Seventy Seven Hawk STD-JT

[haiku]

Hey,

Im in the market for a Es-175 or copy. The only thing I’ve heard that even came remotely close in sound was the epi premium. Having said that, I then came across the Seventy Seven Hawk Deep Jazz and STD. (Neither sound exactly like the real deal, but they do sound pretty good) They’re unfortunately discontinued and replaced with the Hawk Deep STD-Jt. What’s your opinion on that one?

If I would get a Gibson 57 pickup on there, do you reckon it would sound like the real deal? Or is it too differently built, all maple/ovangkol fret board etc? I’m quite picky with the sound.

Should I try this one or just sit tight and wait for someone in my area to sell a Gibson 175?

[Gitterbug]

Not all the real deals sound the same. A current thread suggests that Tokai gets close.

[haiku]

Not all the real deals sound the same. A current thread suggests that Tokai gets close.

Thanks for your reply.

That is true of course, but all real 175s have that typical thunky transient, that I haven’t heard with any of the copies I’ve tried: Burny, Greco, Ibanez 2355 etc

[Archie]

Not all the real deals sound the same. A current thread suggests that Tokai gets close.

I don't think the Tokai's are that close and none of the videos I've seen yet, show them to be but that's an opinion.

The closest thing I have found is an Ibanez 2355M or a maple topped Greco FA.
I haven't tried the Burny. It might be a pleasant surprise but I remain sceptical.

Someone said the 77JT stuff is awful. I can't remember who it was. We had a big discussion on them a month or so back.

[jzucker]

The tokai does not get close. Are you sure the jazz hawks was discontinued? I thought they were still made and part of the premiere line. However, I will tell you that they sound nothing like a gibson 175. Honestly, I have not found any of the 175 clones that sound like the real thing. None are close IMO. I cannot speak to the JT model and I'm suspicious of it but the japanese seventy seven jazz hawk sounds great but has it's own voice and is nothing like a real 175. Neither the 2355M or Greco really nail the 175 IMO. I don't think anyone has bothered to really dissect the 175 but part of the problem is that the 175 has changed so much in 70 years, you'd have to decide which one you really want.

I had a '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s. The '50s had a very thin top and was much "sweeter" sounding than the others but didn't have that percussive attack that most people associate with a 175. The late '60s I owned had a thicker top and was more like what we remember the joe pass recordings sounding like. Same for the '70-73 175. Between mid '73 and '82 they switched to a maple neck and those were brighter sounding. In '83 they switched back to mahogany and the '83 through '89 still sounded like a vintage 175. I have a '93 and I love it but it sounds nothing like the early ones. It's a more modern sounding instrument.

Still within all of that variation, I have heard and played nothing that sounds like any of the 175s I mentioned. The epiphone 175s I tried were dogs. I've heard some good ones on these pages but the ones I played were not good...

[haiku]

I don't think the Tokai's are that close and none of the videos I've seen yet, show them to be but that's an opinion.

The closest thing I have found is an Ibanez 2355M or a maple topped Greco FA.
I haven't tried the Burny. It might be a pleasant surprise but I remain sceptical.

Someone said the 77JT stuff is awful. I can't remember who it was. We had a big discussion on them a month or so back.

I thought it was rather strange that the JT was so much cheaper. I saw here on the forum that they're made in the Philippines and "finished" in Japan... whatever that means.... When I've listened to clips of the JT it sounds completely different than the Jazz Hawk and Standard Hawk, so I guess you could very well be right in the awful part.

[haiku]

The tokai does not get close. Are you sure the jazz hawks was discontinued? I thought they were still made and part of the premiere line. However, I will tell you that they sound nothing like a gibson 175. Honestly, I have not found any of the 175 clones that sound like the real thing. None are close IMO. I cannot speak to the JT model and I'm suspicious of it but the japanese seventy seven jazz hawk sounds great but has it's own voice and is nothing like a real 175. Neither the 2355M or Greco really nail the 175 IMO. I don't think anyone has bothered to really dissect the 175 but part of the problem is that the 175 has changed so much in 70 years, you'd have to decide which one you really want.

