PSA - Gibson To Revive Archtop (and Mandolin) Production

[telephone]

Sounds like Gibson's into selling "experiences" these days, rather than guitars. I'll be buying used. Sorry, "pre-owned".

[Midnight Blues]

I sense a disturbance in the force price lists.

I'm going to choose to reissue the most collectible and valuable era.
and…
There are NO late 1950s L-5CES models listed for sale currently even if you wanted to buy an original...so more reason to create Historic Reissues of them.

I dunno about you but his words even sound expensive.



jk

I completely agree jk!

[Drifter]

Hey Drifter,

Here's Mat's response:

"Oh man. A lot to unpack here. Why did Gibson products change over time (and they ALL did...even year to year sometimes)? A combination of supply chain, engineering changes, a rapid life cycle philosophy, and a lot of things that were considered improvements for the player and/or for the construction of the instruments. The sales team dictated a lot of the product changes (the switch to the thin nut width in '65 for instance). But with regards to archtops, as I mentioned previously, what we are building now and the instruments in the 1970s are fantastic instruments. Truly. I have no doubt about that. And if we are going to create a Historic Reissue archtop collection to fit in the rest of our current product architecture, which is my intention, I'm going to choose to reissue the most collectible and valuable era. I'm not a marketer. If it sounds like I am trying to convince you that your guitar is bad or inferior to anything new, I'm not. My goal is to provide options, namely the ownership experience of owning one of the most valuable and collectible vintage instruments. There are NO late 1950s L-5CES models listed for sale currently even if you wanted to buy an original...so more reason to create Historic Reissues of them. Thanks for the note."


LMK if you have any follow-up questions:
MB

All in all, a good reply. Mat just shouldn't have said in one of his previous posts that the old specs sound and feel sooo much better, that kind of made me angry. I really welcome new Gibson archtops, more options regarding pickups, reissues of proven and popular specs, that's all very positive.

I don't think that a new reissue can have the tonal quality of a real vintage instrument though, you just cannot copy that old wood. But that's fine as it offers different qualities instead and can still sound fabulous with a playability second to none. I don't really care if the specs are historically correct, I'm just interested in great guitars to get the tone imprinted in my head from many records. Others may be hunting for an ownership experience more than anything else. Why not, if that's what makes them happy, fair enough. We'll see if the pricing will be competitive, compared to real Vintage versions and todays competitors.

Thanks MB for posting.

[Stringswinger]

Heres a question nobody has really mentioned or asked. How many, if any, of you would actually buy a new Gibson archtop or even desire a brand new one as opposed to a similarly priced, excellent conditioned, played-in model from let's say late 90's or 2000s?

If Gibson put out a Joe Pass 175 or an early 60's historic reissue 175 and the price didn't exceed 5K. I would be a buyer.

[Midnight Blues]

All in all, a good reply. Mat just shouldn't have said in one of his previous posts that the old specs sound and feel sooo much better, that kind of made me angry. I really welcome new Gibson archtops, more options regarding pickups, reissues of proven and popular specs, that's all very positive.

I don't think that a new reissue can have the tonal quality of a real vintage instrument though, you just cannot copy that old wood. But that's fine as it offers different qualities instead and can still sound fabulous with a playability second to none. I don't really care if the specs are historically correct, I'm just interested in great guitars to get the tone imprinted in my head from many records. Others may be hunting for an ownership experience more than anything else. Why not, if that's what makes them happy, fair enough. We'll see if the pricing will be competitive, compared to real Vintage versions and todays competitors.

Thanks MB for posting.

My pleasure Drifter.

In unrelated posts, he responds to/talks about old wood as well, but in the context of Les Pauls of course.

I think what they’re hoping to do in terms of the specs, is to try and capitalize on the success they’ve had with Les Pauls in their attempts to make them historically accurate. I think there are some things they can do in that area, but I think it’ll end-up only going so far each year just like they did with LPs. This way they have something new to come out with every (other) year. After all, it’s a business and they have to do something to generate sales. In reality, there’s no reason why they can’t make a guitar, no matter the model, as historically accurate as possible right from the start.

[Dennis D]

If Gibson put out a Joe Pas 175 or an early 60's historic reissue 175 and the price didn't exceed 5K. I would be a buyer.

Now SS I would bet you already know this but, geez, if you've got 5K to spend, you could do a lot better than those models and get a custom made instrument.........

And who beside yourself would spend that kind of money on one of those ?...Very few people, I'd imagine.....

But just MHO,of course......

[Stringswinger]

Now SS I would bet you already know this but, geez, if you've got 5K to spend, you could do a lot better than those models and get a custom made instrument.........

And who beside yourself would spend that kind of money on one of those ?...Very few people, I'd imagine.....

But just MHO,of course......

Roger Borys charges more. And having heard Joe Pass play live many times on his 62 175 (through a Polytone amp), I can say that I have never heard a better guitar tone, so for me, I doubt that I could do better.

I bet the Joe Pass model would sell pretty well. An early 60's 175? Probably not much demand for that one, as fat necks seems to be in style these days.

I won't be holding my breath for either of those. When 175 production resumes, I expect more 59 reissues. I already have one of those and wouldn't trade it for any custom laminate archtop outside of a Borys or D'Aquisto.

[vinnyv1k]

Gibson did a good job with the 59 RI 175 though I wasn’t a fan of the
VOS treatment. I am not into that relic fad.
Would you buy a new car with dull faded paint and tarnished chrome ?

[Stringswinger]

Gibson did a good job with the 59 RI 175 though I wasn’t a fan of the
VOS treatment. I am not into that relic fad.
Would you buy a new car with dull faded paint and tarnished chrome ?

Vinny, along with fat necks, paying extra to get a worn looking new guitar seems to be in style these days. I remember when people would pay more for jeans that were halfway worn out (back in the 1970's). I thought that was foolish, as I like to wear stuff out the old fashioned way myself.

My 59 reissue 175 got that VOS treatment ( I would certainly have preferred otherwise). The funny thing is that in the 4 years that I have had it, it has gotten newer looking each year as the VOS stuff wears off. I guess that I am not wearing my guitar out, I am wearing it in!

[jazzkritter]

Nah… no Joe Pass 175…
Let’s go all the way with the Gibson Historic Reissue Ted Nugent Byrdland!
Theres a name well known.


(This is in no effing way a political post, so please people it’s a joke, right?
Like, arch top and big name. No freaking politics.)

Thinking about this, who is the biggest name arch top player that can be effectively marketed to more than just jazzers, with an perfect name association, and the potential for very expensive guitar?

Why, the Gibson Historic Issue SCOTTY MOORE SUPER 400!
A perfect storm)

[AllanAllen]

How about some Reid brothers (Jesus and Mary Chain) signature models?

Or a Pete Townshend where it's only the top and the back is smashed away. I can't find the clip but I swear I saw one of him playing just the top of a 335.

https://www.thewho.net/whotabs/image...lower_bout.jpg

Edit: found it, 30 seconds in.

[m_d]

Now SS I would bet you already know this but, geez, if you've got 5K to spend, you could do a lot better than those models and get a custom made instrument.........

And who beside yourself would spend that kind of money on one of those ?...Very few people, I'd imagine.....

But just MHO,of course......

I dunno, maybe I would, though maybe a little less. Who's to say that new line if it ever comes to light won't be excellent?

[Midnight Blues]

Vinny, along with fat necks, paying extra to get a worn looking new guitar seems to be in style these days. I remember when people would pay more for jeans that were halfway worn out (back in the 1970's). I thought that was foolish, as I like to wear stuff out the old fashioned way myself.

My 59 reissue 175 got that VOS treatment ( I would certainly have preferred otherwise). The funny thing is that in the 4 years that I have had it, it has gotten newer looking each year as the VOS stuff wears off. I guess that I am not wearing my guitar out, I am wearing it in!

Hey SS,

Don’t know if you’ve ever tried this, but I have an R9 that had the VOS finish and I used Virtuoso cleaner and then the polish and it did a fantastic job removing the gunk.

[deacon Mark]

When I buy a new guitar I want a new guitar. I want it to shine and look immaculate because that is why I generally am buying something new.

[Dennis D]

I dunno, maybe I would, though maybe a little less. Who's to say that new line if it ever comes to light won't be excellent?

I agree - that new line may very well be ' Crimson quality', & I really hope that it is. And I would pay 5K for a Crimson quality L-7 with one p/u ( set in though ) .....

But a 175 is always a 175, and even members here who searched for decent '60's 175's had to go through dozens before they found a keeper. If you've got one great, but I am sure you wouldn't have to go through dozens of old L-7's to find decent ones. Or old L-4's either.

Just my .02 cents.....

[John A.]

I agree - that new line may very well be ' Crimson quality', & I really hope that it is. And I would pay 5K for a Crimson quality L-7 with one p/u ( set in though ) .....

But a 175 is always a 175, and even members here who searched for decent '60's 175's had to go through dozens before they found a keeper. If you've got one great, but I am sure you wouldn't have to go through dozens of old L-7's to find decent ones. Or old L-4's either.

Just my .02 cents.....

I think there are members here who get obsessed with tiny differences between specific guitars and therefore go through many examples until they find "the" one. But overall, I suspect the vast majority of 175 owners walked into a music store and bought one after trying many, many fewer than that, or maybe just the one hanging on the wall in that store. Forums are not a representative sample of the overall jazz guitar player population.

[rahsaan]

I think there are members here who get obsessed with tiny differences between specific guitars and therefore go through many examples until they find "the" one. But overall, I suspect the vast majority of 175 owners walked into a music store and bought one after trying many, many fewer than that, or maybe just the one hanging on the wall in that store. Forums are not a representative sample of the overall jazz guitar player population.

Yeah, I bought my 175 off ebay, there just aren't that many Gibson jazz boxes for sale in the UK. It would be a huge investment in time and money to try out a dozen 175s.

[silverfoxx]

When the Es 175 '59 reissue was introduced , I ordered one. Probably the worst guitar I have owned.
I hated he VOS finish, it was heavy , the tone left much to be desired ,and at had a mysterious "rattle" I twice
returned it to Gibson, who "airily" declared that" there was nothing wrong with it ! " despite three reputable
guitar tech's agreeing with me. I infinitely prefer the L4CES to a 175 and I have had two, and currently
still own one. I am not alone in hoping that the "Joe Pass" slimline model can be produced, an immensely
popular seller ( at a reasonable price ! ) I suggest.

[DMgolf66]

When the Es 175 '59 reissue was introduced , I ordered one. Probably the worst guitar I have owned.
I hated he VOS finish, it was heavy , the tone left much to be desired ,and at had a mysterious "rattle" I twice
returned it to Gibson, who "airily" declared that" there was nothing wrong with it ! " despite three reputable
guitar tech's agreeing with me. I infinitely prefer the L4CES to a 175 and I have had two, and currently
still own one. I am not alone in hoping that the "Joe Pass" slimline model can be produced, an immensely
popular seller ( at a reasonable price ! ) I suggest.

Very interesting.
Did Gibson ever end up doing anything in the end?

[Dennis D]

When the Es 175 '59 reissue was introduced , I ordered one. Probably the worst guitar I have owned.
I hated he VOS finish, it was heavy , the tone left much to be desired ,and at had a mysterious "rattle" I twice
returned it to Gibson, who "airily" declared that" there was nothing wrong with it ! " despite three reputable
guitar tech's agreeing with me. I infinitely prefer the L4CES to a 175 and I have had two, and currently
still own one. I am not alone in hoping that the "Joe Pass" slimline model can be produced, an immensely
popular seller ( at a reasonable price ! ) I suggest.

.......Any L-4 being a better instrument than any 175 has been MHO for years, basically once I learned about L-4's. You just get more sound choices.

[vinnyv1k]

I agree with SF on the VOS 59 175's. The QC was sloppy. The F holes looked like they were cut with a chainsaw. Also the nylon nut needs to be replaced with bone or Corian. There were some nice ones though but I saw countess turds with issues like off center pu's, bad neck angles, cracked neck bindings at all the fret nibs, and over rolled fret ends. Personally I found the skinny frets to be tone killers too.
They sounded plinky to me. I sent back 3 during the CME blowout. All with serious issues.

Now their last 2016-17 regular flamed 175's with the pinned bridge were quite nice.
I would buy one of those again.

[Stringswinger]

I agree with SF on the VOS 59 175's. The QC was sloppy. The F holes looked like they were cut with a chainsaw. Also the nylon nut needs to be replaced with bone or Corian. There were some nice ones though but I saw countess turds with issues like off center pu's, bad neck angles, cracked neck bindings at all the fret nibs, and over rolled fret ends. Personally I found the skinny frets to be tone killers too.
They sounded plinky to me. I sent back 3 during the CME blowout. All with serious issues.

Now their last 2016-17 regular flamed 175's with the pinned bridge were quite nice.
I would buy one of those again.

I have both a 2017 flamed 175 and a 59 reissue that came to me from the CME blowout. Both are superb guitars. Lucky for me, my 59 reissue is one of the good ones. That said, the f holes are indeed sloppy. I believe that the nylon nut is historically correct, as are the skinny frets. Tone wise, the 59 reissue has a much more acoustic tone that could be described as "plinky". I think the MHS pickups might contribute to the tone difference more than the frets and the nut material.

[silverfoxx]

[QUOTE=DMgolf66;1148220]Very interesting.<br>
Did Gibson ever end up doing anything in the end?[/QUOTE
]

I regret to say that Gibson did nothing about it, and I exchanged it for a superb Taylor ,Koa finish ( qc problems ... None !! )
Having had a large number of Gibsons, over a long period I'll say that the Crimson Custom shop era produced some fine
examples, but for the best QC. flawless build , and at a very reasonable price Gibson cannot hold a Candle to Mark
Campellone's guitars. IMO

[vinnyv1k]

[QUOTE=silverfoxx;1148451]

Very interesting.<br>
Did Gibson ever end up doing anything in the end?[/QUOTE
]

I regret to say that Gibson did nothing about it, and I exchanged it for a superb Taylor ,Koa finish ( qc problems ... None !! )
Having had a large number of Gibsons, over a long period I'll say that the Crimson Custom shop era produced some fine
examples, but for the best QC. flawless build , and at a very reasonable price Gibson cannot hold a Candle to Mark
Campellone's guitars. IMO

SF is 100% correct. Once you own a C it is hard to go back to a G.

[DMgolf66]

[QUOTE=silverfoxx;1148451]

Very interesting.<br>
Did Gibson ever end up doing anything in the end?[/QUOTE
]

I regret to say that Gibson did nothing about it, and I exchanged it for a superb Taylor ,Koa finish ( qc problems ... None !! )
Having had a large number of Gibsons, over a long period I'll say that the Crimson Custom shop era produced some fine
examples, but for the best QC. flawless build , and at a very reasonable price Gibson cannot hold a Candle to Mark
Campellone's guitars. IMO

Has Mark made any L-5CES style guitars? I see WesMo's , thinner body 17", floater PUs 17", but have not seen 2 PU, 17 inch, 3"+ thick.