Modern Gibson ES-175

[lawson-stone]

Dear Lawson. You misread. Not a question of old or new. I just say that the ones I personaly played from the recent 175 (vos 59 and Memphis) were not so good to my eyes. I don't play your personal guitars that you have the great chance to get so I only talk a personal opinion based only on what I heard, saw and played "personaly". I must have crossed the wrong spécimens and any was "astonishing" or "fabulous".
I think also that my level in english is so bad that it can betray my thoughts. So many apologies if I've been rude about something.
Cheers !!

Ps: we live in a world where everything new is just "hypersuperfabulous"...

You haven't been rude at all, and your English is fine. I agree with you that everybody tends toward hyperbole. I respect your basing your opinion on what you've actually played. I probably over-reacted. I weary of hearing people suggest that the best way to play jazz is a 1950's guitar with a Charlie Christian pickup through a 5 watt amp with one giant 65 year old tube glowing in the back. I fear I filtered your remarks through my own impatience with that kind of idealization of old gear.

The constantly changing construction of the ES175 does probably set up some eras for being more likely to please some players than others. Joe Pass liked the "skinny neck" on his 1963 ES175. Many don't. Some like the lighter construction, others like the heavier. Some prize the acoustic sound coming through, others want the electric. The great thing is that somewhere in the evolution of the ES175 there definitely IS a guitar that will delight anyone looking for it. But as you're doing, one must keep searching!

I prefer to keep my opinions of ES175s in the range of a solid instrument that checks the boxes and offers no drama, just good playing and good tone. Now, an L5ces, there I have different expectations!

[SkipBurz]

There are guys on this thread (and other 175 threads on this forum) who I consider to be experts concerning ES-175s. Over the past couple of years, they've kept me from buying a few duds and steered me toward ones that played great, but I just couldn't bond with and ended up selling. (Certainly not their fault!) I posted above back in July that I was going to try a 1989 natural finish 175. This was/is the one! I mean The One! I was afraid that the mahogany back and sides (rather than maple) might make it too dark. Not so. It came with the stock patent number pick-ups, which sound fantastic. Just for comparison, I tried a Seth Lover and a 57 Classic in the neck position, but went back to the stock pup. The guitar is light and lively and the neck is perfect for me (.822 at the first fret). I've been gigging weekly with it since July and it seems to know what I want to play before I do. Keep looking and keep playing as many as you can get your hands on. Eventually, one will "speak to you" and that will be it. Good luck!

[jaymen]

Glad to hear you like the mahogany back and sides,
others here have made comments about how it has a rich warm tone. I myself compared my mahogany ES 175 to my friends all blond (maple) ES 175 which was of the same vintage and found his to be a bit brighter acoustically. With an amplifier, it was difficult to tell the difference once you adjusted the tone controls.

One thing I have seen on late 1980s to early 1990s ES 175s is the edge binding on the neck cracks where it goes over the frets. Apparently Gibson used "green" wood for the fingerboards that shrinks with time and then the ends of the frets protrude and crack the edge binding. This is cosmetic but a noticeable flaw.

The strings have a very noticeable affect on the sound, mine came stock with Gibson Flat wires, and I switched to Tomastik Infelds which were much better tonally.

[SkipBurz]

Glad to hear you like the mahogany back and sides,
others here have made comments about how it has a rich warm tone. I myself compared my mahogany ES 175 to my friends all blond (maple) ES 175 which was of the same vintage and found his to be a bit brighter acoustically. With an amplifier, it was difficult to tell the difference once you adjusted the tone controls.

One thing I have seen on late 1980s to early 1990s ES 175s is the edge binding on the neck cracks where it goes over the frets. Apparently Gibson used "green" wood for the fingerboards that shrinks with time and then the ends of the frets protrude and crack the edge binding. This is cosmetic but a noticeable flaw.

The strings have a very noticeable affect on the sound, mine came stock with Gibson Flat wires, and I switched to Tomastik Infelds which were much better tonally.

Concerning the tone of the mahogany, you are exactly right. Whether I'm playing through my Quilter/Raezer's Edge or Fender Princeton (w/ a 12" Emi Cannabis Rex), I tend to run the tone control on the guitar at around 7 and the treble on either amp at around 4. Any other 175 I've played, I've rolled off the top end significantly more.

You are also right about the binding at each fret cracking. Fortunately, they're just hairline and not much dirt has gotten in there, so it's not very noticeable. At some point I'll get new frets. My luthier will just have to be careful when pulling the old frets.

I'm using Thomastik flats as well. However, I've dropped down to 11s (easier on the arthritis!), which brightens up the high end a bit.

[gggomez]

Jammed on weekend with a guy that had an early 70's 175, mine is 2012.

They are very different:
His was light, very acoustic sounding, small neck with flat wounds.
Mine is heavy, a thick woody electric guitar sound and bright bell sound on the e and b strings, fat neck with round wounds.

His style was also very different and I guess both our styles are shaped by our axes, combined it was a beautiful thing. They complimented each other wonderfully, I wish I recorded it.