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

[lesyeuxnoirs]

I was up half the night with a sick child (fine now) and my mind turned to this question, so thought I would share it

Over the years on this forum, I have seen many a post where people have asked about 175 alternatives. The conclusion is usually that only a 175 can do what a 175 does. I agree that of the more widely available laminate guitars with similar dimensions (Eastman, Ibanez) - none sounds like a 175. Similarly, I understand that there are also top tier laminate guitars (Sadowsky, Benedetto, Westville) that don't seek to emulate the 175

I imagine that people used to ask about 175 alternatives for reasons of affordability but now, of course, they simply don't make them anymore

Accepting that the used market isn't quite so vibrant or affordable as it once was (especially outside of the US), where does that leave anybody who is chasing da thunk, chasing one the great and classic jazz guitar tones?

Incidentally, I am not looking (I sold one recently, with no regrets) but I am just curious

I am struck by the contrast, say, with anybody who might be in the market for an L5. No problem: Mark Campellone

Why isn't there a credible alternative to the Gibson 175? Presumably there aren't any great secrets - woods, dimensions, bracing etc. - known only to G-Corp? Is it just a simple matter that the highly skilled craftsmen (sic) who make top quality archtops tend not to make their own laminates?

I would be really interested if anybody knows the reasons for this and, of course, if I am just wrong

I know that Jesse van Ruller and perhaps some others on this forum have spoken highly of The Archtop Tribute (Custom) guitars from Japan. And of course there are the 'lawsuit' era guitars

[Webby]

I think Ken Mckay builds an Es-175 style guitar. I heard good things about his builds, but don't have any first hand experiences.

Paul

[vintagelove]

First off, consider the amount of variation in 175’s over the course of their production. What exactly is a 175? The lighter built models of the 50’s, or the heavy built later models? Thin or fat neck? What about the mahogany back, lots of people say they’re special.


I’m willing to bet that if you took a comparably built guitar, and stuck Gibson pickups in it, the difference would be about as much as you would find within the 175 production changes themselves.

[Sam Sherry]

I have really been enjoying this 1965 ES-125CD, bought this summer as a husk and built with mostly non-Gibson parts. This is the full-depth, actually-built-on-an-ES175-body model.

It's "not an ES-175" because it has less binding on the actually-an-ES-175 body, unbound dot neck and . . . P90s, ohhh yeah.




(The thin-body ES-125-TC is much more common. Like most people I feel that a 1.75" thin-body is "not an ES-175 substitute" but everybody gets to make that choice for themself.)

The 125C may not be common but I am mighty glad I looked!

[ThatRhythmMan]

I have really been enjoying this 1965 ES-125CD, bought this summer as a husk and built with mostly non-Gibson parts. This is the full-depth, actually-built-on-an-ES175-body model.

It's "not an ES-175" because it has less binding on the actually-an-ES-175 body, unbound dot neck and . . . P90s, ohhh yeah.




(The thin-body ES-125-TC is much more common. Like most people I feel that a 1.75" thin-body is "not an ES-175 substitute" but everybody gets to make that choice for themself.)

The 125C may not be common but I am mighty glad I looked!

These are cool guitars. I just came into a ‘65 ES-125C with a rocker bridge and factory Bigsby that’s in phenomenal condition. It’s available if it happens to ring anyone’s bell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John A.]

I think this a bit of a misreading of the discussion. There are some guitars that nail the sound (with the caveat that there’s variety among actual 175’s). Examples include Some of the other Gibson laminate models, a few different ibanezes, the old Aria Herb Ellis, and some of the current boutique Japanese makers. But many of the lookalikes don’t, especially the Eastman ar371/2. People are also somewhat fickle in their opinions on this subject, so it’s not the case that there’s consistent settled wisdom.

To the extent that there really is a 175 (or Gibson laminate) secret sauce, it’s probably the specifics of their maple/poplar/maple wood.

[BBGuitar]

I have a 1968 175d. It sits in the case. I prefer my Eastman AR610 with a condenser gooseneck.

If someone would pay me what they are supposed to be worth I would sell in a heartbeat.

[lesyeuxnoirs]

I think this a bit of a misreading of the discussion. There are some guitars that nail the sound (with the caveat that there’s variety among actual 175’s). Examples include Some of the other Gibson laminate models, a few different ibanezes, the old Aria Herb Ellis, and some of the current boutique Japanese makers. But many of the lookalikes don’t, especially the Eastman ar371/2. People are also somewhat fickle in their opinions on this subject, so it’s not the case that there’s consistent settled wisdom.

To the extent that there really is a 175 (or Gibson laminate) secret sauce, it’s probably the specifics of their maple/poplar/maple wood.

thanks re: the secret sauce point

and yes, I agree, people are fickle on the topic and very true re: variation in 175

You’re right: I should clarify that I was not intending to suggest this is consistent or settled wisdom, nor was I representing a single discussion. I’ve just seen it said a few times over the years and I found it interesting

May I ask which Ibanezes are said to nail ‘the’ sound? I’m guessing nothing current?

[John A.]

thanks re: the secret sauce point

and yes, I agree, people are fickle on the topic and very true re: variation in 175

You’re right: I should clarify that I was not intending to suggest this is consistent or settled wisdom, nor was I representing a single discussion. I’ve just seen it said a few times over the years and I found it interesting

May I ask which Ibanezes are said to nail ‘the’ sound? I’m guessing nothing current?

FG100, FA100, and AF125, are worth a look.

[jazzkritter]

I would add the Ibanez LGB300.
On the heavy side and it has a very much 175 sound and feel, more so than the thinner lighter AFs. This is the MIJ not the Indonesian LGB30.
Problem is they’re darn rare to find, and the MSRP list price is (too) high. Neck is more Guild than Gibson, which George wanted.
Ive posted before I’m committed to Mz jk to sell mine for my GB10 purchase, but I’m stringing this out in hopes she will forget. Not bloody likely
Geez don’t tell her.
jk

[hotpepper01]

May I ask which Ibanezes are said to nail ‘the’ sound? I’m guessing nothing current?

I once had a 1978 Gibson ES175 and a ?1977? Ibanez 2355 at the same time. Soundwise, they were very comparable. They looked very similar as well.
But certainly not in terms of playability, feel and appointments/finish. The ibby had a much thinner D shape neck, the inlays were cheap feeling, I believe it was poly instead of nitro etc.
There are more good copies out there from Greco, Orville, just to name a few.

[jazzkritter]

Having owned three 175s at various times, each had its own unique “playability, feel, and appointments/finish”. Oddly to me the ‘79 Norlin was a dream, in all ways (until its trust rod snapped). I have an excellent L5CESN and a TF, but prefer Ibanez playability, feel, and finish (consistent quality vs Gibson oversprays, etc.)

Not sure that a 2355 is a fair comparison to the build quality of a Fujigen ‘JCrew’ MIJ current build at all. That rosewood neck and plastic markers are not the Ebony and Abalone/Acrylic on the MIJs now. (Yes, I’m aware Acrylic is a “plastic”, but that stuffs come a long way from the 70’s cruddy Japanese plastic our transistor radios were made of.)

BTW the current Ibanez hollow neck measures the same as the Gibson Tal Farlow, a fine and respected guitar (if you search back I posted the measurements). The early Ibanez necks were definitely thinner than today.
However, the LGB300 neck, which again George specified to be nearer Guild than Gibson, is the thickest of the Ibanez hollow body necks.

LGB300:

• Scale :
  628mm/24.7"
  
• a : Width
  45mm at NUT
  
• b : Width
  58mm at 22F
  
• c : Thickness
  20mm at 1F
  
• d : Thickness
  22mm at 9F
  
• Radius :
  305mmR

AF2000

• Scale :
  628mm/24.7"
  
• a : Width
  43mm at NUT
  
• b : Width
  56.5mm at 20F
  
• c : Thickness
  20mm at 1F
  
• d : Thickness
  22mm at 12F
  
• Radius :
  305mmR

[ronjazz]

My Gretsch 5420 and 5422 are my 175 substitutes, with far more tonal variety. They are more versatile, yet get a wonderful Jim Hall-Herb Ellis tone when needed. They feel lot like the 175s I have owned, but the pickups are somehow more musical to me, and enable me to play in a variety of styles that the 175s never made me happy doing. I really like my 175s for certain gigs, but not for there. The Gretsches do it all, in my opinion, and you can get a really nice one for $800.

[wintermoon]

I once had a 1978 Gibson ES175 and a ?1977? Ibanez 2355 at the same time. Soundwise, they were very comparable. They looked very similar as well.
But certainly not in terms of playability, feel and appointments/finish. The ibby had a much thinner D shape neck, the inlays were cheap feeling, I believe it was poly instead of nitro etc.
There are more good copies out there from Greco, Orville, just to name a few.

The Gibson is nitro, the Ibanez poly.

[orri]

IF YOU WANT A 175, ONLY A 175 WILL DO.

Will it?

I really wanted a 175.
Then I got a 175 (best guitar I've ever had)
I constantly ponder whether I should get a second one.

(one of the strongest arguments against getting a second one is that I know that I will unavoidable eventually want a third one)

[Gabor]

Because: In general if one want a Gibson, then only a Gibson will do it.

Probably there is no more behind it.

[jim777]

I think given how widely various 175s can differ it's not as simple as 'any one will do'. On the other hand, if I want chicken parm I'm not going to buy eggplant parm and think, "yeah, this is what I wanted" when I get it.

That said, I went through 3 different 175s in the 80's when I was in a Yes cover band, and eventually ended up with a late 70's Ibanez FA-100. Still have the FA-100 and don't even have pics of the 175s. At the end of the day it's just a tool - if it doesn't fit the job replace it with something that does and get down to getting down.

[jzucker]

I think Ken Mckay builds an Es-175 style guitar. I heard good things about his builds, but don't have any first hand experiences.


Paul

I talked to him extensively about his 175 and my impression was that he wasn't quite confident it nailed the classic 175 tone. I think it was more of an experiment. He's more focused on nailing the vintage 335 tone.

First off, consider the amount of variation in 175’s over the course of their production. What exactly is a 175? The lighter built models of the 50’s, or the heavy built later models? Thin or fat neck? What about the mahogany back, lots of people say they’re special.


I’m willing to bet that if you took a comparably built guitar, and stuck Gibson pickups in it, the difference would be about as much as you would find within the 175 production changes themselves.

As you probably know, I've owned close to a dozen 175s. They all were slightly different but all of them shared the same basic, thunky tone except for the late '50s ones which had very thin tops. Regarding your comment about comparably build guitars, there aren't any as far as I have been able to tell. The Eastman 371/372 is built nothing like the gibson and sounds nothing like it.

I would add the Ibanez LGB300.
On the heavy side and it has a very much 175 sound and feel, more so than the thinner lighter AFs. This is the MIJ not the Indonesian LGB30.
Problem is they’re darn rare to find, and the MSRP list price is (too) high. Neck is more Guild than Gibson, which George wanted.
Ive posted before I’m committed to Mz jk to sell mine for my GB10 purchase, but I’m stringing this out in hopes she will forget. Not bloody likely
Geez don’t tell her.
jk

Doesn't sound like a 175 at all IMO...

[MtnCat]

Here is an interesting sample of various 175's by Kazumi Watanable.

[Stringswinger]

Will it?

I really wanted a 175.
Then I got a 175 (best guitar I've ever had)
I constantly ponder whether I should get a second one.

(one of the strongest arguments against getting a second one is that I know that I will unavoidable eventually want a third one)

I have three Gibson ES=175's and over the years have owned six others. All I can say is this:

"Ain't nothing like the real thing". Of course which "real thing" floats your boat can involve a search. Of the six I sold, I only miss three of them.

[wzpgsr]

For what it’s worth, I had a single pickup Seventy Seven Hawk Deep Standard that was fairly reminiscent of a late 50s ES-175 and was a fantastic value. I now have a 2006 ES-175, which I expected to sound
“modern,” but it is quite dark sounding and really nails the quintessential low-end ES-175 attack thing. My mid-50s ES-125 sits somewhere between the two.

[Rograt]

I bought a ‘72 ES175D to keep me going during the build of my carved top. Unfortunately for various reasons I only had my full stack to play it through for a long time and even though one of the 4 channels is squeaky clean I really didn’t get the 175, especially as I couldn’t get on with the acoustic tone at all. Then I bought a proper amp for it and the logic jumped out. You (well I at least) have to treat them like a solid body. They completely come alive with the appropriate amplification. Warm chords, fast articulate lead runs. All of those classic sounds are there just waiting for you. How does it compare with other makes of similar instruments? Can’t answer except to say I’ll keep this one thanks.

[vintagelove]

I talked to him extensively about his 175 and my impression was that he wasn't quite confident it nailed the classic 175 tone. I think it was more of an experiment. He's more focused on nailing the vintage 335 tone.




As you probably know, I've owned close to a dozen 175s. They all were slightly different but all of them shared the same basic, thunky tone except for the late '50s ones which had very thin tops. Regarding your comment about comparably build guitars, there aren't any as far as I have been able to tell. The Eastman 371/372 is built nothing like the gibson and sounds nothing like it.





Doesn't sound like a 175 at all IMO...

Hello, ironically I had you in the back of my mind when I posted it. I was thinking of the demo you posted below. It sounds like you had the tone rolled off a bit more on the 2nd guitar, but it’s within the realm of guitars on the Kazumi video. Frankly, I think it sounds better than the early gibsons demo’s. If you put a Gibson pickup in there, it would be even closer.

I wasn’t thinking of the Eastmans, way too light of a build. Decent guitar for the price, but not at all like a 175. I was thinking of old Japanese companies like Greco. Their pickups have room for improvement, but I know my LPC is every bit as good as a Gibson (like it better than the GibsonLPC I had). Hell, I play it more than my 175…


The point is, if you stuck a Gibson pick up in the middle guitar from your video, or either the guitars below, then you put that in the middle of that Kazumi video, they’d be in the ballpark, and I know I would prefer them to the light 50’s builds. Then some guys would swear up and down only the 50’s 175 sound good…

[jzucker]

between the seventy seven, ventura and greco, it seems the greco has more of that 175 goodness to it.

Hello, ironically I had you in the back of my mind when I posted it. I was thinking of the demo you posted below. It sounds like you had the tone rolled off a bit more on the 2nd guitar, but it’s within the realm of guitars on the Kazumi video. Frankly, I think it sounds better than the early gibsons demo’s. If you put a Gibson pickup in there, it would be even closer.

I wasn’t thinking of the Eastmans, way too light of a build. Decent guitar for the price, but not at all like a 175. I was thinking of old Japanese companies like Greco. Their pickups have room for improvement, but I know my LPC is every bit as good as a Gibson (like it better than the GibsonLPC I had). Hell, I play it more than my 175…


The point is, if you stuck a Gibson pick up in the middle guitar from your video, or either the guitars below, then you put that in the middle of that Kazumi video, they’d be in the ballpark, and I know I would prefer them to the light 50’s builds. Then some guys would swear up and down only the 50’s 175 sound good…

[Sam Sherry]

I was thinking of old Japanese companies like Greco. Their pickups have room for improvement . . . The point is, if you stuck a Gibson pick up in . . . the guitars below, then you put that in the middle of that Kazumi video, they’d be in the ballpark, and I know I would prefer them to the light 50’s builds. Then some guys would swear up and down only the 50’s 175 sound good…

Ventura was a house line for C. Bruno and Sons, a division of Kaman / Ovation. (Another was Conqueror.) I grew up in the next town over so those guitars were everywhere. My Dad had an account, so I got to go to their "open warehouse day" once or twice too.

I used to sneer at them when I was a kid. The jazz guitars were often overbuilt. They had a poly finish. The pots were ass, the wire was thin and microphonic, the pickups were underwound and microphonic (and often used ceramic magnets), lots of higher-model copies had bolt-on necks . . .

Today I don't draw those lines. A used set of nice US-wound pickups is small dollars. Pots and wire is lunch money. Fix it up and play it on cold nights or blazing summer stages.
All these years later, they're still more guitar than I am guitarist.