Quick review of my 1993 Gibson 175

[jzucker]

Wanted to give a quick review of this instrument. Some background - I have owned over a dozen 175s including late '50s, early '60s, early '70s, mid and late '80s etc. The 30+ year old instruments can be hit or miss. Many i've owned had problems like a tailrise, fingerboard warpage, need of refretting, loose bracing (one poorly repaired with foaming gorilla glue), etc. Fortunately, this one was nearly mint and had no issues.

It was an employee made guitar, custom with gold hardware and birthday/retirement day for a beloved employee who retired in 1993. The owner did not play and her heirs sold the guitar to gruhn recently. It has zero playing wear. Mark Cleary turned me onto this instrument and I am very grateful. No issues common to 30+ year old guitar like tailrise, loose bracing, in need of a refret, etc. Just a really solidly made guitar. When I bought it, gruhn also had a 2007 in identical condition. I asked them which instrument was better and they told me that while both of them played the same, the older instrument had some type of magic and that from experience, they know that the early '90s were the heyday of gibson quality control and more importantly - Wood selection. Not for appearances but for wood that is properly aged, dried and sounds good. Not sure how all this applies to laminates since the only carved part of the 175 is the neck but they felt it applied to the laminates as well.

So, how does it sound? It sounds great. Like a 175 should. I will record some clips in the next month or so. Still getting my chops back after 12 months of practicing bass exclusively. It's got that lilt that 175s are known for and sounds beautiful for chord melody, octaves, single lines, etc. All notes speak really well in all registers which is really nice. One odd thing is that the tone controls don't work as expected. I can't roll it down to 4 or 5 to get that classic pat metheny sound. I suspect that they changed the value of the pots or capacitor or perhaps added a resistor network in there to allow high frequencies to pass through to avoid "muddyness". I'll need to modify it to be back to the classic tone control circuit when I get a chance.

Now - The big reveal...How does it fit into to the absolute best 175s I have owned?

First - a disclaimer. The following is my opinion only. I don't claim to be the definitive expert on 175s. I'm just relaying my thoughts on their tone from my point of view and my desires.

I have to admit I wasn't crazy about the '50s 175s. They were very light builds and a little too resonant for my tastes. They almost sounded like carved guitars and didn't satisfy that Joe Pass "Joy Spring" standard that I have come to expect from a 175. So surprisingly, the '50s 175s don't fall into my top 5. Additionally, while I owned an early '60s 175, it needed a refret and possibly some fingerboard work so I'm not able to place it in my ordered list.

My top 175s:

1. 1972 with embossed pickups - Just a great 175, solid thunk, nice mahogany neck that wasn't too thin, perfect guitar for "Joy Spring". Could also rock out and get great fusion tones.
2. 1970 - This guitar was great. Frets that were a little worn and a thinner neck keep it from being the top guitar.
3. 1989 - This guitar played perfectly and literally didn't go out of tune. Weeks would go by and it was just incredibly stable. Mahogany back and sides. Had been planed/refretted by someone really gifted. Had the "Joy Spring" tone in spades. Probably had that vibe moreso than the '72 which was slightly brighter but the '72 had a better bridge pickup sound. Even though I rate this number 3, if I were playing standards in a guitar trio format, this would be my #1 choice.
4. 1993 Guitar. Yes, the guitar I just got would be #4. I love the guitar and it's a keeper but it doesn't have the thunky, smokey '60s jazz guitar sound IMO though I am going to keep experimenting with strings and other things. It sounds beautiful for single lines, chord melody, fusion and rock too. With the classic '57 pickups, it just kicks butt. Compared to the other 3 guitars on my list, it just doesn't have the vibe of an old guitar. It sounds great but sounds like a new guitar. Whether that's because it was unplayed or some other factor I don't know but it reaffirms my belief that the older wood and older builds are something special. I don't mean to imply this guitar doesn't kick ass though. It's a wonderful instrument and I'm exceptionally happy to have found it. It's just not a '60s, '70s or '80s 175.

[skiboyny]

Good review. I was curious at how you would rate this guitar. Knowing that the "joy spring" sound was your benchmark for excellence, I was quite sure that the 90's models, although great guitars, wouldn't sound like that. I think the trend thru the years have moved away from that sound. Will be curious how you will rate the bambino when you get it.

[jzucker]

Good review. I was curious at how you would rate this guitar. Knowing that the "joy spring" sound was your benchmark for excellence, I was quite sure that the 90's models, although great guitars, wouldn't sound like that. I think the trend thru the years have moved away from that sound. Will be curious how you will rate the bambino when you get it.