I had a '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s. The '50s had a very thin top and was much "sweeter" sounding than the others but didn't have that percussive attack that most people associate with a 175. The late '60s I owned had a thicker top and was more like what we remember the joe pass recordings sounding like. Same for the '70-73 175. Between mid '73 and '82 they switched to a maple neck and those were brighter sounding. In '83 they switched back to mahogany and the '83 through '89 still sounded like a vintage 175. I have a '93 and I love it but it sounds nothing like the early ones. It's a more modern sounding instrument.

Still within all of that variation, I have heard and played nothing that sounds like any of the 175s I mentioned. The epiphone 175s I tried were dogs. I've heard some good ones on these pages but the ones I played were not good...

From what I can hear all the 175s are quite different from eachother, but even in all their difference they still have a certain sound in common. Like you can always tell straight away that it is a 175. Of all the copies I've played, Greco, Ibanez, Burny, Eastman etc etc nothing has that instant "oh, I recognise this"-sound.

It's looking more and more like I'll have fork out and get the real deal...

[John A.]

The tokai does not get close. Are you sure the jazz hawks was discontinued? I thought they were still made and part of the premiere line. However, I will tell you that they sound nothing like a gibson 175. Honestly, I have not found any of the 175 clones that sound like the real thing. None are close IMO. I cannot speak to the JT model and I'm suspicious of it but the japanese seventy seven jazz hawk sounds great but has it's own voice and is nothing like a real 175. Neither the 2355M or Greco really nail the 175 IMO. I don't think anyone has bothered to really dissect the 175 but part of the problem is that the 175 has changed so much in 70 years, you'd have to decide which one you really want.

In November, I asked one the US 77 dealers on Reverb what's going on with production in Japan, and he told me that they had started making Albatrosses, but not the Hawk series, though he was expecting that to restart early this year. So, "paused" may be more accurate than "discontinued," but either amounts to "not available new currently" (and they're pretty rare used). I have a 77 Hawk Jazz Deep, and I would not say that it is nothing like a real 175. I'd say it's a lot like a real 175 (at least like the ones I've tried), but not as percussive as some that I've heard. What you're saying here seems to be a different view from what you expressed when you did a video comparing to 77's to a 175. What changed? Or maybe you have a very specific sense of what you think the quintessential 175 sound is that results in an almost binary sense of like/not-like a 175, as opposed to more of a continuum of 175-ness?

I had a '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s. The '50s had a very thin top and was much "sweeter" sounding than the others but didn't have that percussive attack that most people associate with a 175. The late '60s I owned had a thicker top and was more like what we remember the joe pass recordings sounding like. Same for the '70-73 175. Between mid '73 and '82 they switched to a maple neck and those were brighter sounding. In '83 they switched back to mahogany and the '83 through '89 still sounded like a vintage 175. I have a '93 and I love it but it sounds nothing like the early ones. It's a more modern sounding instrument.

I've played maybe 3 or 4 175's, so you obviously have much more familiarity than I do, but I'd still say the full-depth 77's are in the 175 family.

Still within all of that variation, I have heard and played nothing that sounds like any of the 175s I mentioned. The epiphone 175s I tried were dogs. I've heard some good ones on these pages but the ones I played were not good...

I tried an Epi 175 Premium, and I'd say the sound was a dead ringer for a friend's 175. However, the one I played had bad fret buzz/set-up issues, so it was hard for me to judge it overall. I've also played a couple of the older non-Premium ones, and those are a different, brighter sound.

[Archie]

The tokai does not get close. Are you sure the jazz hawks was discontinued? I thought they were still made and part of the premiere line. However, I will tell you that they sound nothing like a gibson 175. Honestly, I have not found any of the 175 clones that sound like the real thing. None are close IMO. I cannot speak to the JT model and I'm suspicious of it but the japanese seventy seven jazz hawk sounds great but has it's own voice and is nothing like a real 175. Neither the 2355M or Greco really nail the 175 IMO. I don't think anyone has bothered to really dissect the 175 but part of the problem is that the 175 has changed so much in 70 years, you'd have to decide which one you really want.

I had a '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s. The '50s had a very thin top and was much "sweeter" sounding than the others but didn't have that percussive attack that most people associate with a 175. The late '60s I owned had a thicker top and was more like what we remember the joe pass recordings sounding like. Same for the '70-73 175. Between mid '73 and '82 they switched to a maple neck and those were brighter sounding. In '83 they switched back to mahogany and the '83 through '89 still sounded like a vintage 175. I have a '93 and I love it but it sounds nothing like the early ones. It's a more modern sounding instrument.

Still within all of that variation, I have heard and played nothing that sounds like any of the 175s I mentioned. The epiphone 175s I tried were dogs. I've heard some good ones on these pages but the ones I played were not good...

The Epiphone's are dogs and I'm not even sure the necks aren't made out of bamboo but they sound pretty good.
If you've got £500 and want an ES-175, they are the best bet I've found to date and happy to recommend them for such needs.
Still keen to try one of those Burny's.

[wzpgsr]

I bought a single pickup blonde Japan-built Hawk Deep Standard and put a BG Pure90 in it because I had an itch for a mid-50s ES-175 but didn't want to drop $5,000—I consider now the itch has been scratched.

I think this must have been a rare model—I have seen two: the one in some of Jack's older demo videos (still on this forum, look back to 2017) and the one I bought in like new condition from the US distributor, Eichii. (I suspect they might actually be the same guitar.) I don't have the depth of experience as some other folks with ES-175s, but I will say that with TI 12 flats, it is absolutely in the same ballpark tonally as my mid-1950s ES-125. Tons of thunk, not quite as open sounding as the ES-125. I can deal with thin necks, fat necks, etc. The mahogany neck on this is a nice handful without being too hefty.

[haiku]

Would you attribute the majority of the sound difference between a hawk to the pickup or the actual build? Is there even the slightest possibility to get close with a hawk after installing a Gibson pickup?

Since the 175 isn’t made anymore and they’re quite hard to find second hand where I am, it would be nice if there were some alternatives. I’m not super keen on buying a “vintage” 175 without trying it and having it shipped to me.

[Christian Miller]

As a late 60s ES175 owner I think it’s very much the build I’m afraid.

[Christian Miller]

But I’ve not tried a seventy seven hawk, so that side of it is missing for me.

EDIT - Other makes; Archtop Tribute? I know someone who got their ES150 copy and sold their old Gibson ES125 shortly after. Might be worth a look.

[jzucker]

Would you attribute the majority of the sound difference between a hawk to the pickup or the actual build? Is there even the slightest possibility to get close with a hawk after installing a Gibson pickup?

Since the 175 isn’t made anymore and they’re quite hard to find second hand where I am, it would be nice if there were some alternatives. I’m not super keen on buying a “vintage” 175 without trying it and having it shipped to me.

it's not the pickup. The pickups do not make a lot of diff unless you're going to a completely different family. For example, going from one manufacturer's paf to another one makes surprisingly little diff. Going to a CC or P90 makes a bigger diff obviously. The difference between a real gibson 175 and a hawk is the woods, construction, neck joint, glues, etc...

[jzucker]

But I’ve not tried a seventy seven hawk, so that side of it is missing for me.

EDIT - Other makes; Archtop Tribute? I know someone who got their ES150 copy and sold their old Gibson ES125 shortly after. Might be worth a look.

not in the same league IMO

[jzucker]

In November, I asked one the US 77 dealers on Reverb what's going on with production in Japan, and he told me that they had started making Albatrosses, but not the Hawk series, though he was expecting that to restart early this year. So, "paused" may be more accurate than "discontinued," but either amounts to "not available new currently" (and they're pretty rare used). I have a 77 Hawk Jazz Deep, and I would not say that it is nothing like a real 175. I'd say it's a lot like a real 175 (at least like the ones I've tried), but not as percussive as some that I've heard. What you're saying here seems to be a different view from what you expressed when you did a video comparing to 77's to a 175. What changed? Or maybe you have a very specific sense of what you think the quintessential 175 sound is that results in an almost binary sense of like/not-like a 175, as opposed to more of a continuum of 175-ness?



I've played maybe 3 or 4 175's, so you obviously have much more familiarity than I do, but I'd still say the full-depth 77's are in the 175 family.



I tried an Epi 175 Premium, and I'd say the sound was a dead ringer for a friend's 175. However, the one I played had bad fret buzz/set-up issues, so it was hard for me to judge it overall. I've also played a couple of the older non-Premium ones, and those are a different, brighter sound.

I'm not sure they're in the 175 family - whatever that means. They have little of the characteristic thunk that a real 175 has.

[wzpgsr]

I'm not sure they're in the 175 family - whatever that means. They have little of the characteristic thunk that a real 175 has.

Mine sounds pretty thunky to my ear. I wonder if the one-piece mahogany neck on this one contributes to that sound. If I am not mistaken, most Seventy Seven necks are 5-piece laminates.

[jzucker]

Mine sounds pretty thunky to my ear. I wonder if the one-piece mahogany neck on this one contributes to that sound. If I am not mistaken, most Seventy Seven necks are 5-piece laminates.

I also had the single pickup version with all mahogany neck, very little thunk.

[kris]

Great sound !!!

[haiku]

Thanks so much to everyone for their great insight in this matter.

it's not the pickup. The pickups do not make a lot of diff unless you're going to a completely different family. For example, going from one manufacturer's paf to another one makes surprisingly little diff. Going to a CC or P90 makes a bigger diff obviously. The difference between a real gibson 175 and a hawk is the woods, construction, neck joint, glues, etc...

I see. That's really good to know!

I also had the single pickup version with all mahogany neck, very little thunk.

Great playing. I agree with you on the thunk aspect, it does however sound very good. I also watched your comparison video with the ES-175, Jazz Hawk and Standard. I really do like the sound of the Jazz Hawk as well, but I guess for that price you could basically get a 175.

[John A.]

Great playing. I agree with you on the thunk aspect, it does however sound very good. I also watched your comparison video with the ES-175, Jazz Hawk and Standard. I really do like the sound of the Jazz Hawk as well, but I guess for that price you could basically get a 175.

I paid $1500 for a (used) Hawk Jazz Deep in November of last year, and new ones were listed at $2250 (even though there weren't any actually available). At the time, asking prices for 175's were mostly above $3k. Now they're mostly above $4k, and if you look at the details of the ones on the lower end, you see a lot condition issues, fake listings from Japan, and other red flags. MIJ 77's are so few and far between now that I don't know what to expect them to cost, but I would imagine they're still a lot cheaper than 175's.

Regarding the similarity/thunk question, here's Jack's video comparing a Hawk Standard, a Hawk Jazz (both are the "deep" variant) and a 175.

Here's my single pickup Hawk Jazz Deep, with (for me) relatively bright settings on the guitar and amp (a model of a BF Fender Super Reverb through a 2x12 cabinet):

And again with somewhat darker settings on the guitar and amp model:

I guess similarity is in the ear of the beholder, but I hear a lot (allowing for differences in settings and playing style, and the fact that Jack records and plays better than I do). Saying they sound nothing alike seems strikes me as an exaggeration. I think the variation among these sounds is within the variation one would encounter with specific examples of the same model played by different people through different amps.

Anyway, apologies for the sidetrack. I have no idea how the JT variant compares to any of these.

[wzpgsr]

I suppose there's variation among Seventy Sevens just as there are among ES-175s. This sounds pretty thunky to my ear, at least in the lower registers:

[citizenk74]

Hey,

Im in the market for a Es-175 or copy. The only thing I’ve heard that even came remotely close in sound was the epi premium. Having said that, I then came across the Seventy Seven Hawk Deep Jazz and STD. (Neither sound exactly like the real deal, but they do sound pretty good) They’re unfortunately discontinued and replaced with the Hawk Deep STD-Jt. What’s your opinion on that one?

