Gibson ES-125 with sticker on back

[AllanAllen]

There's an Es 125 at a guitar center about 40 minutes from me. Seems reasonably priced but there's a big sticker on the back. Would you even bother driving to check this out? I assume it's nitro finish so I don't know if it can even be removed. Anyone have thoughts?

Vintage Gibson 1950s ES-125 Hollow Body Electric Guitar | Guitar Center

[mr. beaumont]

I'd absolutely check it out. Stuff like that doesn't bother me...as long as it's not covering a huge crack!

I was hotping it was at the one in CC Hills, I would have checked it out for you.

[Printer]

Stickers can be removed.

[JazzPadd]

They’re great guitars, I’d ride over there to check one out.

[AllanAllen]

Alright I’m going tomorrow.

[Tim Clark]

Who gives a f*** if there's a sticker on the back? It's a guitar for playing, not a museum piece to look at.

[AllanAllen]

Who gives a f*** if there's a sticker on the back? It's a guitar for playing, not a museum piece to look at.

I care that a $2,000 guitar looks
nice. I don’t think I need to defend this attitude. It’s not $99 Epi Les Paul Special.

did you see the image? It’s not pretty.

[Jim Soloway]

Es125's have gone from being the best buy in the vintage market to being pricy for what they are. Maybe too pricy (and I grew up playing one).

[AllanAllen]

but it would not be a $2000 guitar without the sticker...

Very true

[olejason]

Stickers on guitars from that era aren't too uncommon. It would probably be ill advised to try to remove it at this point. That said, it wouldn't bother me. $2k is about the going rate for an ES-125 in that condition from the 50's IMO.

[AllanAllen]

It’s got about 6 stickers all layered on it. Overall, it needs work and the build quality isn’t even on par with an old Kay. Quite a sobering experience.

[Jim Soloway]

It’s got about 6 stickers all layered on it. Overall, it needs work and the build quality isn’t even on par with an old Kay. Quite a sobering experience.

I know they've become fashionable in the last few years but in their day, they were close to the bottom of Gibson's lineup and were thought of as student guitars. Mine came from a Pawn shop in Winnipeg around 1963 for less than $100. Obviously that's a lot more when you account for inflation but it was really thought of as a cheap guitar at the time and i think it cost less than my cousins Silvertone archtop.

[AllanAllen]

I know they've become fashionable in the last few years but in their day, they were close to the bottom of Gibson's lineup and were thought of as student guitars. Mine came from a Pawn shop in Winnipeg around 1963 for less than $100. Obviously that's a lot more when you account for inflation but it was really thought of as a cheap guitar at the time and i think it cost less than my cousins Silvertone archtop.

I had no idea. Is there a better model that’s non cutaway with a single pocket?

[mr. beaumont]

Yeah, 125's were often rode hard and put away wet. Which I looked up, and that phrase is actually about horses. Go figure.

125's are great, but finding a good one ain't easy.

[Hammertone]

I had no idea. Is there a better model that’s non cutaway with a single pocket?

Sure - a nice '47 ES-300, 17" full depth, laminated body, one P-90. Happy to sell you one if you have $4,500 to spend. And no stickers on the back.

[AllanAllen]

$4,500 is too expensive for me to gig with. I have a feeling I’m going to be playing Eastman’s for a long time.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

It’s got about 6 stickers all layered on it. Overall, it needs work and the build quality isn’t even on par with an old Kay. Quite a sobering experience.

From the beginning into the first half of the 1960s, the build quality of all Gibsons was fine, regardless of price. The “better” ones were fancier, with better hardware (eg tuners). And the inherent nature of higher volume production vs high end luthiery meant that L5s etc were better guitars in many ways than 125s. But the basic build quality was pretty much as good at the bottom of the line as at the top.

If there’s evidence of poor workmanship, it’s more likely to be from poor maintenance and repair than from the original build.

$4,500 is too expensive for me to gig with. I have a feeling I’m going to be playing Eastman’s for a long time.

Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. As the happy guardian of two Eastmans (both archtops), I can say with certainty that I far prefer them to anything I’ve heard or played at 2 to 3 times the price, new or used.

[Stringswinger]

The combination of inflation (what was one dollar 20 years ago now costs twp dollars), Gibson's cessation of archtop production and a plethora of new guitarists from all the Covid lockdowns has made the cost of a Gibson archtop a bit prohibitive for a gigging nusician.

I bought all six of my Gibson archtops before all of this and so I continue to gig with them, but I am taking the carved examples out less and less as the value is making me consider the risk. While my three ES-175's are out almost every week (in rotation), I find myself taking my Les Pauls out more and more as they present less risk. I know that a solid body is not what a lot of jazz guitarists want to play (and I respect that), but taking a $5,000 guitar to a $100 gig is arguably, an imprudent choice. In today's world, an Asian made archtop makes a lot of sense for a gigging jazz guitarist.

I like playing my 175's too much to be sensible all the time it seems.

[Jim Soloway]

$4,500 is too expensive for me to gig with. I have a feeling I’m going to be playing Eastman’s for a long time.

Absolutely nothing wrong with playing an Eastman.

[wzpgsr]

I’ve owned a 1955 ES-125, a 1953 ES-175, and a 2006 ES-175. The 125 was easily the best playing instrument of the three, and close in sounds.

[AllanAllen]

I’ve owned a 1955 ES-125, a 1953 ES-175, and a 2006 ES-175. The 125 was easily the best playing instrument of the three, and close in sounds.

I don’t even know what to do with this information. The 125 I played was a dog.

It’s not all bad though, I REALLY enjoyed practicing on my Eastman afterwards.

[ruger9]

$4,500 is too expensive for me to gig with. I have a feeling I’m going to be playing Eastman’s for a long time.

I gig with my $5200 PRS, it's a solidbody but still... guitars are meant to be used. And no: I'm not a "professional musician" (making a living or even a partial living from playing music).

[sgosnell]

If Frank Vignola can regularly play Birdland with an Eastman, I wouldn't be ashamed to play one in a local bar. The Eastman I used to own (and stupidly sold) was a fine instrument.

[AllanAllen]

I gig with my $5200 PRS, it's a solidbody but still... guitars are meant to be used. And no: I'm not a "professional musician" (making a living or even a partial living from playing music).

It all depends on where you’re playing. Would you take that to a biker bar south of Chicago?

The kind of place where people roll up drinking and also take one for the drive home?

[ruger9]

It all depends on where you’re playing. Would you take that to a biker bar south of Chicago?

The kind of place where people roll up drinking and also take one for the drive home?

It wasn't south of Chicago, but yes- I've taken it to a place very much like that. My perspective is, I paid alot of damn money for the thing, I'm damn sure going to PLAY IT. Not baby it or have it be a "home stunner" for other people to be impressed by. That being said, I also don't think I'll ever pay that much for a guitar again- because it's simply not necessary. Out of the box it WAS the best playing/setup guitar I have ever purchased. Aside from my preferred strings, it did not need a thing done to it. It was perfect. Still is over year later. But I could also buy a $2000 telecaster, set it up myself, and have the same performance, so....

But this particular guitar was a bucket list thing- I HAD to experience it. No regrets.