-
-
09-02-2018 10:19 PM
-
I really do not want to get in between you and Rio in your debate, but anyone with bad enough taste to call an ES-175 "homely" (I happen to think they are works of art) deserves to be corrected. Gibson has used the "L" designation on their guitars since 1902. Lloyd Loar did not join Gibson until 1919.
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Another thing, Archtops made Gibson serious money from their founding into the 1950's and even to a slightly lesser extent through the 60's. Consider yourself corrected again
.
-
I for one will sleep better when the 175 is back in production again. It is just as iconic as a L5 IMO.
There are 175’s out there that simply sound unbelievable. Plywood can often sound better than solid carved.
+1 175’s are awesome and need to return to the production line ASAP.
-
I’m not just talking about jazz musicians - I think more people know the es175 and it has been played more than the L5. To me the L5 is *the* jazz guitar and that’s why I have one but more people have played the 175 in and out of jazz. I think they are equally important and iconic but I’m just talking about to the general guitar playing public, I.e. Gibson’s customer base, and if they are not making those anymore then I wouldn’t count on them continuing to make the L5 if they are currently and in the future cutting corners. But the main point I was making is that you can’t really compare the L5 to the Les Paul as a reason why they will keep making them. The Les Paul is iconic, the L5 is iconic but one is their bread and butter and the other is a niche product now. And sadly I doubt Gibson is thinking about their heritage and how important and wonderful their archtops are when they are trying to scoop water out of a sinking ship, which we can see from them discontinuing (for now at least, as far as we know) the 175. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
I’m also not claiming to know the future here - I hope they bring back the 175 and I hope they don’t stop production on the L5 or other archtops they make. I would be surprised if there were no changes to their production lines though with their financial troubles and I think we have already seen changes motivated by those problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
I really do not want to get in between you and Rio in your debate, but anyone with bad enough taste to call an ES-175 "homely" (I happen to think they are works of art) deserves to be corrected. Gibson has used the "L" designation on their guitars since 1902. Lloyd Loar did not join Gibson until 1919.
Another thing, Archtops made Gibson serious money from their founding into the 1950's and even to a slightly lesser extent through the 60's. Consider yourself corrected again.
We're all welcome to our opinions. I think ES-175s are OK as far as that goes. I've played every Gibson archtop of note. Same goes for electrics and a fair number of acoustics. My first archtop from Gibby was a L5CES so the ES175 just seemed crude to me, and my opinion hasn't changed. Sure Jim and Joe made great music on them, no argument from me there, but I'm much bigger than those guys were so didn't/don't need the little guitar and scale length etc. I don't like the rosewood fingerboard, I don't like the laminate sound, I don't like the sharp cutaway, I don't like the simple head stock, tone woods and adornments. Why should I?
And iconic? Wes famously played the L5, so the argument kind of stops there. History smiles on Wes like no other American jazz guitarist. Joe and Jim were great but also moved to D'Aquistos when their careers took off.
And Gibson making "serious money" on archtops? Well, that's relative over time of course. It's a foregone conclusion that it wasn't anywhere near $200M - $1B, and yet Gibson bashers now talk about those figures as being "problematic" :0
Notes on the very iconic L5, from the illustrious wikipedia (ahem):
Design and construction[edit]
Worldwide, the L-5 was the first guitar to feature f-holes. Then as well as today, the construction of the L-5 is similar in construction, carving, bracing and tap-tuning, to building a cello. This guitar as well as the cello are similarly designed in order to amplify and project the acoustic vibration of strings throughout carved and tuned woods, using f-holes as the projection points. From 1922 to 1934 the L-5 was produced with a 16" lower bout width. In 1934 the lower bout was increased to 17" - and this width is still used today. Also released in 1934 was the one-inch larger 18" archtop guitar named the "L5 Super" which a couple of years later was renamed the Gibson Super 400. These two master-built acoustic guitars are Gibson's top-of-the-line carved wood and highly ornate archtop instruments. These guitars cannot be constructed quickly and require unusual attention to detail, resulting in a higher price. The time, skilled workmanship and materials used in these builds has been delivered non-stop for the past 90+ years. Since the 1930s there have been several other 17" archtops designed by Gibson, including variations introduced as more affordable, less ornately decorated models - these were introduced to consider the budgets of musicians.[15]
L-5 Guitar[edit]
Gibson L-5 guitar (played by Maybelle Carter), "the most important single guitar in the entire history of country music," according to George Gruhn. There is controversy about its date. Commonly said to be a 1928 instrument, but researcher Joe Span concluded, it couldn't have left the factory earlier than April 1929, and was shipped January, 1930.[9]
The Gibson L-5 guitar was first produced in 1922 by the Gibson Guitar Corporation, then of Kalamazoo, Michigan, under the direction of master luthier Lloyd Loar, and has been in production ever since. It was considered the premier guitar of the company during the big band era. It was originally offered as an acoustic instrument, with electric models not made available until the 1940s.