If I would get a Gibson 57 pickup on there, do you reckon it would sound like the real deal? Or is it too differently built, all maple/ovangkol fret board etc? I’m quite picky with the sound.

Should I try this one or just sit tight and wait for someone in my area to sell a Gibson 175?

Getting the ES-175 sound means getting the Es-175 formula down: Maple/poplar/maple laminate, rosewood FB, P-90s or PAFs ('57 Classics in my '04), the right alloy for the Tail piece, and a rosewood and tune-o-matic bridge (Or just rosewood). I like a mahogany neck, but had a 175 with maple and it was OK.That's the formula that yields the basic sound (decay envelope, over-all "thunk"). Look-alikes and sound-alikes may be quite different.*

* Look-alike is fine. The physical shape of the 175 is very comfortable to play. I would I am sure, enjoy playing my 175 just as much with a different sound. It would just be a different sound. It's music. It's good.

[jzucker]

Sounds good John. There's no thunk in your jazz hawk . It's a great guitar, just different than a 175. The problem is that everyone who sets about making a plywood, 175-inspired guitar "improves" it. Holst, Painter, Eastman, collings, Heritage. And in improving it, they lose the character that made the 175 so charming IMO.

I remember asking Jay Wolfe once if they ever considered making a plywood 575 and his response was, "Why would we do that? We made a better guitar by using solid woods"...So everyone seems to miss the point!

I paid $1500 for a (used) Hawk Jazz Deep in November of last year, and new ones were listed at $2250 (even though there weren't any actually available). At the time, asking prices for 175's were mostly above $3k. Now they're mostly above $4k, and if you look at the details of the ones on the lower end, you see a lot condition issues, fake listings from Japan, and other red flags. MIJ 77's are so few and far between now that I don't know what to expect them to cost, but I would imagine they're still a lot cheaper than 175's.

Regarding the similarity/thunk question, here's Jack's video comparing a Hawk Standard, a Hawk Jazz (both are the "deep" variant) and a 175.

Here's my single pickup Hawk Jazz Deep, with (for me) relatively bright settings on the guitar and amp (a model of a BF Fender Super Reverb through a 2x12 cabinet):

And again with somewhat darker settings on the guitar and amp model:

I guess similarity is in the ear of the beholder, but I hear a lot (allowing for differences in settings and playing style, and the fact that Jack records and plays better than I do). Saying they sound nothing alike seems strikes me as an exaggeration. I think the variation among these sounds is within the variation one would encounter with specific examples of the same model played by different people through different amps.

Anyway, apologies for the sidetrack. I have no idea how the JT variant compares to any of these.

[John A.]

Sounds good John. There's no thunk in your jazz hawk . It's a great guitar, just different than a 175. The problem is that everyone who sets about making a plywood, 175-inspired guitar "improves" it. Holst, Painter, Eastman, collings, Heritage. And in improving it, they lose the character that made the 175 so charming IMO.

I remember asking Jay Wolfe once if they ever considered making a plywood 575 and his response was, "Why would we do that? We made a better guitar by using solid woods"...So everyone seems to miss the point!

I give up. I thought I knew what you meant by "thunk", but I guess I really don't. I'm just not hearing a fundamental difference in character between those two Hawk Jazzes and your 175, or between the Hawk Standard (which I find pretty different from the Hawk Jazzes), and some other other 175 sounds I've heard. Differences, yes, but they're subtle (to my ears, anyway) and not at the level that make me think they're fundamentally different instruments. I do hear a fundamental difference between, say, an L5, or virtually any guitar with a floater, and the sounds here, so it's not as if I'm completely undiscerning. But whatever differences you're hearing, I'm not hearing to anywhere near the same extent. Also, if you go back to things you've said about these instruments, you've actually said at some length that you think they're very "thunky" and capture the 175 essence, so I'm trying to understand how that squares with what you perceive now. Ultimately it doesn't really matter -- we both like our guitars. But it is a curiosity to me.