Yeah, i get that and I think some would say that it's a positive move. The thunky, "joy spring" tone is somewhat one-dimensional and limited and dated. I think this guitar is probably better suited for the more modern 175 tone that someone like Kriesberg gets. I do have to say that it sounds great with a slight overdrive and vibrato. Just beautiful and very modern.

[Gitterbug]

One helluva beauty queen who can sing, too! It just begs to be played and, even if a laminate guitar, is likely to open up some. As well, the question is whether older guitars had better woods or whether yours will sound even better 10-15 years from now.

I'm sure you haven't picked your previous ES 175s blindfolded and ears plugged - yet such a variety! I have a short history of three early 2000s samples, of which the first one had a loose brace, the second one a cracked top and all three frets that ate into my fingers. My current 1959 VOS from 2014 is a different animal altogether - it's such an alive guitar and makes my 2007 Benedetto Bravo simply uninteresting no matter how well made.

Mention ES-175 and there's tons of attention and beliefs. Some people think the trapeze and zig-zag tailpieces sound different. I'd be keen to know how yours would sound with a wooden bridge instead of a TOM. Your experience with these variables?

[Easy2grasp]

Thank you. I've only had early 60's and 50's ES-175's so I would be unable to make such an educated evaluation myself. However, I will say that the 1992 ES-165 that I used to have was a heavier/less acoustic build than what I was accustomed to. I tried a classic '57 PU in it and still couldn't get the sound I wanted. Maybe it's an early 90's thing?

[deacon Mark]

Great review. I have never owed a 175 but played and worked on many. The one that stands out to me was. Norlin era 1974-75 sunburst. For whatever reason this one was just great. Responded at all places on the fingerboard evenly. Reminded me of the Joe pass sound on Virtuoso recording both the acoustic and electric sound that came from the recording.

Another stand out but was a 165. I re fretted for a forum member he wanted jumbo frets. I believe that guitar was from around 2006. One pickup and the neck played wonderful.

Jack may claim not be an expert on 175’s but I don’t know anyone else with his experience. Dealers may have more experience with various versions, but I don’t any dealers with Jack’s chops and ability. Players are the real judge…..although some dealers play well.

Get us a video of a joe pass classic tune with Zucker touch.

[skiboyny]

Yeah, i get that and I think some would say that it's a positive move. The thunky, "joy spring" tone is somewhat one-dimensional and limited and dated. I think this guitar is probably better suited for the more modern 175 tone that someone like Kriesberg gets. I do have to say that it sounds great with a slight overdrive and vibrato. Just beautiful and very modern.

Just to add, I really think this sound you seek is more about the laminate schedule, along with the back and sides material, than the old wood. Just my opinion...

[mr. beaumont]

My experience with 175's is more limited than Jack's, mostly from years of haunting Chicago Music Exchange and irritating the employees as I played a whole bunch of guitars I couldn't afford....

I feel like there's almost an ideal weight for a 175 that provides maximum thunk...and it's somewhere in the middle. The old ones are very light and resonant, they actually sound better than decent unplugged. And then some of the modern ones are so solidly built they sustain more like a semi-hollow to my ears...somewhere in the middle, there's the thunk magic.

[jzucker]

One helluva beauty queen who can sing, too! It just begs to be played and, even if a laminate guitar, is likely to open up some. As well, the question is whether older guitars had better woods or whether yours will sound even better 10-15 years from now.

I'm sure you haven't picked your previous ES 175s blindfolded and ears plugged - yet such a variety! I have a short history of three early 2000s samples, of which the first one had a loose brace, the second one a cracked top and all three frets that ate into my fingers. My current 1959 VOS from 2014 is a different animal altogether - it's such an alive guitar and makes my 2007 Benedetto Bravo simply uninteresting no matter how well made.

Mention ES-175 and there's tons of attention and beliefs. Some people think the trapeze and zig-zag tailpieces sound different. I'd be keen to know how yours would sound with a wooden bridge instead of a TOM. Your experience with these variables?

Yeah, i hear you regarding the bravo. I had a bravo and my '89 175 at the same time. The bravo is a superb guitar but the mojo of the 175 meant that the bravo didn't get played. Almost all my favorite 175s had TOMs on them. I seem to favor the TOM, not sure why. I think it adds a chirp to the sound that I like. Must be from listening to too much metheny...

[Stringswinger]

. Almost all my favorite 175s had TOMs on them. I seem to favor the TOM, not sure why. I think it adds a chirp to the sound that I like. Must be from listening to too much metheny...

I prefer the wood saddles. Must be from listening to too much Joe Pass......

[Jonathan0996]

Beautiful guitar, Jack. I'm glad you found one you like.

[skykomishone]

I own a 1972 that I bought new 50 years ago! Amazing guitar, I agree!

[lammie200]

Good info Jack. Glad you have a decent one now. The only 175 that I had owned was in the late '80s and it was a 175-CC probably made in the '70s. TBH, I didn't like it. The CC pickup made the balance off for me and it sounded kinda dull and way buzzy when amplified. Since then I acquired both models of 165s. I am very happy with them and they aren't going anywhere. Funny how they were much more reasonably priced than 175s. I know that they are different animals but I am not sure they are inferior. Just a little different.

[jzucker]

Good info Jack. Glad you have a decent one now. The only 175 that I had owned was in the late '80s and it was a 175-CC probably made in the '70s. TBH, I didn't like it. The CC pickup made the balance off for me and it sounded kinda dull and way buzzy when amplified. Since then I acquired both models of 165s. I am very happy with them and they aren't going anywhere. Funny how they were much more reasonably priced than 175s. I know that they are different animals but I am not sure they are inferior. Just a little different.

My son had a '90s ES-165 and it was great. Amazing instrument. The only issue was that the openings in the tailpiece were so wide that the string ball-ends slipped right through. I had to run a wound low E string through the hole of all the strings to string that thing up with d'addario chromes.

[lammie200]

My son had a '90s ES-165 and it was great. Amazing instrument. The only issue was that the openings in the tailpiece were so wide that the string ball-ends slipped right through. I had to run a wound low E string through the hole of all the strings to string that thing up with d'addario chromes.

I have heard that that is a problem but mine are fine. Stringing them up like that would annoy me for sure. The 490r is a 1991. The BJB is a 2012, I think. I use TI 13 flats on them. Like I said pricing is odd because they are a bit more "premium" featured than garden variety 175s. Only one pickup and not the same cache I suppose makes the valuations different I suppose. That said, the one you have is gorgeouso! Premium in looks for sure.

[Dutchbopper]

Wanted to give a quick review of this instrument. Some background - I have owned over a dozen 175s including late '50s, early '60s, early '70s, mid and late '80s etc. The 30+ year old instruments can be hit or miss. Many i've owned had problems like a tailrise, fingerboard warpage, need of refretting, loose bracing (one poorly repaired with foaming gorilla glue), etc. Fortunately, this one was nearly mint and had no issues.

It was an employee made guitar, custom with gold hardware and birthday/retirement day for a beloved employee who retired in 1993. The owner did not play and her heirs sold the guitar to gruhn recently. It has zero playing wear. Mark Cleary turned me onto this instrument and I am very grateful. No issues common to 30+ year old guitar like tailrise, loose bracing, in need of a refret, etc. Just a really solidly made guitar. When I bought it, gruhn also had a 2007 in identical condition. I asked them which instrument was better and they told me that while both of them played the same, the older instrument had some type of magic and that from experience, they know that the early '90s were the heyday of gibson quality control and more importantly - Wood selection. Not for appearances but for wood that is properly aged, dried and sounds good. Not sure how all this applies to laminates since the only carved part of the 175 is the neck but they felt it applied to the laminates as well.

So, how does it sound? It sounds great. Like a 175 should. I will record some clips in the next month or so. Still getting my chops back after 12 months of practicing bass exclusively. It's got that lilt that 175s are known for and sounds beautiful for chord melody, octaves, single lines, etc. All notes speak really well in all registers which is really nice. One odd thing is that the tone controls don't work as expected. I can't roll it down to 4 or 5 to get that classic pat metheny sound. I suspect that they changed the value of the pots or capacitor or perhaps added a resistor network in there to allow high frequencies to pass through to avoid "muddyness". I'll need to modify it to be back to the classic tone control circuit when I get a chance.

Now - The big reveal...How does it fit into to the absolute best 175s I have owned?

First - a disclaimer. The following is my opinion only. I don't claim to be the definitive expert on 175s. I'm just relaying my thoughts on their tone from my point of view and my desires.

I have to admit I wasn't crazy about the '50s 175s. They were very light builds and a little too resonant for my tastes. They almost sounded like carved guitars and didn't satisfy that Joe Pass "Joy Spring" standard that I have come to expect from a 175. So surprisingly, the '50s 175s don't fall into my top 5. Additionally, while I owned an early '60s 175, it needed a refret and possibly some fingerboard work so I'm not able to place it in my ordered list.

My top 175s:

1. 1972 with embossed pickups - Just a great 175, solid thunk, nice mahogany neck that wasn't too thin, perfect guitar for "Joy Spring". Could also rock out and get great fusion tones.
2. 1970 - This guitar was great. Frets that were a little worn and a thinner neck keep it from being the top guitar.
3. 1989 - This guitar played perfectly and literally didn't go out of tune. Weeks would go by and it was just incredibly stable. Mahogany back and sides. Had been planed/refretted by someone really gifted. Had the "Joy Spring" tone in spades. Probably had that vibe moreso than the '72 which was slightly brighter but the '72 had a better bridge pickup sound. Even though I rate this number 3, if I were playing standards in a guitar trio format, this would be my #1 choice.
4. 1993 Guitar. Yes, the guitar I just got would be #4. I love the guitar and it's a keeper but it doesn't have the thunky, smokey '60s jazz guitar sound IMO though I am going to keep experimenting with strings and other things. It sounds beautiful for single lines, chord melody, fusion and rock too. With the classic '57 pickups, it just kicks butt. Compared to the other 3 guitars on my list, it just doesn't have the vibe of an old guitar. It sounds great but sounds like a new guitar. Whether that's because it was unplayed or some other factor I don't know but it reaffirms my belief that the older wood and older builds are something special. I don't mean to imply this guitar doesn't kick ass though. It's a wonderful instrument and I'm exceptionally happy to have found it. It's just not a '60s, '70s or '80s 175.

Great review Jack. I am happy to see how well your 80s 175 scores. I do recognize my 1982 mahogany ES 175 in your profile. Woody, smoky with lots of thunk. My recent 1991 ES 165 is a great guitar too but a bit different indeed. Way more resonant because of the 1 pup and a more airy sound. But still a very fine guitar. It has way more of an acoustic sound than my 175.

Congrats.

DB

[Gitfiddler]

Excellent review! As a relatively new owner of an '89 175, I appreciate reading how other, more experienced owners feel about the sound, feel and tone of theirs. I owned a mid-90's ES-165, but wasn't super pleased with the workmanship or tone. I'm loving the thick sounds of the 175.

Question: How does 'tail rise' look to the naked eye? Is it noticeable when playing? How is it repaired?

[jzucker]

Excellent review! As a relatively new owner of an '89 175, I appreciate reading how other, more experienced owners feel about the sound, feel and tone of theirs. I owned a mid-90's ES-165, but wasn't super pleased with the workmanship or tone. I'm loving the thick sounds of the 175.

Question: How does 'tail rise' look to the naked eye? Is it noticeable when playing? How is it repaired?

If you sight down the neck on the treble and bass side, you will notice a rise typically at the part of the fingerboard that extends over the body. It's a natural phenomenon on an archtop stemming from the physics of a hollowbody and the tension point of the nut and bridge/tailpiece tending to cause a slight ripple in the top of the guitar under the fingerboard. Most archtops have it but the savvy archtop builders over-plane that part of the fingerboard so it actually "falls off" slightly. Gibson never did that however. So, on many older gibsons, they buzz really badly starting at the neck/body joint. If it's not too big of a tailrise, you can just take down more of the fret in that area when you level them but often times, you need to pull the frets and plane that area down so it falls off slightly. Then under tension, it should be ok.

Unfortunately, it's often a $500+ operation on a gibson archtop and my experience is that the guys who can do a good job planing and refretting are getting more and more scarce.

[bluejaybill]

Yeah, i get that and I think some would say that it's a positive move. The thunky, "joy spring" tone is somewhat one-dimensional and limited and dated. I think this guitar is probably better suited for the more modern 175 tone that someone like Kriesberg gets. I do have to say that it sounds great with a slight overdrive and vibrato. Just beautiful and very modern.

Sounds (and looks) like a great guitar!

While it may not sound quite like a '50's thunkmeister, I would be very surprised if with the proper electronics you couldn't roll back the tone to 5 and get very close to that sound. I don't think I've ever had a Gibson that couldn't do that, even my '94 R8 can get a great jazz sound rolled off, though of course it cannot duplicate that sound.

Congrats on a beautiful guitar!

[jzucker]

Sounds (and looks) like a great guitar!

While it may not sound quite like a '50's thunkmeister, I would be very surprised if with the proper electronics you couldn't roll back the tone to 5 and get very close to that sound. I don't think I've ever had a Gibson that couldn't do that, even my '94 R8 can get a great jazz sound rolled off, though of course it cannot duplicate that sound.

Congrats on a beautiful guitar!

Yes, I think you're right. I also have d'addario chromes which are a little brighter when new than the thomastics i was using previously. I'm guessing the thunk will get better as the strings age but I definitely need to fix the tone control issue.