Gibson L-4 vs ES-175

**vinnyv1k** · 10-14-2017, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by floatingpickup

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

Forgive my mistake Keith. 1959 was a very magical year for just about any Gibson model made.

**floatingpickup** · 10-14-2017, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by customxke

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.

I agree. An L4 doesn't sound like a 175 or an L5. Somewhere in the middle. Nice guitar, but different.
Keith

**vinnyv1k** · 10-14-2017, 08:48 PM

I have heard countless 175's over the years. My favorite will always be Herb Ellis' 1953. He let me pick it up and check it out. It was feather light like a nylon string.

L5's have always been pretty tone consistent. 175's have always been all over the map tone wise. I have heard a lot that just sounded dead but when you get a good one it is magical.
Fact is a great laminate can easily blow away a very good carved archtop.

**lawson-stone** · 10-15-2017, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by vinnyv1k

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.

I really wish you'd come up with a better term than "plinky" to describe the very authentic sound of the highs on the VOS ES175. It tells us you don't like the sound, but it doesn't actually tell us what the sound actually is. Someone with your vast background with these guitars can surely come up with a more descriptive and helpful term!

**vinnyv1k** · 10-15-2017, 03:35 PM

Actually I was trying to be kind with my term plinky as to not offend the people that like their sound.
If you want my absolute truth to my ears they sound horrible. Trust me I really tried to love them. I bought 5 of them. Just not my 175 sound. I simply prefer the modern build thick warm sound is all. To each his own.
Take a chill pill Lawson. I am extremely pleased that you love yours and everyone else too.
I am basically not a fan of any VOS model except the ES330 I do like.

**silverfoxx** · 10-15-2017, 05:22 PM

Lawson,
I have no wish to rub salt into the wound, but you have been
extraordinarily lucky to have a good "59 VOS 175 reissue 2015,
I bought one for £4k ( sterling not dollars ) it might have been
the identical twin of Vinny's, it was that bad. I returned it to Gibson
Europe, and was told that there was nothing wrong with it !( in a
dismissive manner.) There was everything wrong with it , three
separate Guitar techs agreed with my opinion of it , a Rattlebox
and with a horrible tone. When I said that I would contact the CEO
Henry J , their attitude changed, Needless to say, I did not keep
it. Like many members here I have owned a very large
number of Gibsons over a long period of time. I can honestly say
that this particular model was one of the worst.
I am very pleased for you, like Vinny, that yours is an exception

best regards,

**lawson-stone** · 10-15-2017, 08:31 PM

Guys,
I'm not defending the VOS. I know there are some Gibson "dogs" out there. I was asking about the totally unhelpful word "plinky." That word does not describe any guitar I have ever played that cost more than $12. It doesn't really fit the sound of any instrument I know of. It isn't a descriptive term.

I know there is a lot of experience with these guitars, so I was hoping for a better ability to describe the tone. Nothing about my VOS is "plinky" nor were the other two in the store that I played each for about 20 minutes.

I won't say what I think is behind the persistent picking at the VOS ES175, but I do think claims of its evils are greatly exaggerated.

[edited: snarky remarks deleted!]

**goldenwave77** · 10-15-2017, 09:05 PM

You're probably both right, and just talking past each other.

These are mass-produced instruments after all, and as you point out, some are better than others. I remember going to a guitar store determined to buy a small-body Martin for fingerpicking playing. I played about a dozen--and 3 or 4 were much better than others. I decided to postpone the purchase, and am glad I did. I don't need that instrument. If I get really good at that style in the future....maybe....

I remember auditioning an import archtop at the local store, and yes the treble tone was "plinky"---thin and harsh. The bass was also boomy, and for $2200, this was not impressing me at all.

Finally, a good number of members here are older. I KNOW I have high-frequency hearing loss. It shows up every time I'm tested. So one person's "plinky" may be another person's "bell-like" clarity (or vice versa).

**vinnyv1k** · 10-15-2017, 09:21 PM

OK than my personal description of plinky is overly bright, thin, with a lack of adequate sustain especially in the higher registers.

I will say though I very much like the tone of the VOS in the money zone (1st five frets).

Hey I bought a LeGrand and it sounded worse than a VOS 175 IMO.

I simply don't like a bright acoustic tone. I don't like the sound of a Martin either.

I also only use flatwounds as I find finger squeak intolerable but that is a completely different topic.

**lawson-stone** · 10-15-2017, 09:32 PM

I get that Vinny. And you have a right to your very deeply informed (by experience!) views. I actually respect your views very much, as do others, and when you diss the VOS model, I fear someone who would otherwise really like it (like me) would pass up a nice $2K ES175 because someone they thought really knew his stuff (because he does) had such a low view of it. As a professor, I have learned my students can often have an exaggerated respect for my views, even when I'm just expressing an opinion.

You are one of the elder statesmen here, and maybe a little nuance from time to time would be wise? I mean, you know how totally balanced and even-handed I am, right!

**rhoadsscholar** · 10-15-2017, 09:51 PM

I had originally posted this thread as I wondered if it was a worthwhile endevour to pursue one of these Figured Gibson 175's offered from CME around $2200 if I already have a nice 2013 Gibson L4 CES.

Based on this thread, I see there are a lot of differences between each of the Gibson 175's being offered by Gibson (NOS, Figured, 1959 etc.). Even within the the same model (175's), there appears to be a difference of opinion between the current modern 175's and the current VOS, NOS 175 models.

Vinny, I was glad to hear your preference for the figured 175's as that would be about the maximum I would spend ($2200) under the current amazing deals being offered by CME.

I am not interested in Vintage (although a used modern 175 at a great price would grab my attention).

So the CME Figured 175's seem to be a smokin deal. Is it worth it to spend 600 to 700 more for the VOS offereings from CME (knowning they list for more anyway). I have never seen new 175's priced at the level CME is blowing them out and wondering if it is time to take the plunge.

**vinnyv1k** · 10-16-2017, 10:45 AM

rhoad

For $2200 you cannot go wrong. Trust me. Lawson just bought one too and I bet he likes it also. I have another one coming tomorrow just in case sometime down the road someone here wants a smoking deal on a 175.

**lawson-stone** · 10-16-2017, 11:52 AM

I have a VOS model I also got from CME on one of these "smoking" situations a year or so ago. Love it. BUT I wouldn't have considered it for 600-700 more. If you want an ES175, I'd say buy on price. Some don't like the VOS models, but also some think new Gibsons are carelessly made. Buy on the price, return it ASAP if it doesn't suit.

**Quent** · 11-13-2017, 06:44 PM

Hi,

I know that there already have been poste on the subject, but I ask myself questions about the differences between Gibsons es 175 and l4 ces. I didn't yet had the chance to try either.

I'm not good at describing sounds, but i'd says that the 175 seems to have a "thinner" sound and teé l4 seems "thicker".
I'm a big fan of Joe Pass "thin" sound on the album virtuoso. But i'm alson fan of Wes Montgomery's sound.

Is one of the guitare capable of both "thin" and thick" sounds (thanks to the volume and tone controls)? Which one has the largest range of sounds?

**goldenwave77** · 11-13-2017, 08:09 PM

I have an L4-CES and a lawsuit 175 (mahog. necked '76 Aria EA-650).

The L4 I have is maple-backed and sides (maybe laminated) and spruce top, so it is L5-like (some L5's had the laminate maple-backed sides and most are carved). Fingerbd. is ebony...(I think ebony-bd. guitars almost sound a little like a xylophone...sharp, quick attack but creamy tone)

L4-CES: more acoustic-y sounding, more dynamic range (both volume and tonally); highs are "creamier" sounding (like a LES PAUL vs. a strat's "bell like" clarity); the L4-CES is very versatile....it can sound almost twangy; but front pu rolled off gets toward an L5 type of sound...but not as pronounced. (The mahogany backed ones are slower on attack, and more mid-rangey)

175: more compressed, "sweeter" more bell-like highs, less tonal variation...fewer overtones...attack is quick and snappy like laminates are...no "ringing" of the tone after sounding a note. I think laminates have a less complex sound--but are maybe better in a mix, because of this...and I love a good laminate sound (175;Tal, etc.)

Someday I'll A/B this lawsuit 175 against the real deal...this one sounds pretty good, esp. with a P-90 in it...very sweet.

Randy Vincent, author of Line Games and other books, plays an L4-CES, as did Joe DiOrio at times. Jon Dalton on YT plays a mahog.-backed L4....he has a BIG sound with it. Also Rich Severson has a bunch of video's on his site where he played an L4-CES...some of his combo work uses it. (He has a bass player in his combo, who is not quite human....he is so good.)

They are both great choices.

**Quent** · 11-13-2017, 08:21 PM

Thanks for your reply.

And can you have something like the sound of the 175 with turning the volume and tones of the L4?

**Stbatz** · 11-13-2017, 08:27 PM

**goldenwave77** · 11-13-2017, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Quent

Thanks for your reply.

And can you have something like the sound of the 175 with turning the volume and tones of the L4?

Somewhat...it thunks when you do that...like a 175.

But the top end is a little thicker and smoother...a little closer to an L5 sound, but not quite as thick-sounding.

The 175 has a sweetness to it...more bell-like... thinner but very appealing. And not as much layering of the sound. (I sometimes think Guild jazz boxes have more clear treble tones....the 175 is more towards that sound, though still with that Gibson thunk-i-ness, as compared to the L-4-CES.)

At some point---you really have to go and listen to a few. Carved tops and laminates are different, and honestly, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably toss a coin...they are each good, but different.

(I posted this before listening to the previous post....which illustrates VERY well what I'm laboring to express with words...the L4-Ces is creamy in the upper register, as you can hear...the 175 has a more penetrating, clear tone.)

**docbop** · 11-14-2017, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by Quent

I'm not good at describing sounds, but i'd says that the 175 seems to have a "thinner" sound and teé l4 seems "thicker".
I'm a big fan of Joe Pass "thin" sound on the album virtuoso. But i'm alson fan of Wes Montgomery's sound.

It's been talked about here and other site Joe's sound on the first Virtuoso album was due to a mistake by the recording engineer. The amp mic' was off so you're hearing the acoustic sound of Joe's 175.

Here's one of the threads from here that discussed it and other guitars of Joes.

joe pass virtuoso guitar setup

**oldane** · 11-14-2017, 06:45 AM

There are two differences between the L4 and the 175: The woods (carved vs. laminate) and the placement of the neck PU. On the L4 the neck PU is closer to the neck and to the string node at the imaginary 24th fret. IMHO that brings the tone closer to that of the L5.

Joe Pass' last custom Gibson 175 had the PU placed as it is on the L4 and the sound is fuller and more mellow and spread than on an ordinary 175 - despite it also had a thinner body. I have never understood why it was never put in regular production. Many (well, at least me) would have liked it. To me it sems like the ideal electric jazz guitar: Laminated, comfortable body size and the PU in the right place. And now they were at it, they could also have reintroduced the long scale 350 as well (though, of course, the Tal Farlow is a 350 in disguise but I like the cosmetics of the 350 better).

**Robertkoa** · 11-14-2017, 11:36 AM

Interesting about the Neck Pickup on ES 175 ...

I have wondered about what it would sound like with Neck PU right next to the Fingerboard.

I am getting a quote on a Seventy Seven Guitar that way - hope it's inexpensive to change location.

**docbop** · 11-14-2017, 01:27 PM

I just keep wondering how much audible difference it makes, we're only talking about an inch. At this point to me the 175 is like the Tele in that it's perfect, there are other fancier guitars but the Tele and 175 in their simplicity nailed it.

**Robertkoa** · 11-14-2017, 01:30 PM

Thanks Doc.

Thinking it might just take a tiny bit of top end off..

But your experience is probably correct ..because on some of the Heritages where it's right near the Finherboard ..at least Online ..doesn't seem to make any difference ( different Guitars but still they have a Model with 20 Fret Neck and pickup right near neck - and not super warm) ...

What about the Thinline Version ( like ES 175 T but Seventy Seven) think more important then ?...not Clubs but Recording..

**Stringswinger** · 11-14-2017, 01:40 PM

About 15 years ago, I played a few duet gigs with a fellow who played an L-4 CES and I was playing a 175. He had feedback issues in rooms where we needed to be loud (I did not). Hi s sound was more "acoustic", my sound was more electric.

All in all, my sound was classic Joe Pass (Think "For Django"). His sound was more Wes Montgomery. I would say that the L-4CES gets you the L-5 CES sound with a 16 inch body (but with a slight loss of bass response). Only a Gibson 175 sounds like a Gibson 175, and even within the Gibson 175 spectrum, the sound varies from year to year (probably instrument to instrument for that matter).

**Max405** · 11-14-2017, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by oldane

"Joe Pass' last custom Gibson 175 had the PU placed as it is on the L4 and the sound is fuller and more mellow and spread than on an ordinary 175 - despite it also had a thinner body. I have never understood why it was never put in regular production. Many (well, at least me) would have liked it. To me it sems like the ideal electric jazz guitar: Laminated, comfortable body size and the PU in the right place. And now they were at it, they could also have reintroduced the long scale 350 as well (though, of course, the Tal Farlow is a 350 in disguise but I like the cosmetics of the 350 better)."

Oldane, Sorry to snip from your post but I honestly think Gibson would profit tremendously by reaching out to the Pass family and coming to agreement to make a real Joe Pass Model. I feel the final Joe Pass guitar should be the prototype. And for that matter, they should come out with another Johnny Smith, based on the specs of the original concept designed by Johnny and Ted McCarty.
Rather than trying to be something they are not (Army Green and Cartridge Brass L5 Studios, come on will ya please..) Gibson should tap into their past and re-establish what really made them great.