checkout this modified 175 on reverb

[Little Jay]

I asked him specifically if there was a block of wood underneath the bridge and/or tailpiece supporting the screws and he said no.

OMG, this is a ticking time bomb then!

[grahambop]

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

a block may not be absolutely necessary.

I consider a firmly secured backing block necessary for drilling ply. And it would have to be contoured for 100% surface contact for at least an inch all the way around the proposed hole to be effective against splintering the inside. I don’t know of any kind of bit that won’t leave some roughness around the edge and push the innermost ply out a tiny bit (which is all it takes to start delamination) without firm backing.

[wintermoon]

Bottom line
There are thousands of 175s out there, finding one w out this issue shouldn't be hard and if you're patient enough @ a reasonable price.

[vintagelove]

You know, if it was done safely, I might like that. Might be a little slinkier playing with the shorter string length.

[Gitfiddler]

Rather than ruin a nice ES-175 the owner should have bought an ES-135.

Yes, it is a semi-hollow and not full hollow like the ES-175, but at least there is a solid block under the t.o.m. bridge if he wanted to remove the tail piece.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Rather than ruin a nice ES-175 the owner should have bought an ES-135.

That reminds me of the man who saw ballet dancers en pointe for the first time. He turned to his wife and said, “If they wanted tall girls, they should have hired tall girls!”

That 135 is truly cool.

[Herbie]

I remember that I have seen this pic (or a similar pic) earlier in Ebay as some japanese seller’s item. For some reason (I don’t remember why) I thought that it was some kinda Photoshop scam from some not-so-guitar-knowing person. Maybe I just thought that nobody’s so stupid to do this!

Unless the stop tail feet come thru the whole guitar to the back…

Somebody’s got to buy this now and tell to the rest of us what is it all about!

[citizenk74]

Madness... sheer madness.
Or possibly just plain stupidity.

In my experience, it may well be both/and(?) rather than either/or.

[jzucker]

I think this is closer. But come to think of it, i've never seen a blonde es-137.

But also, having owned a couple 137s, they do not have a lot of hollow character to them. They sound more like a 335 than a 175. Not sure if the 135 is any different...

Rather than ruin a nice ES-175 the owner should have bought an ES-135.

Yes, it is a semi-hollow and not full hollow like the ES-175, but at least there is a solid block under the t.o.m. bridge if he wanted to remove the tail piece.

[Gitfiddler]

@Jack Z...I owned an ES-135 (similar to the blonde image I posted above) and it definitely sounded like a semi-hollow, but not as lively as a 335.

The 137 is simply a tricked out version of the 135.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

In my experience, it may well be both/and(?) rather than either/or.

...if, in fact, that's a real 175. I suppose it could have been one of the Memphis 175s delivered with a Bigsby that was immediately removed - but again, no same person would just drill into the top and bolt on a stop tailpiece. It could also be a one-off or a prototype, but as I recall they stamped a prototype serial number under the regular serial number.

I just have a hard time believing that anyone would do that to a real 175 (or any other good hollow archtop) in excellent condition. It certainly didn't increase its value. I can't imagine that it plays or sounds so much better that it was worth taking the financial hit attendant on chewing up a real blonde 175 (if you could even sell it, which remains to be seen). So why in the world would anyone in his or her right mind do that to an otherwise gorgeous 175DN (unless the answer is in the first part of this sentence) ?

Something's off about this guitar. I was looking for a good picture of the edge of the cap as seen in the cutaway of all blond 175s I've ever seen, since I don't see that on this one. And I found what appears to be the same guitar on eBay for $3033.73 USD from "eastislandcrew". The serial number is the same. It has the same strange smudges on the back of the neck, and it has the same little chip out of the back edge of the bass side of the headstock. Why would the same guitar be for sale at $2472.83 and $3033.73 at the same time from 2 different sources?

[wintermoon]

...if, in fact, that's a real 175. I suppose it could have been one of the Memphis 175s delivered with a Bigsby that was immediately removed - but again, no same person would just drill into the top and bolt on a stop tailpiece. It could also be a one-off or a prototype, but as I recall they stamped a prototype serial number under the regular serial number.

I just have a hard time believing that anyone would do that to a real 175 (or any other good hollow archtop) in excellent condition. It certainly didn't increase its value. I can't imagine that it plays or sounds so much better that it was worth taking the financial hit attendant on chewing up a real blonde 175 (if you could even sell it, which remains to be seen). So why in the world would anyone in his or her right mind to that do an otherwise gorgeous 175DN (unless the answer is in the first part of this sentence) ?

Something's off about this guitar. I was looking for a good picture of the edge of the cap as seen in the cutaway of all blond 175s I've ever seen, since I don't see that on this one. And I found what appears to be the same guitar on eBay for $3033.73 USD from "eastislandcrew". The serial number is the same. It has the same strange smudges on the back of the neck, and it has the same little chip out of the back edge of the bass side of the headstock. Why would the same guitar be for sale at $2472.83 and $3033.73 at the same time from 2 different sources?

common practice on Japanese listings though I don't know why

[Stringswinger]

common practice on Japanese listings though I don't know why

There are resellers in Japan who list guitars that are for sale elsewhere in Japan at a higher price. I believe it is their intention to buy the guitar at a lower price if you buy from them and make a profit. I have heard that if it is already been sold by the actual owner, they cheerfully refund your money along with an apology. You can sometimes find the same guitar on Ebay listed by different sellers from Japan at different prices.

Caveat Emptor applies, as always.

[icr]

Just a guess as to what it might look like. Either way, why not just remove the studs and place a standard bridge?

[EllenGtrGrl]

Oooh, I don't like that. Gretsch used to do the same thing to some of their Pre-Fender era Electromatics, and Historics (which had thicker ply tops than Gretsches have nowadays), and there were concerns about it negatively affecting the sound, and about the durability of the bridge attachment points. Thankfully Gretsch no longer screws the bridges on any of its holowbodies directly into the top.

[guitarcarver]

The tailpiece anchors and bridge posts may be biting into the braces somewhat.

[jzucker]

...if, in fact, that's a real 175. I suppose it could have been one of the Memphis 175s delivered with a Bigsby that was immediately removed - but again, no same person would just drill into the top and bolt on a stop tailpiece. It could also be a one-off or a prototype, but as I recall they stamped a prototype serial number under the regular serial number.

I just have a hard time believing that anyone would do that to a real 175 (or any other good hollow archtop) in excellent condition. It certainly didn't increase its value. I can't imagine that it plays or sounds so much better that it was worth taking the financial hit attendant on chewing up a real blonde 175 (if you could even sell it, which remains to be seen). So why in the world would anyone in his or her right mind do that to an otherwise gorgeous 175DN (unless the answer is in the first part of this sentence) ?

Something's off about this guitar. I was looking for a good picture of the edge of the cap as seen in the cutaway of all blond 175s I've ever seen, since I don't see that on this one. And I found what appears to be the same guitar on eBay for $3033.73 USD from "eastislandcrew". The serial number is the same. It has the same strange smudges on the back of the neck, and it has the same little chip out of the back edge of the bass side of the headstock. Why would the same guitar be for sale at $2472.83 and $3033.73 at the same time from 2 different sources?

That's very common for guitars coming out of japan. The guitars are often listed multiple times by brokers who don't actually have the guitar in their possession. They work with the stores and there are often multiple brokers listing the same guitars at different prices.

[jzucker]

The tailpiece anchors and bridge posts may be biting into the braces somewhat.

Yeah, i would be worried about that. Good thing a drill bit can go through bracing as well as plywood!

[Doctor Jeff]

Other than the tailpiece and the stains on the neck, that is a sweet looking guitar at a VERY good price.

My questions:

What do you think caused stains on neck?

Is it possible it was a factory custom order? (Though reportedly no center block so doubtful.) There are no pictures showing holes on the bottom of the body, to confirm it was originally a trapeze or Bigsby.

It looks to have a pinned bridge as well. Did Gibson offer a pinned bridge on the 175 before? If so, I assume it just goes into plywood, no center block?

Plywood IS very strong, not too mention the box frame helps it keep its shape. Over time one would certainly be concerned about the top deforming, especially if there are a lot of changes of temps and humidity.

OTOH...it sure doesn't look bad from the photos. Converting it back to a trapeze tailpiece would be no problem, and just plug up those holes with something or ignore them. Or put duct tape on them like Pat's old 175.

Someone should buy this and let us know what they find!

[jim777]

I think I posted this as a PSA maybe 6 weeks ago along the lines of "cheap 175 if anyone is looking" and the responses were so negative and immediate that I just deleted the thread rather than explain my limited knowledge of 175s. Nice to see the holidays have raised the civility levels a bit

[jzucker]

Other than the tailpiece and the stains on the neck, that is a sweet looking guitar at a VERY good price.

My questions:

What do you think caused stains on neck?

looks like wear through the lacquer

Is it possible it was a factory custom order? (Though reportedly no center block so doubtful.) There are no pictures showing holes on the bottom of the body, to confirm it was originally a trapeze or Bigsby.

It looks to have a pinned bridge as well. Did Gibson offer a pinned bridge on the 175 before? If so, I assume it just goes into plywood, no center block?

It's not a pinned bridge. It's screwed into the body.

Plywood IS very strong, not too mention the box frame helps it keep its shape. Over time one would certainly be concerned about the top deforming, especially if there are a lot of changes of temps and humidity.

OTOH...it sure doesn't look bad from the photos. Converting it back to a trapeze tailpiece would be no problem, and just plug up those holes with something or ignore them. Or put duct tape on them like Pat's old 175.

Someone should buy this and let us know what they find!

3/16" plywood is not strong enough for bolts with the torque applied at a right angle

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Someone should buy this and let us know what they find!

The more I think about this, the more I think it's a scam. With what we're supposed to believe is multiple sellers' offering the same guitar at significantly different prices, and with so many questions about its provenance, I'm beginning to think someone cobbled up a kit "175" (all of which have these bridges and tailpieces) to look like a Gibson, either stamped or photoshopped a Gibson serial number on it, and is trolling for payment with no intent to deliver an instrument.

There are now 6 separate posts for this guitar on eBay alone, allegedly from 6 separate sellers and at 6 different prices. The pics are identical, right down to the serial #, the weird smudges on the back of the neck (which look like some hack's idea of "relic" treatment), and the creases etc in the white background material. To me, this one screams "stay away!" at the top of its lungs.

[jzucker]

The more I think about this, the more I think it's a scam. With what we're supposed to believe is multiple sellers' offering the same guitar at significantly different prices, and with so many questions about its provenance, I'm beginning to think someone cobbled up a kit "175" (all of which have these bridges) to look like a Gibson, either stamped or photoshopped a Gibson serial number on it, and is trolling for payment with no intent to deliver an instrument.

There are now 6 separate posts for this guitar on eBay alone, allegedly from 6 separate sellers and at 6 different prices. The pics are identical, right down to the serial #, the weird smudges on the back of the neck (which look like some hack's idea of "relic" treatment), and the creases etc in the white background material. To me, this one screams "stay away!" at the top of its lungs.

Did you read my reply? It's completely normal for guitar stores in japan to have multiple brokers selling the guitars for different prices, slightly different description, same photos.

[JanLF]

Yes, Jack Zucker! Sort of like the real estate market in Italy and other places.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk