-
This may continue to be a mystery. I spent about 20 minutes looking for the symptoms Drew described. I found some isolated reports of cracked and broken braces but nothing that suggested a design change. I found one intriguing post by a guitar repairman in which he makes a fleeting comment regarding broken braces "....in late sixties and early seventies ES-175s". (Other than the standard Norlin tales, I hadn't heard mention of broken braces in guitars of that era.)
Interestingly, I also found two references to a similar (?) problem purported to exist with ES-330TDCs. That made me scramble to look at my '64 but it looks fine (or at least as fine as these guitars ever looked since there's not much of an arch to them - maybe 1/2 inch or so).
If a design change WAS made, it's doubtful that we'd ever get to the bottom of it since it might suggest a latent defect: something that no manufacturer (from automobiles to zebra bridles) would ever admit without some serious pressure being applied.
Hopefully someone will post a photo or two so that we get an idea of the deviation ...
-
01-08-2010 08:32 PM
-
Originally Posted by TAHOEAGLE
This thread got me wondering, so I went to 3 guitar stores, a 'big box', a vintage-only, and a repair shop that sells a lot of Gibsons. I found three 175's that match Drew's description, and all were recent models. None of the older (50's & 60's) guitars looked like these. I played each and they all played OK, all had some minor fit & trim slop but they all sounded fine when plugged in. All three were at the 'big box' store. The repair shop had 2 recent ones, a Steve Howe sig and a sunburst - neither showed any sign of this 'anomaly'. The guitars at the vintage shop made me grateful I had left my credit cards at home. So I'm guessing this is a batch issue, not a stealth re-design issue. And since the guitars played and sounded OK, maybe we can close this particular X File.
-
That was a good bit of research, following up the original curious observation. As to putting the topic to rest, I suppose there's little choice, although it's not particularly palatable to me. (I like to know WHY these things occur.)
Maybe the "S-curved" ES-175 - the defective lot of '09 will soon appear on Harmony Central.
-
First off, I put a new set of DAddario nickel wound 11's on and they changed everything. Now it sounds alot better. Two days with you guys and I've learned something important, and have a new guitar.
Here's the curve we're talking about. The top falls away from the front edge, and then rises at the bridge pickup, and then goes back down a bit.
I still think to was done to accomodate the old p-90's originally. If the top went straight from the front edge to the bottom of the bridge, a p-90 couldn't fit under the strings close to the neck.
-
Before we allow the topic to die (?) an observation followed by a brief discussion, if you don't mind -
The original post, the following comments + some minimal research on the internet provided the stimulus to make a superficial, "sideways" examination of my laminated archtops. There's not much "arch" to the "top" of these guitars... Obviously, practical reasons exist for this; one can only "stretch" the wood fibers a certain amount and expect them to remain in the "stretched" configuration.
Assuming that the laminated top is of normal, cross-grain construction, the limit of the arch is strictly confined. The entire purpose of plywood, after all, is to enhance dimensional stability by laminating layers of wood oriented in a direction that stabilizes layers, above and below (by confining the movement that would naturally be caused by changes in temperature and humidity).
Now, examining carved-top instruments, the "arch" is considerably greater (approximately double) than laminated guitar tops. What's the significance of the difference between the two types of construction?
We know that the laminated approach was adopted for economic reasons but had a practical advantage in that feedback was also suppressed (due to frictional restraint between the various plies of the top). We know that carved tops have superior tone/amplitude (some may argue that this applies only to "accoustic" tone). The amount of "arch" in a carved-top instrument is limited only by the thickness of the stock with which one starts construction. (Not so for laminated tops.)
Why does the top have to be arched, anyway? Because compound curves possess great resistance to deflection, as we know from considering the usage of compound curves in automobile body construction. Heavy frame members have gradually been replaced with light, sheet-metal structures exhibiting equal strength with substantially less mass.
The analysis of natural frequencies, stiffness, harmonic content and other parameters is complex even for the simplest three-dimensional object. Using commonly available "Finite Element Analysis" (FEA) computer programs, predictions still aren't .... well, predictable, LOL.
Automobile rigidity/weight benefits are equally desirable characteristics for a guitar "top": strength without undue amounts of mass (that would limit vibration or cause non-linear behavior) ... simplified, of course, because this is a VERY complex study. If this was simple, the optimum guitar construction would have been determined many years ago ... and yet, we're still arguing about it (I mean "discussing" it).
I digress, the point was this: have layered, laminated tops perhaps been pushed beyond the limits of stability (the stresses that inherently exist in a "pressed" archtop guitar are always attempting to "straighten" the top). I wonder about this simply because the natural inclination, perhaps, might be to heat and form a laminated top very nearly to the dimensions of an L-5 guitar ...
Pushing that tendancy, might we expect more recently manufactured guitars to go "SPROING" at some point Just a thought.
cheers,
randyc
-
Originally Posted by pineapple
-
Bridge area is down('S'shape)>Buzz(high position on the 6,5,4 strings)>
Bridge hight adj>screw length limit and too mutch strings hight>Thinking!>
I bought the precision file and filing the flet of original conditions surface>
I got good conditions.Last edited by kawa; 01-11-2010 at 07:14 AM.
-
I bought one last week for 399 euro brand new.
What a guitar for that price.
-
Originally Posted by randyc
-
01-18-2010, 09:04 PM #35Flat3 Guest
I own a newish ES-175. I might be confused here, in the original post, but I think that what is being described is somewhat characteristic of the guitar "prior to a professional setup". The neck is anchored to the body, but the piece that sticks out furthest to the pickups is not. That tends to rise, and over time can actually rise quite a bit. There is a tendency for the strings to pull the neck into a subtle "S", where there is a dip in or around the 7th fret. A professional set up can deal with many of these issues, by straightening the neck via its truss rod, or a fret dress. I paid for a fret dress on my 2004 and it plays like a dream at 4/64ths bass and treble. So, my advice, with whatever guitar you buy, if you have ANY questions about the neck, ask to talk to their repair person before buying. Some issues are easily ironed out, others are pricey. A full fret dress can run $150, for example. Be sure you know what you are buying, and don't trust the sales guy unless you know him or her really well.
-
Somewhere in this thread (i know it is an old thread bu there was a pic of EXACTLY what I was talking about).
Well.. I have an 1996 ES165 that by all accounts is a 175 minus the bridge pickup/wiring and headstock veneer/inlay. It does have the S shape but no where near as extreme as the 175s I played.
In a note on TAHOEs comments, my guitar doesnt have a sound block, it is fully hollow but it DOES have a cross brace under the top between the sound bars (roughly where the bridge is). I didnt expect that.
-
04-05-2010, 05:53 PM #37TommyD Guest
In their manufacture, Gibson buys the waterproof glue maple veneer plywood already glued up, and in construction, they place the rough-cut top in a steam-box pressure mold, where it's exposed to heated moisture and molded under pressure to its "arched shape" - such as it is, then it's fastened to the rest of the body. NOT a consistent or modern method, but Gibson's in it for the dough and they ain't gonna buy new equipment as long as their products remain in demand. The results are not consistent, and anybody who has a plywood Gibson guitar knows it. But hey! What the hell. They play pretty good and are road-worthy.
The better way to do it is to buy single veneers and glue them up in the bend you want. (I think they do that with the Tal Farlows.) Then the tops would be beautiful, like the carved tops are.
Tommy/
-
"Most importance is a sounds."
Works for me in any language, Kawa!
-
Well .. sounds and tone are secondary considerations
Actually this was an ok guitar until I got rid of the TOM and put on an Ebony bridge. I am now officially in the honeymoon stage and trying as much as possible to sound like Joe Pass-I remember Charlie Parker/Virutoso (I am NOT one for trying to sound like someone else but with the ebony it just comes out.. you know what I mean? )
Thanks for the useful info Tommy. I wonder how Sadowsky does his plys. I know he put quite a bit of time and effort into the "best" way to make a plywood top. I will have to google it tonight.
Cheers
Drew
-
Just thought I'd help out w/ what I saw in a vid. tour of Sadowsky's shop. He mentioned that he shopped around for ply suppliers. Only one cut the mustard for him. The deal w/ them (Japanese supplier) is that they had to make the instrument not just give up the choice ply he liked. So the deal was forged to the arrangement they have now.
-
Hi SamBooka, Hello everyone as I am a new member!
Which is due to me noticing the same "S" shape on my 1961 ES-175. When I began to wonder about this, although I have had the guitar for a couple of years, it scared the sh out of me as I thought about the top sinking in and stuff like that. Especially because there is a lot about this on the internet. Now that I have seen the pictures on this board I am reliefed - my guitar looks just the same I guess.
I'll post some pictures tomorrow morning.
Greetings from Germany,
Jens
-
I love my 2009 ES-175
-
Would you describe the top of this newer model in the sense of this discussed "S" shape too? I haven't played any stock models recently, so I never noticed anything like this.
-
Originally Posted by Big Ron
-
Originally Posted by JensDance
-
Today I played a new es175 1959 reissue vos. It played and sounded really nice! I was pleasantly surprised and pleased with the build quality and the weight of the instrument. No issues with the top either.
-
Originally Posted by SamBooka
Last edited by pineapple; 10-01-2012 at 05:34 PM.
Humiliating Confession
Yesterday, 01:31 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos