Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 78
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Here are some pics of my 51 Es175 for comparison. It has been re-necked in the sixties. At least that is my guess as it has a skinny neck profile. The A- four digit serial number stamped on the headstock is the same as on the paper inside the body. I think that was common practice with factory repairs of this kind. I am not sure about a refin on this guitar....everything looks equal worn and crackled. The Bridge, Tailpiece, tuners and pickguard are non original and might have been changed when the repair was done in the sixties - these parts all look period correct for the sixties (except maybe for the tailpiece?). Pickup and pots are oroginal fifties. For me it`s a fantastic player with outstanding playbility! I bought it about 4 or 5 years ago and played several recordings and lots of gigs with it. It delivers all the classic sounds I want and I do not have to worry at all taking it to any gig! I payed less than 2000€ for it (about 2300$) as I said four or five years ago. I will never sell it:-)
    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-20211022_084057-jpgThoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-20211022_084701-jpgThoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-20211022_084433-jpgThoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-20211022_084311-jpg

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Greentone
    Serial numbers were on the back of Gibson headstocks since at least the 1930s.

    I think it's a re-necked refin.
    There was no serial number stamped on pegheads of Gibson hollow body instruments till 1961. Lately Gibson did the same on VOS and Crimson hollowbodies and archtops.
    Fnish on both neck and body looks legit to me, might be original - you would need to blacklight it and look for signs of overspray to say for sure, but I can show you an example of original '59 175 natural finish that you would probably flag as refin, but it is not - just some touchups. It lived a tough life and was left for dead after it was gutted by pickup trolls
    The pickguard looks correct with the exception of the screw - I would think this was a quick fix, it is just a bit misaligned - the shaft that goes into the fretboard is not fixed, just goes into the hole.
    At least one of the tuners was replaced, but if so a long time ago - I think they started to put “Kluson …” name markings closer to the end of 56.
    Tailpiece hinges were breaking all the time, so replacements were not that uncommon.
    Number of frets puzzle is interesting - don’t know what to make out of it, but there is a 1957 L5 for sale in the US with 24 frets (it was a custom order, but still)
    Visually i don’t think there is anything there that would put me off - not a museum piece, but I would consider it if I was on the market for an instrument like this.
    Structurally - who knows, always a can of worms.
    Regardless, I don’t think it’s a 6K instrument - more like, maybe, 4K, but I am no expert by any means. Just my 5 cents
    Last edited by aborodya; 10-22-2021 at 05:50 AM.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by aborodya
    There was no serial number stamped on pegheads of Gibson hollow body instruments till 1961. Lately Gibson did the same on VOS and Crimson hollowbodies and archtops.
    Fnish on both neck and body looks legit to me, might be original - you would need to blacklight it and look for signs of overspray to say for sure, but I can show you an example of original '59 175 natural finish that you would probably flag as refin, but it is not - just some touchups. It lived a tough life and was left for dead after it was gutted by pickup trolls
    The pickguard looks correct with the exception of the screw - I would think this was a quick fix, it is just a bit misaligned - the shaft that goes into the fretboard is not fixed, just goes into the hole.
    At least one of the tuners was replaced, but if so a long time ago - I think they started to put “Kluson …” name markings closer to the end of 56.
    Tailpiece hinges were breaking all the time, so replacements were not that uncommon.
    Number of frets puzzle is interesting - don’t know what to make out of it, but there is a 1957 L5 for sale in the US with 24 frets (it was a custom order, but still)
    Visually i don’t think there is anything there that would put me off - not a museum piece, but I would consider it if I was on the market for an instrument like this.
    Structurally - who knows, always a can of worms.
    Regardless, I don’t think it’s a 6K instrument - more like, maybe, 4K, but I am no expert by any means. Just my 5 cents
    Heya

    Everything you say seems fair but for:

    1) I cannot find a neck that colour or even close and although others have stated they have seen one, they have failed to provide any evidence thus far. Of course I'd love to see it.

    It could be that the camera has picked up the lighting in a funny way and that is changing the colour but that doesn't happen on 100% of the other pics online.

