Gibson L-4 vs ES-175

**Franz 1997** · 10-05-2017, 12:36 PM

I've had a couple of recent L4s, one maple, one mahog., and several 175s, from '62, 65, 76, 89 and 2000's. For me, maple vs mahog makes a big difference with both L4s and 175s. I find that mahog makes for a deeper bass and more recessed midrange in both models, and conversely, maple makes for tighter bass and more forward midrange, which i happen to like.

The L4 has a much more refined sound, as you'd expect, with the carved top; it's a 3 dimensional sound, very balanced, great as a solo instrument. What it doesn't have so much of is what the ES175 has in abundance, and that's what I'd call mid-range weight to the note, esp on the top end. That's why IMO the ES 175 is such a great combo instrument; heard by itself, the 175 sound is a bit clanky and 2-dimensional, but sitting in a band mix, there's nothing like it for cutting through with a solid midrange and top end. The L4, by contrast, is less good at that.

In my experience, L4s have pretty consistent neck shapes, whereas as often mentioned here, 175 neck shapes are all over the place, from fat to very thin, to thick again and seemed to have recently settled in a rather odd thin-to- thick configuration

Worth noting that the 50s/60s L4C ( some of which were factory electrified) looked just like ES175s. I have a 58 electrified maple/ spruce L4C and think that it's the best of both worlds, whilst looking just like a 175, apart from the grain lines.

**Dennis D** · 10-05-2017, 01:16 PM

I've had both a '60's 175 and an '89 L-4. For what they'll do, there's no comparison, regardless of the back material. The L-4 CES does a good impression of a 175 if you think you need it, but has its own sound too, which I found fuller from top to bottom than a 175.
You just have sound choices w/ an L-4 CES, that you'll never have w/ a 175. A 175 gives you that sound and if you like it, great - -but if you tire of it, you're stuck.
To the OP who already has an L-4 and likes it, and is wondering about a 175, I just say : " You've already hit at least a triple, if not a home run with the L-4. The best you're going to do with a 175 is a double."

And bang for the buck, because the market likes the 175's, the L-4's are a deal.

Just MHO

**Marty Grass** · 10-05-2017, 01:41 PM

The last 175 I owned was a long time ago. I got it used, and it was stamped "BGN"- bargain, for a minor cosmetic flaw. (Nowadays I doubt it would be stamped BGN or 2nd. It would be sold as normal stock.) I don't remember what I paid for it, but it wasn't that expensive.

I played it a lot. It sounded great and did cut through the piano comping very well. It wasn't that hard to prevent feedback either.

Years later I look back and now appreciate that a major advantage the 175 had over my L5 is that I had no fear of gigging with it. The audience would not hear the difference between a carved and laminate instrument anyway. My band mates probably couldn't tell either really.

I took it out in high and low humidity and temperatures, something I wouldn't do with an upscale carved instrument. I was just more comfortable with it.

As far as tone goes, I found someone who sounds pretty good with the 175!

I do like the L-4 a lot but feel the need to protect it more. That just makes sense.

At the birth of our 4th kid I had to sell the 175. That's one I miss, at least in part because I never worried about it.

**vinnyv1k** · 10-05-2017, 01:49 PM

I have a 2014 L4CES and 4 175's. I have not played a laminate maple back L4. Mine is carved mahogany. I love them both for different reasons. They both sound very different but play the same. Same body and neck dimensions. The 175 has the classic laminate sound. The L4 is way more balanced with a mellower more angelic sound. I love my L4 and like my 175's very much. IMO it is very justified to own both. They sound very different. I will never sell my L4 but would sell my 175's.
L4's are no longer a deal. People finally caught on about them. $7K new now. I would like to get a maple backed L4 and dump 3 175's.
IMO ever jazz player needs 1 good 175 in their stable though the L4CES is a far superior guitar. L4's do not have the 175 thunk but they have a sweeter tone. They look almost the same but are very different animals.

**Franz 1997** · 10-05-2017, 01:49 PM

To the OP's point, I'd say the only reason to get a 175 if you already have an L4, is if you are gigging a lot with e.g. piano or horns, and you really need to cut through the mix with your single lines. I'd still say that the 175 absolutely excels at that one thing - and that might have something to do with how many past giant players have used them for that purpose. For other purposes, the L4 is both sweeter and somewhat more versatile, as Dennis D suggests.

**docbop** · 10-05-2017, 02:11 PM

Joe loved the 175 played it all day and on gigs. For a short time Diorio, Les Wise, and a third instructor or may Martino all got Benedetto's. Benedetto gave them the guitars or dirty cheap prices. Diorio played his Benedetto for about two weeks then back to the 175. I think Les Wise was only one who kept playing their Benedetto.

Later at MI Dioro used to hang out all the time with Brazilian guitarist Pino Moreno and Pino had a beautiful L4. Diorio would swap guitars with Pino and play all the time he liked that L4.

**silverfoxx** · 10-05-2017, 06:12 PM

I have also owned a 2015 Es175 VOS '59 and a 2008 L4CES (, Mahogany back & sides). At the
same time . I still have the L4Ces, but not the Es175. There is a marked difference between them
as others here have already said. The consensus seems to advocate an Es175 if playing with a horn
section ,If I could turn back the clock it would not be my first choice.

