Quick Test - Gibson ES-175 1954 vs Reissue 1954

[Herbie]

Last saturday I had a rare chance to compare shortly two interesting Gibson ES175 guitars.

For two years I have had a sunburst Reissue 1954 from 2015 which is a great guitar. I had searched a decently priced Gibson hollowbody with P90-pickup(s) for a decade before I found it. It sounds great, clear, warm and dynamic with any amp.

The other guitar is a natural Gibson ES175 made really in 1954, so it is kind of a role model for my Reissue. It has been for sale in a local guitar shop for some weeks. It is priced in an unusual manner with a tag ”ask price”, so I guess the shop asks near 10K€.

Gibson ES'-'175D Natural 1954 | Kitarakuu

The 1954 is all original. Frets are a bit low but play perfectly. The lacquer is very tidy, no bigger scratches or visible wear. The finish is beautifully aged, slight cracks and the patina are just like a 70 years old guitar should have.

The top of the 1954 is thinner than the top of the Reissue. I didn’t have my taper with me but I suppose its thickness is about same as the top of the 1959 VOS Reissue I had some years. It was 4,95 mm, and when the top of the Reissue 1954 is 5,83 mm, it is almost 1 mm thicker than the real deal.

The nuts are as wide in both guitars. For my surprise the neck of the real oldie is thinner than on the reissue. Not a slim taper, quite nice, although during last deacde I have used to thicker necks.

Although the top of the old guitar is thinner it does not sound especially loud acoustically. Not loose flat top’ish, but more like solid, open, projected ES-175, very nice.

The I played them a bit with an amp, SF Fender Vibrolux from 1976. Great amp! The pickups are difficult to compare because of the different strings: the 1954 had .011 round wounds, my 1954 Reissue has .013 TI Swings.

There was no audible difference in the power of the pickups. Both are typical P90s, open, bright, not too bassy. The unwound strings of the 1954 had nice bloom – which can be because of the vintage pickup or nickel in the strings.

Overall the real oldie was lighter and easier to play. Maybe nicest ES-175 I have ever played. But then: my 1954 Reissue may be a bit heavier and may have a bit clumsier feeling, but it is still easy to play and it sounds perfect too.

Playing them side by side (for too fast minutes) was like havin a Gibson and a quality Epiphone together. One is better but none is bad.

Overall I wouldn't like to own as expensive guitar as this real 1954 is. Chances to find as good guitar for less money is questionable. Maybe a player grade ES-125 would do, but as all vintage guitars, it has risks. So I'll try to forget the real 1954 and enjoy the Reissue more.

[Cunamara]

What a wonderful thing to be able to compare them side-by-side like that! Must've been a lot of fun. Also, the store's amplifier inventory is pretty enviable.

[bluejaybill]

Great to be able to compare them, and good that you came away saving some money! The bloom could be the construction or the old pickups, that's one of the attributes I tend to associate with vintage guitars, but it's hard to say what it's from. I don't know if there is a as much of a difference between old and new P90's as there is with original PAF's, but I have heard that there is a difference.

"Bloom" is a tough word, meaning like maybe more sustain, such that the note seems to grow in volume? I often hear it applied to great vintage amps usually.

BTW maybe it's just me or the picture, but are the strings way far off the neck on the vintage one? Where the neck meets the body.

[Herbie]

Great to be able to compare them, and good that you came away saving some money! The bloom could be the construction or the old pickups, that's one of the attributes I tend to associate with vintage guitars, but it's hard to say what it's from. I don't know if there is a as much of a difference between old and new P90's as there is with original PAF's, but I have heard that there is a difference.

"Bloom" is a tough word, meaning like maybe more sustain, such that the note seems to grow in volume? I often hear it applied to great vintage amps usually.

BTW maybe it's just me or the picture, but are the strings way far off the neck on the vintage one? Where the neck meets the body.

Bloom can be a result from various factors, that’s why I tried to mention it carefully. I guess Gibson makes P90s in about same way than in the past, but materials vary and age in different ways.

I have newer Gibson P90s in my other guitars too (among them is accidentally another Reissue 1954, a Goldtop Les Paul!) and after trying the usual rounds of duncans, antiquities, gotohs, lollars, bkp’s etc I have endef to stay with stock Gibson P90s. (Although I have noticed that Alnico 4 magnets do wonders to the stock neck pickups wealth of bottom…)

Maybe the perspective of the photo confuses, I didn’t notice that the strings would have been too high or anything abmormal. I mean I did not measure it, but the playing was effortless.

Maybe there is difference in the construction of the neck joint or the arch of the top, but usual quick playing test did not reveal it.

[Herbie]

What a wonderful thing to be able to compare them side-by-side like that! Must've been a lot of fun. Also, the store's amplifier inventory is pretty enviable.

Yes, it was!

In fact ot took a couple of weeks for me to realise that those guitars are ”from the same year” and I might never in my life have a chance to compare them if I don’t do it now. (Or week ago, I mean.)

[Rickco]

Great comparison, I got out my '74 and it measured 4.2mm(all over). I often wondered what the difference was that made the old ones so sought after....apparently not the thickness. I never mic'd it unplugged but Im ptretty sure it doesnt sound like Pass's
Thanks for the post