-
Steve.....that lemon burst is gorgeous in real lighting. The older it gets the better it is going to look. When I first got my TF It looked kind of orange. It is kind of a red/Brown now. Nitro always looks better the older it gets. Well except if it gets all checked up. Sweet LeGrande my friend. I am sure it sounds like it looks.
-
Vinny , Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
Your right about the color . It’s aging to a beautiful light golden / honey hue with slightly darker shading in the recurve area. I’m glad I picked up some of these Crimson Custom Shop guitars - they are all really fantastic instruments and the great deals are over.
-
I’d like to be clear about what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the es175 is not an iconic guitar and your reasoning is because Wes played an L5 or simply because you don’t like the es175? Also do you consider anyone talking about Gibson’s finances a “basher” or those talking about archtop sales being problematic (which I believe people are saying about the current Gibson, not the Gibson of the past)? I’d like to at least hear your point of view in case I am misunderstanding since even if someone doesn’t like the 175 I have not heard the statement that it is somehow not iconic because Wes played an L5 (which seems like a non sequitur). Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
This is just wrong. Joe Pass never "moved to D'Aquisto." He had one, of course; what jazz player didn't? It might have been used on a couple recordings, but most of his recordings were on the ES175. His D'Aquisto was the template for the Ibanez JP20 signature model, but that guitar was a laminate. As soon as Joe finished his contract with them, he started using either the old ES175 or the custom ES175 made for him by Gibson that had one pickup and was slightly thinner than the usual. A lot of famous D'Aquiso models were laminates to, btw. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
So double check your facts. I have an L5ces, a wonderful one; and I have 2 very fine "copies" of it that come very close. I love that guitar. But claiming the L5 is the only real jazz guitar or the only iconic guitar, or even the most iconic, is not not something in the end you can support with unambiguous facts.
-
Oh well....thanks for all your efforts but that did not work.....Price actually WENT UP $1000.00!!
I am waiting on any help from original price "without" the Florentine cut. Fingers crossed.
-
Get a quote from every dealer you can...
Originally Posted by Mickey
-
Nope...same price as before...about a 13% discount
-
If you love the ES-175 that's fine by me. Far be it for me to try to talk you or anyone else out of it. Originally Posted by rio
So anyway, you mentioned their discontinuance. What do you think the business reasons were that led to that decision? I really don't know but would hazard a guess that they were something like the following:
"Insufficient demand, insufficient margin, crowded market for similar product"
And the iconic pedigree of the L5? It really needs no validation from me or anyone, but I'll add the following:
If there were no Lloyd Loar and no L5, than there would be no; Super 400, L5CES, Johnny Smith, Byrdland, Tal Farlow, L5 Wes Montgomery, Kalamazoo Award, Citation, or LeGrand. And it goes without saying all the L5 this-and-thats; L5CT, L5 Lee Ritenour, L5 George Goebel, L5 Double-cut, L5 Studio, and whatever else they can think of, lol.
If there were no Lloyd Loar and L5 we would not likely be familiar with the following names: D'Angelico, D'Aquisto, Benedetto, Monteleone, Buscarino, Campellone, this could go on quite a while...
Finally:
Archtop guitars have been in production in the United States since Orville Gibson first introduced them in the 1890s. It was also the Gibson Company, under the guidance of acoustic engineer Lloyd Loar, that first introduced the violin-style f-hole to the archtop guitar in 1922. As the instrument’s evolution continued, it was in New York – as it was in Cremona – that a man began gaining recognition as a master luthier. His name was John D’Angelico and his archtop was being called “The Stradivari” of the guitar.
Rudy Pensa
By 1937, D’Angelico had settled on at least four main f-hole archtop guitar designs, heavily influenced by the Gibson L-5
Wikipedia
-
That’s all well and good - I’m not saying the L5 isn’t legendary or iconic. I was looking for clarification on your inference that the 175 somehow isn’t and was wondering if I misunderstood you. From your reply it still seems like you are trying to build up the L5, which I don’t think anyone here would say is not one of the most important guitars in jazz guitar history, but I think the 175 is equally as important and I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that so I’m just wondering why you think otherwise (again, unless I’m misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you’re saying). Also if you are using those examples of the influence of the L5 on other guitars then it’s only natural to do the same for the 175. Now I would appreciate some help on confirming this but I believe the 175 was the first all laminate archtop, at least to be played out to the degree it was (all laminate - I know the 150 and I think Selmers and other guitars used laminates for back and sides). It essentially made the template of a 16” two pickup laminate archtop with a cutaway. I’m sure you know the implications of this since there are so many 16” laminate archtops with a cutaway that have been made since then. I’m not saying this (because I see them both as equally iconic as jazz guitars) but the 175 could be argued to be even more iconic than the L5 due to its influence. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
,_Maybelle_Carter,_CMHF_clip1.jpg)
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos