If you want a 175, only a 175 will do. But why?

[jorgemg1984]

Thank you! This is exactly where I was starting

There seems to be have been a degree of consensus here that despite a few exceptions and variation in 175s notwithstanding that there are some distinctive features that make a 175 unique

I am amazed that nobody (Eastman? Ibanez?) is producing something that could do a passable impersonation of the 175

I think Chris and Jack have pointed out the reasons - not much I could add. Usually when a product is not made, lack of demand explains it... There's certainly TONS of 175 guitar out there, and the used market is maybe enough for the demand there is. And people seem to go for a more acoustic sound these days, which is also a little baffling to me. In archtops there's always a certain conflict between amplified and acoustic sound - a thin top will give you more acoustic sound but a worse amplified sound and a thick top (like some 175 eras) will give you a better amplified sound at the expense of less acoustic sound. This is obvisouly a broad generalisation, and other factors should be taken into accont. But that's the main difference I see between somo laminate archtops and some 175 eras - top thickness. Should be said that some builder are turning more into laminates, like Sadowsky, Boris or Treinier (someone posted a NGD recently on this one). Maybe this ones get closer to ther 175 sound?

I posted this clip on another thread. It's a Sadowsky with a Fralin Pure Paf. It certainly sounds closer to the thick top 175 sound...

[jorgemg1984]

Hi Jorge, good to know you're still posting here!! I think it's been said earlier that, bearing in mind that 175's from different eras sound so different ( and feel so different), that some copies do fall within that range of variation. Jim Hall's early sound is nothing at all like Kreisberg's norlin 175, etc etc.

I dunno, I probably have a slight thing against 175s; I have had seven over the years. Why? Well, it was ( and maybe still is ) THE one for that kind of playing, had the creds etc., so the obvious thing to get. But I could never get along with the inconsistency of the necks, particularly these days, with that thin-to-thick " ES " profile, or whatever they call it. As you can see, I kept trying again & again for a long time, before accepting that the 175 wasn't for me.

Ironically, I have an old £200 ebay 1970 175 copy Ibanez that I have worked on; sometimes I bring that out to gigs. The strange thing is that I have had many complimentary comments on the sound - but only from pianists, bass and sax players! They just assume it's a Gibson 'cos it looks like one. It makes me wonder if us guitarists still can't help hearing with our eyes....

Hi, Chris, I still post occasionaly, when I feel I can add something. I'm also happy you still post around here, I always learn somthing from you, even after all these years

I agree with you, there's too many varations of the 175 sound, which maybe makes it hard to replicate And I'm also not a 175 fan. Certainly didn't try as many as you, but never tried one that trully amazed me. Even recorded by the greats, with the excepetion of Bernstein's early records, it's not a sound I gravitate to.

Ah, we're very biased on that regard, we listen with our eyes. I've heard a few Ibanez artcore guitars that into the right amp, if you closed your eyes, you would've guessed a much more expensive guitar... And heard a few 175 guitars that I woudn't pay the 200£ you paid for your Ibanez. Go figure.

But it's still slightly puzzling that the most famous archtop guitar ever made has not been well replicated by others... Even considering all the reasons we already pointed out.

[garybaldy]

I think Chris and Jack have pointed out the reasons - not much I could add. Usually when a product is not made, lack of demand explains it... There's certainly TONS of 175 guitar out there, and the used market is maybe enough for the demand there is. And people seem to go for a more acoustic sound these days, which is also a little baffling to me. In archtops there's always a certain conflict between amplified and acoustic sound - a thin top will give you more acoustic sound but a worse amplified sound and a thick top (like some 175 eras) will give you a better amplified sound at the expense of less acoustic sound. This is obvisouly a broad generalisation, and other factors should be taken into accont. But that's the main difference I see between somo laminate archtops and some 175 eras - top thickness. Should be said that some builder are turning more into laminates, like Sadowsky, Boris or Treinier (someone posted a NGD recently on this one). Maybe this ones get closer to ther 175 sound?

I posted this clip on another thread. It's a Sadowsky with a Fralin Pure Paf. It certainly sounds closer to the thick top 175 sound...

Great song. I've heard Babik Reinhardt with that beautiful tone.

[jzucker]

I think Chris and Jack have pointed out the reasons - not much I could add. Usually when a product is not made, lack of demand explains it... There's certainly TONS of 175 guitar out there, and the used market is maybe enough for the demand there is. And people seem to go for a more acoustic sound these days, which is also a little baffling to me. In archtops there's always a certain conflict between amplified and acoustic sound - a thin top will give you more acoustic sound but a worse amplified sound and a thick top (like some 175 eras) will give you a better amplified sound at the expense of less acoustic sound. This is obvisouly a broad generalisation, and other factors should be taken into accont. But that's the main difference I see between somo laminate archtops and some 175 eras - top thickness. Should be said that some builder are turning more into laminates, like Sadowsky, Boris or Treinier (someone posted a NGD recently on this one). Maybe this ones get closer to ther 175 sound?

I posted this clip on another thread. It's a Sadowsky with a Fralin Pure Paf. It certainly sounds closer to the thick top 175 sound...

That sadowsky sounds great and is a great guitar but that doesn't sound like a 175 at all to me. This is the quintessential 175 sound.

[yebdox]

I think Chris and Jack have pointed out the reasons - not much I could add. Usually when a product is not made, lack of demand explains it... There's certainly TONS of 175 guitar out there, and the used market is maybe enough for the demand there is. And people seem to go for a more acoustic sound these days, which is also a little baffling to me. In archtops there's always a certain conflict between amplified and acoustic sound - a thin top will give you more acoustic sound but a worse amplified sound and a thick top (like some 175 eras) will give you a better amplified sound at the expense of less acoustic sound. This is obvisouly a broad generalisation, and other factors should be taken into accont. But that's the main difference I see between somo laminate archtops and some 175 eras - top thickness. Should be said that some builder are turning more into laminates, like Sadowsky, Boris or Treinier (someone posted a NGD recently on this one). Maybe this ones get closer to ther 175 sound?

I posted this clip on another thread. It's a Sadowsky with a Fralin Pure Paf. It certainly sounds closer to the thick top 175 sound...

Greets, Jorge! Hope you are well, one of my favorite posters of like mind on the forum!

This video clip made me chuckle. I have a Sadowsky JH that I bought, thinking I would be purchasing a sturdier and better built 175. Wrong. Even after swapping the pickup out for a Burstbucker I had lying around, the same Sadowsky voice comes out! Slightly thinner tone, slightly higher mid shift, narrower frequency range, slightly longer sustain. I measured the pole piece distance to the 12th fret and it is slightly longer (shifted towards the bridge) which, to my ears, makes a difference in that voice, as evidenced on other non Gibson humbucking guitars I’ve played. That and something in the construction make a different, though still great guitar.

So I wound up buying a 175 VOS. After a buddy fixed a twist in the neck for me, it became my most played guitar, and my lovely L5 sits there, begging for attention (and still gets plenty, along with the JH.)

Anyway, it was a comparison outcome I did not expect and showed how little I know of guitar construction. Thankfully, we have the benefit of Jack’s research to save us some time. I trust his ears, as I do yours…. We are all in the same ballpark, I think, for tone preferences.

[jorgemg1984]

That sadowsky sounds great and is a great guitar but that doesn't sound like a 175 at all to me. This is the quintessential 175 sound.

True, it does not have THAT 175 tone.

But about this one?

It would be hard for me, in a blidnfold test, to distinguish the sadowsky tone from this 175 tone.. (both trough Fender amps)

And maybe the amp counts too? Did Joe record Joy Spring on his Polytone? Maybe the Sadowsky trough a Polytone would get closer to that sound? Just speculating.

[jorgemg1984]

Greets, Jorge! Hope you are well, one of my favorite posters of like mind on the forum!

This video clip made me chuckle. I have a Sadowsky JH that I bought, thinking I would be purchasing a sturdier and better built 175. Wrong. Even after swapping the pickup out for a Burstbucker I had lying around, the same Sadowsky voice comes out! Slightly thinner tone, slightly higher mid shift, narrower frequency range, slightly longer sustain. I measured the pole piece distance to the 12th fret and it is slightly longer (shifted towards the bridge) which, to my ears, makes a difference in that voice, as evidenced on other non Gibson humbucking guitars I’ve played. That and something in the construction make a different, though still great guitar.

So I wound up buying a 175 VOS. After a buddy fixed a twist in the neck for me, it became my most played guitar, and my lovely L5 sits there, begging for attention (and still gets plenty, along with the JH.)

Anyway, it was a comparison outcome I did not expect and showed how little I know of guitar construction. Thankfully, we have the benefit of Jack’s research to save us some time. I trust his ears, as I do yours…. We are all in the same ballpark, I think, for tone preferences.

Thanks, didn't realize I had been gone so long

You and Jack have way more experience than I, no arguing there. I was just speculating that the more electric 175 tone (Bernstein, Kreisberg) seems to be more acheivable with other guitars, including the Sadowsky? Anyway, you have both, so your opinion is the one that counts!

[mr. beaumont]

I feel like the depth of a 175 isn't talked about enough as a key part of their sound.

[lesyeuxnoirs]

True, it does not have THAT 175 tone.

But about this one?

It would be hard for me, in a blidnfold test, to distinguish the sadowsky tone from this 175 tone.. (both trough Fender amps)

And maybe the amp counts too? Did Joe record Joy Spring on his Polytone? Maybe the Sadowsky trough a Polytone would get closer to that sound? Just speculating.

Joy Spring pre-dates Polytone, I think

[yebdox]

Thanks, didn't realize I had been gone so long

You and Jack have way more experience than I, no arguing there. I was just speculating that the more electric 175 tone (Bernstein, Kreisberg) seems to be more acheivable with other guitars, including the Sadowsky? Anyway, you have both, so your opinion is the one that counts!

I figured you had taken a break, as had I.

I like that tone that Sam gets, and my experience is certainly more limited than Jack’s, but I my discovery of the differences was surprising. I really thought a pickup swap could change the fundamental sound of a guitar. It can enhance, soften or emphasize the fundamental tones, but the wood and construction are more important than I would have thought earlier on and really seem to fix the character in a mostly unchangeable way.

Mahogany vs maple neck, scale length, body size and depth, pole piece distance, lam vs solid top, probably bracing as well. I think I had a prejudice coming from rock and blues in my teens and playing solid bodies, thinking that “it’s just a piece of wood, pickups and amps are where it’s at!” Silly assumptions from a young person.

Anyway, there does seem to be a formula for the 175 sound that, if violated, produces a different result. Neck wood and pickups, seem to have less influence than body construction, scale length and pickup placement, from what I can tell. And of course, picks and strings and amps, further down the line.

And yes, Peter’s 175 tone is one of my faves, probably more than that classic clip from Joe P, but Jack is right, that seems to be the fundamental, skeletal, woody thunk that sets 175’s apart. Wonder why no builder wants to try to replicate that. Maybe because you can still just buy one.

I’d like to see Sadowsky move the pickup towards the neck and increase the body depth and see how that changes things, but that would be an expensive one off.

Actually, as I think about it, closely replicating Gibson’s design, specs and construction seems to be the aim of the guys at Westville, and seems successful from what limited listening I’ve had online. I think there’s a clip somewhere featuring some of their top players (sorry I don’t remember their names) all playing the 175 copy that sounded pretty good.Maybe there is a reproducible formula after all.

[yebdox]

[rob taft]

Joy Spring pre-dates Polytone, I think

Joy Spring was recorded in 1964 before the founding of Polytone. Joe Pass was probably using an Ampeg B12 which he used on some of the earlier Pacific Jazz recordings or a Fender Twin.

[jorgemg1984]

Joy Spring pre-dates Polytone, I think

Makes sense, than it's the 175 sound! I agree I never heard that specific sound out of any other instrument.

[jorgemg1984]

I figured you had taken a break, as had I.

I like that tone that Sam gets, and my experience is certainly more limited than Jack’s, but I my discovery of the differences was surprising. I really thought a pickup swap could change the fundamental sound of a guitar. It can enhance, soften or emphasize the fundamental tones, but the wood and construction are more important than I would have thought earlier on and really seem to fix the character in a mostly unchangeable way.

Mahogany vs maple neck, scale length, body size and depth, pole piece distance, lam vs solid top, probably bracing as well. I think I had a prejudice coming from rock and blues in my teens and playing solid bodies, thinking that “it’s just a piece of wood, pickups and amps are where it’s at!” Silly assumptions from a young person.

Anyway, there does seem to be a formula for the 175 sound that, if violated, produces a different result. Neck wood and pickups, seem to have less influence than body construction, scale length and pickup placement, from what I can tell. And of course, picks and strings and amps, further down the line.

And yes, Peter’s 175 tone is one of my faves, probably more than that classic clip from Joe P, but Jack is right, that seems to be the fundamental, skeletal, woody thunk that sets 175’s apart. Wonder why no builder wants to try to replicate that. Maybe because you can still just buy one.

I’d like to see Sadowsky move the pickup towards the neck and increase the body depth and see how that changes things, but that would be an expensive one off.

Actuslly, as I think about it, closely replicating Gibson’s design, specs and construction seems to be the aim of the guys at Westville, and seems successful from what limited listening I’ve had online. I think there’s a clip somewhere featuring some of their top players (sorry I don’t remember their names) all playing the 175 copy that sounded pretty good.Maybe there is a reproducible formula after all.

My break was more from posts, I kept reading it, just felt at a point I was repeating my opinions too much and they are already well docomented here.

I agree with everything you said, and it seems Westville is the first to actually get close to the 175? I think Jack also had a 77, but in the end wasn't close to enough to the 175?

I can only talk from the experience with my 1965 Guild X-500 that I modded a lot. I had a Bare Knuckle Stormy Monday in there for a long time (after not enojying the Classic 57 that I put previosuly there) and it was a pickup that brought the guitar acoustic tone come trough a lot - it sound like a guitar that was perfect for Jim Hall. No matter how loud you played it always sounded acoustic. I switched to a Slash Seymour Duncan and it's a much more electric sound - not the 175 Joe Pass sound but not that different from Sam or Pete's tone (not the playing, though, unfortunatelly). Trying to avoid hyperboles here, but it's a very big difference in sound and I only swapped a pickup - and we're talking about a guitar that I knew REALLY well - with the new pickup it sounds like a new guitar, really.

[lesyeuxnoirs]

Well I think that detail isn’t relevant to the op particularly. He wants an alternative to a 175,

and as a 175 player I regret to say I can’t think of one. Maybe a luthier? Nothing from Far Eastern makers (fine guitars in their own right) that I’ve played. A pickup swap won’t do it, obviously.

The tonal qualities of the the 175 are very apparent unplugged, very distinct. A lot of this has to do with attack and decay characteristics, which pickup changes wouldn’t affect. It’s also independent of amplification.

It can be a frustration in some ways, but it does what it does. I ended up buying a 335 (with similar pickups lol) to cover the aspects the guitar couldn’t do. But it does what it does so well, I couldn’t part with it. Nothing else seems to do that specific thing.

Pickups can change the sound, but they don’t change it that way.

Thanks Christian

I should clarify that the OP (me) doesn’t need or want a 175 or alternative. I’ve sold two!

I just think this is an interesting topic and I’ve enjoyed the detail of everybody’s responses

[yebdox]

My break was more from posts, I kept reading it, just felt at a point I was repeating my opinions too much and they are already well docomented here.

I agree with everything you said, and it seems Westville is the first to actually get close to the 175? I think Jack also had a 77, but in the end wasn't close to enough to the 175?

I can only talk from the experience with my 1965 Guild X-500 that I modded a lot. I had a Bare Knuckle Stormy Monday in there for a long time (after not enojying the Classic 57 that I put previosuly there) and it was a pickup that brought the guitar acoustic tone come trough a lot - it sound like a guitar that was perfect for Jim Hall. No matter how loud you played it always sounded acoustic. I switched to a Slash Seymour Duncan and it's a much more electric sound - not the 175 Joe Pass sound but not that different from Sam or Pete's tone (not the playing, though, unfortunatelly). Trying to avoid hyperboles here, but it's a very big difference in sound and I only swapped a pickup - and we're talking about a guitar that I knew REALLY well - with the new pickup it sounds like a new guitar, really.

Great, you’ve just added more mystery back into the game for me! Ha.

