-
Hey guys, I know I posted a lot on getting my jazz box and I finally got a beautiful 1980 Gibson ES-175 in the summer and now I finally got to take some pictures and share it with you guys. Everything except maybe the tailpiece seems to be original and I'm not sure why it is a second. I got it for a great deal of exactly $2000. Sounds amazing.
What do you guys think? Does everything look original?
-
11-18-2018 04:49 PM
-
Not an expert here, but I do have a suggestion. I would ease that bridge up toward the neck so that the re-intonated saddles line up equally astride the (slanted) center axis of the bridge posts, thereby transferring energy more efficiently to the top. You may find you get a thunkier tone that way. In any case, congratulations, and play it in good health!
-
What makes you think the tailpiece isn’t original?
-
Just looks way too new to be from 1980.
Originally Posted by El Fundo
-
Originally Posted by citizenk74
Not an expert here, but I do have a suggestion. I would ease that bridge up toward the neck so that the re-intonated saddles line up equally astride the (slanted) center axis of the bridge posts, thereby transferring energy more efficiently to the top. You may find you get a thunkier tone that way. In any case, congratulations, and play it in good health!
yes agree..that nashville style bridge is set up oddly...
cheers
-
Actually the entire guitar looks really new for being 38 years old. Could be the photos though. The tailpiece looks like the standard “3 Bar”. We’re you expecting the zig-zag tailpiece or does it really look that much newer than the rest of the guitar?
-
It's just so shiny and clean. I don't know it might be original. Originally Posted by El Fundo
-
Such worries! You said it "sounds amazing", and at a great price! Isn't that enough?
On a 1980 guitar, who should worry about an un-original but correct part?
I don't understand your worry.
-
Chrome stays clean. Originally Posted by Skadiddle12
Nickel tarnishes.
Probably for that reason, Gibson switched from nickel to chrome hardware in the mid-60s.
Enjoy your 175!
-
Other than the bridge it looks right to me.
-
How would I change the bridge? Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
You don't need to change the bridge, just adjust its location and the saddles. If you look, the saddles are all skewed way forward in the slots. Move the whole bridge forward so that a line between the points in the middle of the f holes would bisect the bridge base. Then screw the saddles backwards in the slots so that it is properly intonated. This will put the bridge base about where Gibson planned for it to be and should help the tone be even better.
That said, there are a *lot* of guitars set up very idiosyncratically that sound fine to wonderful, so this is not something you need to sweat about.
-
If you want a nice jazz sound I would go with a wooden saddle. I bet you could get one to match the post and not need to get a whole new bridge and saddle. You can get a rosewood one for less than $25. It will sound better than the metal tunomatic.
In fact if I were doing this I would use the tunomatic and set the intonation perfect, then carve the saddle to exact compensation needed.
-
There are helpful suggestions here from experienced people. But if you are new to archtops, don't get concerned in any way. It looks like the original TOM for that era, and it you like how it plays, then great - relax and play it. Wooden saddles can give a nice tone. But many players prefer a metal saddle on a 175, or at least on heavier 175's like your 1980 model probably is.
If it were mine, I would simply correct the minor misplacement of the bridge. It looks to be slightly off center from side to side; look at how the strings line up over the polepieces, and look at the relative distance from the fretboard edge on each 'E' string. Center it properly. Also make sure the bridge (the wooden part) is perpendicular to the neck.
The next thing to do is to move it up towards the pickup slightly. Do this by measuring 24.75" from the nut's leading edge to the center of the saddle in the middle. Once it is located there and centered as noted above, adjust the intonation. You should find that all of the saddles scoot down a bit towards the tailpiece.
If you don't know how to adjust intonation, then just leave it alone.
-
You can leave the bridge where it is, but--as a rule--I put the bridge on a 175 so that the middle of the bridge feet align with the center dip (the point) of the f-holes. That way, the saddles end up somewhere near the middle of their travel. Just a fastidious thing.
-
Nice guitar!
-
Yes, I do I think my 175 is on the heavier side. Is it a bad thing, could the sound improve if it was lighter? What do you think of 80s 175s? I was about to go over a 67 but didn't because of the replaced neck pickup, replaced tuners, and didn't know if the 60s neck would feel right with me. Originally Posted by rpguitar
There are helpful suggestions here from experienced people. But if you are new to archtops, don't get concerned in any way. It looks like the original TOM for that era, and it you like how it plays, then great - relax and play it. Wooden saddles can give a nice tone. But many players prefer a metal saddle on a 175, or at least on heavier 175's like your 1980 model probably is.
If it were mine, I would simply correct the minor misplacement of the bridge. It looks to be slightly off center from side to side; look at how the strings line up over the polepieces, and look at the relative distance from the fretboard edge on each 'E' string. Center it properly. Also make sure the bridge (the wooden part) is perpendicular to the neck.
The next thing to do is to move it up towards the pickup slightly. Do this by measuring 24.75" from the nut's leading edge to the center of the saddle in the middle. Once it is located there and centered as noted above, adjust the intonation. You should find that all of the saddles scoot down a bit towards the tailpiece.
If you don't know how to adjust intonation, then just leave it alone.
-
I've found that the heavier '90s and '00s ES-175s are quite good sounding guitars. OTOH, the light '50s-'60s examples are also nice. Different ES-175 recipes. The heavier ones get a quite thunky, full-bodied jazz tone. The lighter ones get a dry, airy, slightly brighter tone--think Herb Ellis/Joe Pass/Jim Hall.
I like them all.
I think you will enjoy your '80 tremendously.
-
The bridge pickup is mounted a little crooked and the tailpiece or neck is probably a little too, the string angle is already compromised.
If you move the bridge a little to the left it'll be a little more compromised.
My 1st L-5 had the same issue.
-
Read Greentone's reply, which covers the basics. There's something to like in nearly all of them. Originally Posted by Skadiddle12
I have two ES-175s; one is a 1985 model with mahogany back and sides. The other is a 1963 single pickup example. The '63 is really light at just under 6 lbs. I haven't weighed the '85, but it's in between the '63 and a stock model from the past 25 years, recent VOS examples excluded.
Check the neck on yours, which might be made of maple (as opposed to mahogany which is the typical neck wood for a 175). That's yet another flavor. Bottom line, if it's a good one, it's a good one!
-
Congrats on the 175. IMO, all years have yielded great guitars in the 175 history (1949-2017) and sadly, all years have also yielded lemons. A factory second might be labeled as such due to a flaw or simply because Gibson sold it at a deep discount.
The bridge PUP does look crooked, but digital cameras can cause optical illusions. If you are not familiar with basic setup skills, take the guitar to someone who is. A good tech can get your guitar into top playing shape.
I would get a wood bridge saddle and compare it to the TOM and see which you like better. The guitar will sound different. two other options for the saddle with be a traditional TOM or a TOM with nylon saddles. All change the tone. None are better, it is all about what sounds best to you, that said the TOM's do intonate better.
The PUPs in your guitar, if original, may be first year Shaw PUPs which are highly regarded. The neck is probably maple, which contributes to the guitars "heavy" weight (compared to an average 335, even the heaviest 175's feel just fine). The chrome hardware will make your guitar look somewhat new forever. Lots of vintage purists prefer the nickel, but IMO, going to chrome was a Norlin improvement that made sense.
With a proper setup, finding the bridge saddle and strings that you like (lots of mixing and matching to experiment with here), you should be well pleased. IMO, a good 175 is all the jazz guitar that a jazz guitarist needs. Don't take my word for it. Look at the greats. Joe Pass, Jim Hall, Herb Ellis, Pat Metheny....I rest my case.
-
That looks like my old guitar. I had one of the same vintage, purchased in Atlanta. I foolishly sold it in the mid-80's to someone in Rochester, MN. I regret selling it all the time.
Enjoy playing it...I agree there were some great instruments made during those years.
-
It sounds amazing, you bought it right. Who really cares if parts have been changed? You didn't buy it to collect. Play it enjoy it! You really can't go wrong with a 175 it can take you as far as you dare go. Enjoy!
-
A great deal, a pretty guitar, sounds good...
congratulations!
-
Of all the parts that might have been changed out, the ES175 tailpiece is one of the easiest to replace with something that is "right" though yours looks just fine to me. Pity the person who buys an L5 with THAT tailpiece gone. Not many options. Or the bridge with the inlay on each end. Hard to replace.
I think you did very, very well. I've never played an ES175 that didn't have something special about it. One of those optimal combinations of features that just works.
Reply With Quote
It all begins with “Preparations”
Today, 06:49 PM in Improvisation