**rhoadsscholar** · 10-05-2017, 06:32 PM

Thanks for all the great comments. I will hope for my sake (not Gibson's sake), that CME might still be blowing out these guitars around Christmas time. Floor Model figured 175's for 2200 made me start to wonder if I should move a few things to make room for a 175.

Still love hearing from folks that have/had both and why you like one more than the other. I will try some of the tips here to see if I can coax new sounds out of my L4-CES. BTW: My L4-CES is a 2013 so it has the solid mahogany back and sides. Can't say I ever played the laminate maple or laminate mahogany versions of the L4-CES. Any difference between the Maple Laminate 175s vs. the Mahogany Laminate 175's or is that just crazy talk?

**goldenwave77** · 10-05-2017, 07:01 PM

I have the maple-back model, and I really like it. I think the attack is a little quicker than with the mahogany-backed models, and there is a little more clarity of tone, overall.

I'm basing this on clips from Jon Dalton's YT site where he plays the mahogany-backed model, and he terms the rich, more bass-heavy sound of the mahog. back as "plummy".

(Before, I called the treble tone of the maple-backed L4 "creamy"...what I mean by this is that it almost reminds me of an organ, or maybe vibes or a xylophone...not sharp, piercing trebles...maybe even a little Les Paul like, at least with the front pu. Switching to back pu gives plenty of "cut" and almost twanginess, so a pretty wide range of tones.)

**Bluedawg** · 10-06-2017, 01:15 AM

I have an '85 ES 175D and an '88 L4 CES ...

My '88 L4 is ebony so I can't really see which wood is on the back and side ... but it looks like mahogany inside

I've heard rumors that the 88s were pressed and not carved ... could be laminate back and side, too, for all I know

but it sounds great

I would say to go with both if you can afford it

The 175 is a classic sound that's hard to beat

As you already know the L4 can be great, too

**GNAPPI** · 10-06-2017, 02:00 AM

I have a cheapo Ibanez AG-86 that has a "Bubinga" laminated (over mahogany) top, back and sides as well as having a mahogany / maple / mahogany neck and the difference between it and my other Ibanez all maple constructed gits (and maple 95' ES-175) is remarkable. Even though it's only 14.5" it is more acoustically alive both with and without an amp. It's a much more mellow, somewhat darker sound than any of my maple gits even with the much maligned ACH pickups.

Even though I've never played a Gibson archtop in mahogany, based on my experience with my Ibanez AG, and overall comments on mahogany constructed gits, I'd be very unlikely to buy another maple model if mahogany were available.

**powerwagonjohn** · 10-07-2017, 05:13 PM

That settles it then. I had been playing my semi-hollow bodies today, Guild Starfire IV and VI and ES-345. Now I have to get the L-4CES out to play. I never had a ES-175 but have played many in stores and never found one that I had to have. I would think a ES-175 with P-90 would be different enough to justify having a ES-175 and an L-4CES at the same time. It would be cold day for me to sell my L-4CES!
Thanks John

**Max405** · 10-08-2017, 12:15 PM

Pwj, I am not surprised that you never found a 175 in stores that you had to have.
They usually don’t grab you and immediately attach themselves to you. It’s more of a long term thing. Once you have a 175, you don’t get sick of it. It’s a guitar that becomes an absolute go to instrument over time. And then, when you don’t have one you feel a void.
JD

**powerwagonjohn** · 10-08-2017, 11:37 PM

I may go by CME this week on a trip to Kalamazoo so I will check out a few 175's if I get a chance maybe stop by Heritage too. I will take your suggestion to heart but most of my best guitars spoke to me the first time I played them. My Guild Starfires, ES-345, L-4CES, 52 L-4, Tele and my new Martin CEO-7 stand out at the time. I don't buy just guitars anymore but inspiration.
Thanks John

**floatingpickup** · 10-09-2017, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by rhoadsscholar

If someone (like me) already has a wonderful Gibson L4-CES, would it be redundant to get an ES-175. I know there are construction differences and pickup placement. For those that own both, do you find you get uniquely different voices from the two guitars. Many L4CES owners brag they can get that ES175 sound out of their L4CES guitars, but many swear by the sound of an ES-175.

I had an L4CES (maple back and sides). I also had three ES175's at the same time, so I was able to make comparisons. The L4 was a beautiful guitar and sounded great, but different than my 175's. I posted a video comparing the L4 to my favorite ES 175 (a 1959 with paf's). In the video, the L4 actually seems to sound better, but on a gig, the ES175 sounded better to me. I miss the L4 in a way, but I ended up letting it go. I posted a link to the video if anyone is interested.
Keith

**Stringswinger** · 10-09-2017, 10:14 AM

Keith,

Listening to your demo, The 175 sounds more acoustic to my ears. And seeing how the L-4CES is built in a time when Gibsons were built more heavily (and has a TOM bridge), that is no surprise. That said, an electric guitar with a more "acoustic" sound will cut through the din of a bandstand better than a warmer "electric" sounding guitar.