It’s all a fun process, as long as you wind up with something that makes you want to play more, instead of fiddle with gear (of which I have been too guilty in the past, though Jack seems to be able to pull off an immense amount of gear research while maintaining a high level of playing…. Probably some sort of alien, masquerading as a mere human. )

[jorgemg1984]

Interestingly enough, Kreisberg just posted a 175 clip. Sounds great, as always.

[ThatRhythmMan]

I shot most of this video before this thread went up and this prompted me to finish it up.

Some may find this of interest as while they are all vintage ES-175s, they all have different pickups, only one set of which is made by Gibson (not including Herb Ellis’s 175 which has a PAT#). The ‘57 has Throbaks, the ‘60 has Gibson MHS, and the ‘62 had SD (59 in the neck and Custom Custom in the bridge).

The playing won’t be up to the level of the other videos posted, but I think the character of the guitars comes through.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jzucker]

True, it does not have THAT 175 tone.

But about this one?

It would be hard for me, in a blidnfold test, to distinguish the sadowsky tone from this 175 tone.. (both trough Fender amps)

And maybe the amp counts too? Did Joe record Joy Spring on his Polytone? Maybe the Sadowsky trough a Polytone would get closer to that sound? Just speculating.

Yes, i agree it sounds a lot like bernstein's tone on that recording. I believe bernstein was using a tube amp, maybe fender deluxe. That probably accounts for some of the bright compression on both of those recordings.

I'm not sure polytone was being manufactured when that joe pass recording came out. I wonder if joe plugged into the board ? Sounds like a SS amp for sure. Maybe a standel? Probably whatever the studio had on hand.

I had a sadowsky jim hall briefly and comparing it to the 175 in the room, the sadowsky was much brighter through the same amp which I attribute to the maple neck and ebony board. But clearly, it's a great sounding instrument.

[jzucker]

I shot most of this video before this thread went up and this prompted me to finish it up.

Some may find this of interest as while they are all vintage ES-175s, they all have different pickups, only one set of which is made by Gibson (not including Herb Ellis’s 175 which has a PAT#). The ‘57 has Throbaks, the ‘60 has Gibson MHS, and the ‘62 had SD (59 in the neck and Custom Custom in the bridge).

The playing won’t be up to the level of the other videos posted, but I think the character of the guitars comes through.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

great stuff, thanks for posting!

[jzucker]

PSA, this is virtually the same guitar as the sadowsky in the video above...

D’Aquisto Jazz Line Early 2000s blonde | Reverb

[John A.]

Here’s a Seventy-Seven. I think this tone falls within the range of variation one hears with 175s. If blindfolded and told it was a 175, I doubt many people would say "no way!" And this is a laminated spruce top, 5-piece maple neck, and ebony fingerboard.

[yebdox]

Interestingly enough, Kreisberg just posted a 175 clip. Sounds great, as always.

I think a big part of Kreisberg's tone comes from his incredible pick control, so precise and even. I tried roundwounds and they are always too bright, with too much string noise, but he pulls it off, somehow.

That basic 175 tone is still there to my ears, though, not quite as "thunky", but just that full range of frequencies, like hitting the loudness button on a stereo, or using a nice clean boost pedal with the same effect (Xotic RC booster, anyone?)

[wzpgsr]

I played a 1954 ES-175 strung with halfwound strings earlier today. So much more resonant than my 2006 ES-175, which has the Joy Spring sound in spades—and which I like quite a bit. But despite both guitars being ES-175s, they were pretty different animals. I’ve spent the rest of the day debating whether or not to unload a good chunk of my stable to snag that 1954, though…it’s natural finish, it’s local, it’s in fantastic shape, it could replace several of my other guitars, and it costs an arm and a leg.

[jorgemg1984]

I shot most of this video before this thread went up and this prompted me to finish it up.

Some may find this of interest as while they are all vintage ES-175s, they all have different pickups, only one set of which is made by Gibson (not including Herb Ellis’s 175 which has a PAT#). The ‘57 has Throbaks, the ‘60 has Gibson MHS, and the ‘62 had SD (59 in the neck and Custom Custom in the bridge).

The playing won’t be up to the level of the other videos posted, but I think the character of the guitars comes through.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brilliant! Funny how they sound different and alike at the same time...