    2) There is still the issue with the wrong amount of frets.

    I'm thinking about going to have a look at the guitar. It's not too far from me.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    At that price, I would just look and walk the other way.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Heya

    Everything you say seems fair but for:

    1) I cannot find a neck that colour or even close and although others have stated they have seen one, they have failed to provide any evidence thus far. Of course I'd love to see it.
    So far 100% of the evidence I've seen, points in the other direction.

    2) There is still the issue with the wrong amount of frets.

    I'm thinking about going to have a look at the guitar. It's not too far from me.
    Pls see the pictures of the guitar I mentioned above attached - not sure whether it looks similar. Would be curious to hear your opinion.
    Attached Images Attached Images Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-g9-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-g8-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-g13-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-g12-jpg 

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    There is still the issue with the wrong amount of frets.
    It’s not the number of frets - they all have 20 and the join is at 14. But the fingerboard extends further beyond the 20th on some than others. The fingerboards on the early ones extended as far below 20 as the space between 19 & 20. But the one we’re discussing only has half or less of that, which is the case on the CC and some later years of standard 175s. So that may be a later replacement neck.

    The pickguard on the one of interest extends above the 19th fret, but they don’t seem to do that on ‘49-52s. None I’ve seen has the tip of the guard above 19. Another poster thinks that’s the proper guard, which would mean that the neck and guard are not sitting correctly against each other. I think that guard is the wrong one and is both too big and with the pickup cutout too low. If it is the proper guard, that neck is probably wrong. But I don’t think that the case. All 175 necks are interchangeable AFAIK. I could easily be wrong.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
    It’s not the number of frets - they all have 20 and the join is at 14. But the fingerboard extends further beyond the 20th on some than others. The fingerboards on the early ones extended as far below 20 as the space between 19 & 20. But the one we’re discussing only has half or less of that, which is the case on the CC and some later years of standard 175s. So that may be a later replacement neck.

    The pickguard on the one of interest extends above the 19th fret, but they don’t seem to do that on ‘49-52s. None I’ve seen has the tip of the guard above 19. Another poster thinks that’s the proper guard, which would mean that the neck and guard are not sitting correctly against each other. I think that guard is the wrong one and is both too big and with the pickup cutout too low. If it is the proper guard, that neck is probably wrong. But I don’t think that the case. All 175 necks are interchangeable AFAIK. I could easily be wrong.
    The frets I count on a 1949-56 are 19. The frets there after are 20.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by aborodya
    Pls see the pictures of the guitar I mentioned above attached - not sure whether it looks similar. Would be curious to hear your opinion.
    That's a good colour match. Which year is yours?

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    late 58 FON / early 59 serial

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Found a good resourse on vintage specs, and Klusons in particular. I might've been wrong, if there is no second hole for the shaft, the "named" tuner might be original.
    Kluson Deluxe Tuners 1940s to 1960s used on Fender and Gibson Guitars - Vintage Guitars Info

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by aborodya
    late 58 FON / early 59 serial
    Perhaps the neck is from a 58/59? Colour and fret count matches.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    The frets I count on a 1949-56 are 19. The frets there after are 20.
    Wow - I never noticed that! Great observation!

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
    Wow - I never noticed that! Great observation!
    The credit for that goes to fellow member Mollsubdominate.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Perhaps the neck is from a 58/59? Colour and fret count matches.
    I wonder how the neck profiles compare - from what I read there is quite a bit of variability, but have no idea what a 1951 neck should feel like. I would describe mine as quite full but super-comfortable C. Should've taken the measurements when there were no strings.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    The frets I count on a 1949-56 are 19. The frets there after are 20.
    So the neck on the guitar that started this post is clearly not original - the board has 20 frets. Putting the pickguard anomalies together with the fingerboard, it seems probable that the whole neck was replaced and not just the board.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Ah I see. There is an expression my dad told me when I was young "there's always another deal".
    And he's right. There will be another blonde in even better condition and for a better price at some point.
    I get it. I've been mulling over this piano to replace our old worn black one, because this perfectly matches the flooring and woodwork in our house (which I did). It's a good buy, but then approaching our 70's, do I want to invest in another real piano when people are trying to get of them?

    AS-NEW REMINGTON (PRAMBERGER) BABY GRAND PIANO - ONE OWNER! FREE...



    Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-piano-room-jpg
    Last edited by Woody Sound; 10-22-2021 at 11:59 AM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Relevant pix of a '55 ES-175:
    -19 frets
    -light mahogany
    -no serial # on back of headstock
    and so forth.
    Attached Images Attached Images Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-img_4980-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-img_4981-jpg Thoughts On This Near Immaculate 1951 Gibson ES-175-img_4982-jpg 

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammertone
    Relevant pix of a '55 ES-175:
    -19 frets
    -light mahogany
    -no serial # on back of headstock
    and so forth.
    Ok. Your thoughts on the 51?

    20 frets, light mahogany (also seen on 58's but not yet on earlier models).

    p.s Nice guitar.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Ok. Your thoughts on the 51?
    20 frets, light mahogany (also seen on 58's but not yet on earlier models).
    p.s Nice guitar.
    Colour is fine, IMO.
    20 fret neck is simply not right.
    That, combined with the pro-looking alteration to the guard, and the swapped tailpiece, suggests that the guitar has been rebuilt. I'd buy it as a player (if it is a good-playing/sounding guitar) for a lot less than the asking price, or move on.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammertone
    Colour is fine, IMO.
    20 fret neck is simply not right.
    That, combined with the pro-looking alteration to the guard, and the swapped tailpiece, suggests that the guitar has been rebuilt. I'd buy it as a player (if it is a good-playing/sounding guitar) for a lot less than the asking price, or move on.
    Agreed.

    Although I'd still love to see a 49 to 55 with that colour neck

    Do you think the body has been re-sprayed?

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Agreed.
    Although I'd still love to see a 49 to 55 with that colour neck
    Do you think the body has been re-sprayed?
    No idea on re-finish from the pix.
    It's possible to swap in a new board without refinishing a guitar - I've had it done several times.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammertone
    It's possible to swap in a new board without refinishing a guitar - I've had it done several times.
    But a 20 fret fingerboard is longer than a 19 fret board for the same guitar with the same scale length. So it would overhang the end of the original neck if used as a replacement. The fingerboard on the guitar in question here does not appear to me to extend closer to the pickup than it should. So I think that’s unlikely to be a later board on the correct neck.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody Sound
    I get it. I've been mulling over this piano to replace our old worn black one, because this perfectly matches the flooring and woodwork in our house (which I did). It's a good buy, but then approaching our 70's, do I want to invest in another real piano when people are trying to get of them?

    AS-NEW REMINGTON (PRAMBERGER) BABY GRAND PIANO - ONE OWNER! FREE...

    Accessorizing a room? Whooda thunkit? :-)

    Stress cracks, neck finish wear are to me like grey / silver hair on an older woman... elegant. To me there's nothing more elegant than a black piano or git. That Remington piano is a beauty though.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by GNAPPI
    Accessorizing a room? Whooda thunkit? :-)

    Stress cracks, neck finish wear are to me like grey / silver hair on an older woman... elegant. To me there's nothing more elegant than a black piano or git. That Remington piano is a beauty though.
    Do you guitarists play piano much? If not get a digital.

    Getting rid of our baby grand, which my fiancee played occasionally but which was always having tuning or pedal issues, was a godsend and gave me much more space in our music room for guitars. LOL… We got $2500 on consignment for it—a Baldwin subbrand in mahogany—which we considered a pretty good deal.

    We replaced it with a Yamaha Clavinova, and neither of us have regretted it at all. Never out of tune. No need to humidify. Plus the Clavinova has Bluetooth and will play my iRealbook accompaniment for when I practice jazz guitar.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter C
    6,000 quid seems a bit steep considering that an antique Welsh dresser can be had for under 3k.
    But can you play All The Things You Are on an antique Welsh Dresser?

    I’m into midcentury furniture myself, and it’s impressive how much some of those pieces are going for…many thousands of dollars.