I suspect that if Joe Pass, Herb Ellis and Jim Hall all played an L-4CES, we would all want one. We guitarists all want to play the guitars of our heroes.

**Max405** · 10-09-2017, 12:18 PM

Keith,
Outstanding post.
You debunked the myth about the laminate not sounding acoustic. Your 175 sounds a lot like my 165 (with the floater).
Your L4 sounds splendid in your insanely capable hands. And you are CLASS all the way.
It was nice hearing you talk Keith. And even better hearing you talk and PLAY!!.
Very, very cool.
Joe D

**rhoadsscholar** · 10-09-2017, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Stringswinger

Keith,

Listening to your demo, The 175 sounds more acoustic to my ears. And seeing how the L-4CES is built in a time when Gibsons were built more heavily (and has a TOM bridge), that is no surprise. That said, an electric guitar with a more "acoustic" sound will cut through the din of a bandstand better than a warmer "electric" sounding guitar.

I suspect that if Joe Pass, Herb Ellis and Jim Hall all played an L-4CES, we would all want one. We guitarists all want to play the guitars of our heroes.

THANKS for posting you video. It helps a lot. You pointed out a few things to look for to discern the difference between the L4CES and the 175, the sweet spot, and the high registers certainly show the differences between the two guitars. Much appreciated. I have decided to continue to enjoy my L4CES for now and coax some new sounds/tones based on the great info provided in this thread. Christmas is coming and maybe those sweet ES175's might still be around. Thanks to all who posted. JGF is a great forum.

**vinnyv1k** · 10-09-2017, 05:38 PM

That video he is playing a 1959 reissue VOS 175. They sound very plinky and much more acoustic as compared to a regular figured type 175. The VOS and regular 175 sound differences are night and day. Also the VOS is a good pound lighter. They also use very skinny frets on the VOS which attributes to the plinkiness in sound.
The VOS is bright and lively and the regular is more dark and warm sounding. Personal sound choice but they are very different animals.

**Stringswinger** · 10-09-2017, 05:55 PM

Vinny, I assumed that Keith was playing the real thing (with real PAF's). But your statement stands. My 1963 ES-175D is way more acoustic sounding than my 1997 ES-175D.

**customxke** · 10-09-2017, 11:05 PM

I'm going to throw myself on a grenade here.....in my opinion, and clearly not the opinion of others here....but in my opinion, an ES175 has it's own thing going. Its a classic sound we all know and love....but I feel like when I play an L4, what goes through my head is that it's not quite an L5, sonically. I guess I'm just married to those classic sounds that I want to hear in my head.

**Max405** · 10-10-2017, 01:21 PM

CustomXKE,
There is nothing wrong with your opinion, at all.
Its a matter of taste.
I still feel the majority of the tone comes from the hands of the player anyway. For some reason, I make L5's sound like crap. Its definitely not the guitar, its me.
Joe D

**vinnyv1k** · 10-14-2017, 08:07 PM

I am actually very impressed with the new non VOS 2016 regular flamed 175's. They have spruce bracing and a different pickup and bone nut. They have a very different sound than the 90's to 2012 175. Very warm but also very articulate with a lot of sustain. They are not bright and plinky like a VOS and they are not thunky like a 90's 175. They have a very nice mid and the bass is focused and tight. They almost sound carved. I bought 2 a while back and with the smoking CME deals just bought 2 more just in case Gibson stops making them. Though the bridge is pinned the intonation is spot on. Perfect neck carve too. I have another blonde coming Tuesday.
I will off a couple of them in the spring. Totally well worth the $2K big time. Stunning flame on these puppies too.
The 2016's have medium/medium frets though the one I just got from CME is a 2017 and it has jumbo/medium frets just like a L5.

These new ones sound like a hybrid between a 90's and a VOS. Kind of a little of the best of both worlds.
I still love my thunky 175 though.....nothing like that 175 thunk.

**floatingpickup** · 10-14-2017, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by vinnyv1k

That video he is playing a 1959 reissue VOS 175. They sound very plinky and much more acoustic as compared to a regular figured type 175. The VOS and regular 175 sound differences are night and day. Also the VOS is a good pound lighter. They also use very skinny frets on the VOS which attributes to the plinkiness in sound.
The VOS is bright and lively and the regular is more dark and warm sounding. Personal sound choice but they are very different animals.

Vinny:
The 175 in the video is a genuine 1959, not a reissue. It is all original, including the paf's. In a live/gig situation, it is the best sounding guitar I have ever owned, and I have owned a lot of high end archtops. That's the problem with evaluating a guitar in a bedroom...it doesn't really tell you what it will sound like in a club.
Keith

**floatingpickup** · 10-14-2017, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stringswinger

Vinny, I assumed that Keith was playing the real thing (with real PAF's). But your statement stands. My 1963 ES-175D is way more acoustic sounding than my 1997 ES-175D.

Marc: you are correct. My guitar is the real thing - an original 1959 ES175 with paf's. It's a wonderful instrument. If I could only keep one guitar, that would be the one.
Keith