's models. The 70's look even more round at both bouts, but I've never had a chance to measure one. They still look more appealing to my eye than the modern ones, or most of the models from the 80's and forward, although the mahogany backed models seem to have the same curves as the 70's models.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice. It shouldn't matter, but visually, the proportions of the earlier models are just more "correct" to me, but not because of any allegiance to "vintage" values, it's just the look. I could have as easily been drawn to a later model and abandoned a more authentic, vintage instrument based on looks. Fickle me. But, I'm past that with my VOS. After a good setup and re-glueing of some loose bracing, mine sounds great and I prefer it over my Sadowsky (which I'm leaning towards selling, as a result.) Call it witchcraft. None of this is practical.
-
i honestly don't care about vintage correctness. just go with what looks best, already. figure it out and make that the standard. no need to tweak and refine and whatever. they clearly aren't interested in improving the guitar.
-
Just to follow up on the top shape discussion. I examined my 2013 175 closely. I am convinced that the top is not depressed right in the middle. But because of the narrowing waist between the bouts right in the area between the pickups, the top shallows towards the sides sooner than the same areas in the upper and lower bouts. Pick-ups are wide enough to extend towards these side areas and depending on their angle make this sloping more visible.
Also right in the middle the top doesn't continue the arched curve of the upper and lower bouts lengthwise as one would expect. It's more like a straight line between peaks which adds to the perception of slight depression but not as much as the second picture above would suggest.
Anyway sorry for this nerdy excursion but I believe somehow this is not as noticeable in vintage models.
-
A photo would help my visualization.
-
Actually I just realized that the pictures are taken from different angles. Second picture is taken below the fretboard plane and the first picture is taken above the fretboard plane. If you look at the very end of the fretboard in both pictures, you'll see the difference in angle. The dramatic difference in the top shape is largely because of that. Originally Posted by TedBPhx
One can see what I was describing in these pictures. Right at the end of the f-hole, where it becomes round, if you draw a line lengthwise, that line would be depressed in the middle area that corresponds to the section between the pick ups. That's because the waist gets narrow here so the top slopes steeper to meet the sides. But right in the middle between the pickups, the top isn't depressed. Sorry, it's hard to describe these thing even with pictures.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos