The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 80
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    I see a lot of negative reviews of the new ES-175s and was curious as to what the complaints were exactly?

    Tone, acoustic sound, weight?

    I refer to these manufactured from the year 2000 to today.


    Modern Gibson ES-175-gibson-es-175-jpg

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    I have two 175vos that were made in the last runs. I couldn't be more impressed with these guitars. They totally nail the 175 sound of the 59s. Light and airy with pretty darn good acoustic sound. That said, they both needed some fine tuning out of the box. I have owned many Gibsons and have come to expect set up issues. They have always gotten low marks in that department from my point of view. Most complaints you hear center around the fact that at the price point of Gibson, everything should be tended to. That may be so. Once they are set up to fit you as a player they are hard to beat in all departments, especially the identifiable sound that no other maker seems to get. I have owned more guitars than any one person ever should, by all makers. I have 5 now they all say "Gibson"

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    I am a total beginner in evaluating jazz guitars but what I have read and understood is a some kinda consensus that after 1990 the ES-175 (& ES-165) are mostly better than before.

    There is of course goods and bads from every year and someone likes another ones bad guitar but that is my impression generally speaking about overall standard.

    I have had an ES-165 from 1990s and currently have a ES-175 VOS from 2012 and I have no bad about these single guitars.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    I have a dreaded Norlin 175 (1982) and I compared it side by side to a 1964 175, to a 1995 ES 175 and to a recent VOS one. My Norlin 175 held up pretty well and I actually preferred it in all 3 cases. It's all cork sniffing I guess. Or taste. Or what have you.

    Kreisberg sounds fabulous on his 70s one (with the off specs maple neck).

    DB

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    My 2013 is a perfect 175. The tailpiece did break, but I got it new so they replaced it no questions asked. I think that can happen to any 175, though. I had 14s on it

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    In all decades there were some excellent guitars, some good guitars, some average guitars, some poor guitars, and some guitars that should never have made it past quality control. Ditto for PAF pickups - some are exceptional, but given the inconsistency in the winding there are also some poor ones out there.
    Last edited by Ray175; 07-05-2019 at 11:15 AM.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
    Kreisberg sounds fabulous on his 70s one (with the off specs maple neck).

    DB
    I had a 'Kriesberg' maple neck Norlin 175 from the 70s. Although it was both the ugliest and the cheapest 175 I ever bought, with a big volute and black/yellow 'un-burst', it played and sounded as well as any 60s 175, maple neck notwithstanding.

    To the OP, I think it depends on whether you're talking cosmetically, or sound-and-playability wise. Cosmetically, the 2000 onwards 175s do tend to look prettier, with bright 3 colour sunbursts and flamey maple, or the accurate-looking 50s re-issues. Be aware that some early 000s gibsons have sticky lacquer, which feels as you'd expect after a hour's playing. Gibson may well have solved this issue later in the decade. As to how they sound and play, it can vary with the instrument, and of course the set up - as in any other decade.

    You have to actually play the instrument to know what you've got, if at all possible. I've always preferred buying s/h from another player, for that reason - more chance of the guitar being set up properly.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    I think there are two considerations that are being conflated here perhaps. There is modern design vs old design or modern build quality vs traditional build quality.
    There seems to be broadly two categories of ES 175's design-wise. 50's models and early 60's onwards models. 50's models were lighter build. Some had P-90's. They are not only phsically lighter but acoustically louder. Electricly they are generally brighter and may be with more acoustic edge. Sort of like a carved top guitar.
    60's onwards they are build more heavily. Quieter acoustically. Amplified sound is more electric guitar like, also darker and with more sustain. Still unmistakably archtop sounds. Acoustic air is there, good dynamics, warm and clear. I have an 2013 model. It's everything I could hope for. They are still lighter than most solids. Mine is about 7 lbs.
    There are also VOS reissue models introduced in the 2000's. They are like the 50's models. I prefer the modern heavier design.
    One other possible variation is 80's mahogany back and sides models. They are still part of the modern design. I've never played one but they should be ball park the same as other modern ES 175's.
    In terms of building practices and quality difference over different periods, that depends on who you ask.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 07-05-2019 at 03:02 PM.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Guitars have to be graded individually. The year it was made is inconsequential. People thumb their nose at the Norlin years. The best Gibson I ever owned was made in 1978.

    I very much liked the final run of 175’s 2016-17 before they discontinued them. Gibson pinned the bridges but the intonation was spot on. They also had Grover’s and titanium saddles. A little brighter but great sustain.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    I've been consumed with 175s (and 335s) for the 45 years I've been playing. I've played, borrowed, and owned some from every era - 60s Kalamazoo, 70s Norlin, modern Memphis and Custom Shop, (not to mention the Heritage 575s I've tried out). I'm a college professor and researcher by vocation, so I'm always looking for patterns and correlations. When it comes to Gibson ES models, I can't find any generalizations that hold. It truly is a guitar-by-guitar decision. It's so subjective (it drives me crazy!).

    Anecdotally, (and to answer your question) about a year and half ago, I bought a brand new 2016/17 ES-175 from Chicago Music Exchange. (Several guys on this and The Gear Page forums took advantage of the same CME sale.) As much as I tried, I could not "bond" with that guitar. The fit and finish were very bad (the nut was not cut correctly, and there was overspray and finish irregularities everywhere), it was incredibly heavy, and worst of all it sounded "heavy" and somewhat dead. After about six months I sold it to someone who just loves it and plays it all the time.

    Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to play a relatively new 59 VOS 175 at a shop in NYC. I fell in love with that guitar instantly! I probably sat there for two hours playing it acoustically as well as through an amp. It was light and lively and the neck felt wonderful. It was also beautifully finished. I just couldn't afford it and had to walk away.

    I have a 2002 that is being shipped to me to try out and possibly purchase. I have high hopes, but won't know until I pick it up and play. One thing I do know is that I'll know immediately - within one or two minutes - whether this guitar fits me. It's just so subjective.

    I know your question was about 175s since 2000 (I recently posted a similar question about this time period), but someone above mentioned Jonathan Kreisberg's ES-175. Not many of us would give a '70s Norlin 175 with a weird neck a second look on Reverb or eBay; but, man, look what he does with it and how much he loves it! I'm sure folks like Benedetto and Sadowsky have courted him, but he stays with his "substandard" Norlin era guitar.

    This probably doesn't help, but it's been my experience.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
    Guitars have to be graded individually. The year it was made is inconsequential. People thumb their nose at the Norlin years. The best Gibson I ever owned was made in 1978.

    I very much liked the final run of 175’s 2016-17 before they discontinued them. Gibson pinned the bridges but the intonation was spot on. They also had Grover’s and titanium saddles. A little brighter but great sustain.
    Vinny has this correct you really should in the case of a 175 play it and evaluate it on it's own. They vary and just like anything made they have good and bad days in the manufacturing environment. That said though, it has been my contention that if you are having issues of some kind consider letting a pro set it up and fiddle with the guitar to your style of playing. Sometimes players do better with a refret because you get rid of the nubs issue and get a full neck width of fret to play on. If I had a 175 that would be the first thing I would evaluate. Then of course you have the whole bridge issue of using a metal TOM or a wooded rosewood/ebony. In my case I prefer wood but I have seen some 175s because of the pickup configuration that will sound better on a TOM.

    Finally you really should consider have a pro fit you to the guitar. Yes, that is my new term I use because each player has a style and tendency in their own playing and the guitar can be set up for your preference. A few players can do this themselves but unless you have the tools and experience it is better to just get it done by a pro. During the session since it requires your presence to see how you play, it is possible to have explained how to keep the guitar in the correct set up.

    The attention to detail includes how the nut is shaped and depth of the slots, are they nice and evenly rounded on the bottom like the string itself. Also the break over the bridge and the depth of the indent at the saddle. Finally the neck and amount of relief and specific types of strings the player normally uses. It is my belief that most of these issue can make a 175 an incredible guitar if set up properly. You have to look at the basics like the body, neck, and condition, then many of the other items can be changed. You can try different pickups, strings, action, bridges and those 175's are pretty tough to beat. I have to believe that Jim Hall,, Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, and all the rest that gigged and played those guitars took them through the paces. While I am sure they did not abuse them too much they got plenty of action and travel, and stood the test of time. Naturally like a car they need to go in for the routine maintenance. When you find the right one you just say...……..I going marry you and pony up the money.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    I have a 2016 Memphis Figured from the CME sale. Guess I got lucky. No issues after a luthier buffed out some remaining red compound from the finish and lowered the nut. I understand it is on the heavy side but it plays like a dream and allows me to get that iconic 175 sound. Not much of an acoustic sound.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    The CME blowout deals had a lot that I would consider 2nd’s but they also had many that were perfect. I bought 5 175’s and sent back 2.

    I bought a new 2016 when they came out and it was dead flawless. I sold it to Rhoadscholar. I was buying it back. He brought it out to Ca. but Delta Airlines broke off the headstock. Another horrible tragedy.
    It had a fantastic neck and sound.

    I think more than any other archtop the 175 has been all over the map in sound and quality. When you get a good one though they are a tuff act to follow regardless of year. I hope Gibson will make them again.
    Last edited by vinnyv1k; 07-05-2019 at 04:44 PM.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    [QUOTE=vinnyv1k;964753 I bought 5 175’s .[/QUOTE]

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    I like my ES-175, bought new in 2006, just fine. It took a little dialing in (pickup height, string choice and so forth), but the end result was an eminently playable, great sounding instrument.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Anyone who thinks 175's made after 2000 are all (or mostly) bad is expressing an opinion, not a statement of fact.

    And that is a fact.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    I think the problem is there are different constructions of Gibson ES-175 models throughout Gibson's history. The early ones meaning late 1950's till say the Norlin Era, were fairly light weight due to the ply sandwich they used. Also they had different neck shapes and humbuckers depending on year produced. The pre 1957 all had P90's as standard equiptment.

    Norlin changed construction techniches on many of Gibson's models due to cheaper production methods. They also introduced the pronounced volute at the back of the headstock. Henry J and Gibson continued with newer as well as older methods of construction For ES-175's the volute was gone but a much heavier ply laminate constuction was employed.

    With the introduction of Historic 1959 models they went back to original lighter weight construction as well as neck shapes etc from that era.
    Which is best is very subjective indeed. I personally like the heavier laminate construction due to supresion of feedback. But I prefer larger shape necks, which are crap shoot!

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray175
    In all decades there were some excellent guitars, some good guitars, some average guitars, some poor guitars, and some guitars that should never have made it past quality control. Ditto for PAF pickups - some are exceptional, but given the inconsistency in the winding there are also some poor ones out there.
    I have no real expertise with ES 175s - though I wish I had - however when I heard this comment from Ray, although I know Gibson is particularly famous for its inconsistency (even in its golden era), I felt this was true about every guitar I have ever played.

    I have had guitars sitting side by side in the shop of the same brand, model and batch and still found them to be markedly different.

    There are lots of arguments about tone wood, lacquer, bridge materials and whether they contribute as much difference as they are often credited with, but one thing's for sure, we can demonstrate that the instruments sound different than each other. Even seemingly identical instruments.

    I guess this must be true of anything made out of wood. Two pieces of wood weigh differently, have different grain and density.

    The human element that goes into making instruments also increases the amount of variation we are going to have into the building process.

    What it comes down is the combination of elements as well as the synergy between them. A PAF with fewer winds may be brighter and airier and matches well in a naturally darker sounding instrument. That same instrument's potential might have been masked if the pickup they had placed in it, stayed on the winder a bit too long and resulted in a darker pickup.

    Set up also matters a lot! I have recently had a indifferent guitar turn into my favourite instrument after getting a new bone nut and set up done on it. I had no idea what I had until I changed out the pickups and had the set up on it. It was a revelation!

    Some of it also comes down to self knowledge. You start to know what YOU prefer in a guitar, how you want it to feel and what you intend to use it for.

    That heavy ES175 that may seem "awkward" and "clumsy" to one player, may feel "substantial" and "solid" to another player inspiring greater playing than perhaps a lighter, more widely coveted example.

    I think instruments tend to happy or unhappy "accidents".

    Also, have you ever gone back to an old instrument that you used to love and said "What did I see in her?" ...ahem, I mean "it".
    Modern Gibson ES-175-shopping-jpg

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    The Best 175 design for me was actually not a Gibson,but a Benedetto Bambino.
    I know they are way different,but both being laminate Archtop guitars. The Bambino has all of the improvements design wise I would make to a 175
    Smaller, Thinner, lighter, 25"scale, ebony fingerboard, maple neck, nicer shape neck profile, nicer wood pickguard mounted to the pickups, not the body,

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    The Best 175 design for me was actually not a Gibson,but a Benedetto Bambino.
    I know they are way different,but both being laminate Archtop guitars. The Bambino has all of the improvements design wise I would make to a 175
    Smaller, Thinner, lighter, 25"scale, ebony fingerboard, maple neck, nicer shape neck profile, nicer wood pickguard mounted to the pickups, not the body,
    I don't think Benedetto Bambino is 175 design anymore then Tele thinline is. If it doesn't sound anything like an ES 175, it ain't anything like an ES 175.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 07-06-2019 at 11:13 PM.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    I guess there are no modern 175s at the moment as they were not made in 2019?

    I am sure they will be back in production every now and then. Makes business sense.

    the 57 pickups yeah dunno. I swapped mine out for lindy Fralin p90 in humbucker but it did not sound like a p90 so 57 is back in and sounds better. Might try his pure PAF pickup one day when I can be bothered going through the inconvenience of guitar repairs.

    quality and acoustics of my 2012 are top notch, tried many many guitars before settling on it.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Never owned a "better" archtop than my current 2010 model.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    My 2013 ES-175 was the best made Gibson I’ve ever owned. Literally perfect.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
    The CME blowout deals had a lot that I would consider 2nd’s but they also had many that were perfect. I bought 5 175’s and sent back 2.

    I bought a new 2016 when they came out and it was dead flawless. I sold it to Rhoadscholar. I was buying it back. He brought it out to Ca. but Delta Airlines broke off the headstock. Another horrible tragedy.
    It had a fantastic neck and sound.
    I saw the guitar yesterday at Pete Moreno's. He said it was a good break. Once repaired it will be very strong. The veneer was not damaged. He'll put a small stinger on it. It will look new.

    Pete built 175s in the 60s through 80s and has repaired them under contract with Gibson from the 70s to the 90s. He knows 175s. The guitar in question he said is excellent.

    Modern Gibson ES-175-20190706_110841-jpgModern Gibson ES-175-20190706_110831-jpg

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    I wanted a newer ES-175 and choose this 2007 because I wanted red to match my other guitars. I have plenty of traditional and vintage archtops, and I wanted something newer. It is hard enough keeping all my older guitars in good playing condition. BTW, this one sounds fantastic.

    Modern Gibson ES-175-es175-jpg