Love my Epiphone ES-175 Premium, but...

[Prof Silverhair]

First post and new to archtops, so please be patient if this has been discussed a million times...

I did a ton of internet research before buying my first archtop. Based on all I read, I hunted down an Epi ES-175. The specs checked all the boxes: great pups, 'right' size, nitro finish, superb build, etc. I love how it feels and sounds but I just don't get long with the neck. I feel really cramped on all dimensions - width, depth, length. What has everyone found that has 'that' sound, a quality build and finish, with a larger neck? Thanks

[mr. beaumont]

The Eastman 175 style has a wider neck i believe...

I also think it doesn't sound much like a 175.

[lawson-stone]

The sound of the ES175 is tied to a lot of variables, among them being likely the 24.75" scale and possibly even the width of the fingerboard, which is actually pretty much the standard width on most jazz oriented guitars. The Epiphone neck is slimmer than the Gibson or others, and that might be the cause of your discomfort. I wonder if a thicker neck, such as the Gibson, would be more comfortable? My Aria Pro II PE180 is an L5ces copy that has a neck even thicker than the Gibson (same width) and you might find the longer 25.5" scale and the thicker neck give you what you're looking for. Perhaps find some place to try an L5ces just for comfort and see if the width turns out to be okay if the neck is thicker.

[Sam Sherry]

First post and new to archtops

Way to go!

I did a ton of internet research . . . . Based on all I read, I hunted down . . . . The specs checked all the boxes . . .

That's the thing. A musical instrument is not a pic, it's not a spec, it's not a model.
Specs give you a decent idea of what to expect but it's different when you actually lay hands on wood.
Maybe it's an 'x factor' or maybe the experience requires so many specs that it's practically impossible to accurately quantify.

Beside that, your tastes and needs change as you playing evolves and your ear evolves and your body devolves.

By and large there are only a few approaches to this problem:
a) Live with your ES-175 (and widen out the nut if you like). Suck it up and play. In short, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
b) Play a bunch of guitars, see what calls to you, bring that particular instrument home.
c) Keep buying stuff online until you wind up with stuff you don't want to lose.
I confess the latter path has gotten me to where I am today . . . but it has been a long and winding road.

All the best with your quest.
Please report back.

[sgosnell]

My Epi has a relatively thin, and narrow, neck, but I deal with it. The main reason I don't play it more is the body depth. I just don't like deep guitar bodies as I age. I have a Benedetto with pretty much the same neck width, but deeper, and a Wu with ~1.75" width. I mostly play the Wu, but not because of the neck. I just like the size, and the way it sounds. I really would prefer a narrower neck, but I'm willing to accept wider because the rest of the guitar is near perfect. The Epi 175 is also very good, but I just don't like playing 3" deep guitars. It's a very personal preference, and everyone will have their own. There isn't much you can do to change the neck, so you might prefer a different guitar. There are many available, but you would need to actually play one to find what you really like. Mail order is hit or miss, mostly miss, but you can sometimes get a hit. As I see it, your options are to get used to the neck on the Epi, or do what the rest of us have done, and start buying and selling guitars at the fastest rate you can manage. If you're lucky, you'll find the ideal guitar for you. Not everyone gets lucky, though, and the search often continues until stopped by the grave. You can love what you have, or love buying and flipping guitars. Good luck, whichever you choose.

[Prof Silverhair]

Thanks everyone, much appreciated!

I'm not a big fan of buying any guitar that I haven't played. I think I've only done it once and it was a big fail. For whatever reason, I have a preference for well played, loved guitars. They just seem more alive to me. Maybe it's all in my head but all my guitars consistently get better with time and play. I played my Epi ES175 with the hopes I'd grow to love the neck. Sadly, the opposite happened. I just reach for the Gibson instead.

I've always liked Eastman's and obviously AR372 and T49 are attractive options. Hunting either one down near me is a challenge; there just aren't many archtops in the music stores around here. Anyone played them both? I've read/heard before that the 372 doesn't sound like a ES175, despite looking like a copy. Is the T49 any close in sound? Would appreciate any insight.

[Sleeko]

These have a nitro finish? Nice.

[Prof Silverhair]

I'm unsure of which, but pretty sure models before '23 had nitro lacquer. Others here probably know better than I do.

These have a nitro finish? Nice.

[Prof Silverhair]

I started to get more into jazz and really love that 'full hollow jazz sound'. The 175 definitely has what I'm looking for. But your point is totally valid. As an aside, this thread helped me do a bit of digging...

Took out the trusty old digital calipers and learned the Epi and Gibson have the same nut and bridge width. The scale length remains a mystery to me though. They're supposed to be the same length but I'd swear there's more room on the 335. There is a huge difference in neck depth but haven't taken the strings off for a proper measurement.

That's odd. Because the Epiphone has the same neck width as the Gibson.

Curiosity Question: Why did you buy the Epiphone in the first place? That Gibson 335 that you have is about as good a guitar as it gets.

Cheers
Avery Roberts

[John A.]

I started to get more into jazz and really love that 'full hollow jazz sound'. The 175 definitely has what I'm looking for. But your point is totally valid. As an aside, this thread helped me do a bit of digging...

Took out the trusty old digital calipers and learned the Epi and Gibson have the same nut and bridge width. The scale length remains a mystery to me though. They're supposed to be the same length but I'd swear there's more room on the 335. There is a huge difference in neck depth but haven't taken the strings off for a proper measurement.

It seems like the string-to-string spacing must be different between the two. It may be possible to increase that slightly at the nut on the Epi, either by filling and re-slotting the nut or replacing the nut.

Whether that will work or not depends on whether the neck is wide enough to accommodate that. It’s probably worth having a luthier/tech take a look at it before you give up on it since you’re otherwise happy with the guitar.

I will say that when I was on my quest for a 175-like object a few years ago I passed on the Epi Premium because of the skinny neck. But I’ve since learned a bit about necks, nuts, etc. If I had it to do all over again, I’d consider the spacing more closely. It’s one of the few 175 look-alikes that truly sounds like a 175, and the only one in that sort of “starter archtop” price range.

IMO, the Eastman 372 is not as wide of the mark as many say it is (I played one and a real 175 side by side), but there is definitely a subtle something in the mids that it doesn’t have (and the Epi does). There are tons of threads here about 175 copies, and it’s worth searching and perusing that. FYI, the forum search feature doesn’t really work, so it’s best to do that via Google.

Regarding scale length, they’re both nominally 24-3/4”, but the Gibson is actually a little shorter (most likely 24-9/16”). This is one of Gibson’s more obscure quirks - they use an archaic fret-spacing formula (with a rounding error baked in) that yields a shorter then nominal scale length.

Epiphones use the correct math (as do almost all other builders. You can check this on your guitars by measuring the distance from the edge of the nut to the 12th fret and doubling that.

I have a guitar built to the exact Gibson scale length (Seventy Seven Hawk Jazz Deep) and another that’s a true 24.75" (D’Angelico semi-hollow). I’m honestly not sure if I perceive the minute difference in scale length because the two are different in so many other ways, and I string them differently, too. But one does not feel more cramped lengthwise than the other (and I think the difference would manifest itself in string tension if it were detectable).

[lawson-stone]

I measured my Epiphone and the nut width is 43.5mm versus Gibson's 42.86mm.

The Epiphone's thickness at the 1st fret is 19mm versus Gibson's 16mm. (Gibson's official specification for the 175)

I don't think neck thickness will make any difference. The problem here is fingers touching adjacent strings. The only cure is a wider neck.


Cheers
Avery Roberts

Neither of those numbers matches the measurements I made. My 4 ES175s measured 22mm just behind the 1st fret and the Epiphone ES175 Premium was 19mm. Everyone I have talked to who has played them both (including myself) subjectively feels the Epiphone neck is thinner, some liking that, others not.

[lawson-stone]

I measured my Epiphone and the nut width is 43.5mm versus Gibson's 42.86mm.

The Epiphone's thickness at the 1st fret is 19mm versus Gibson's 16mm. (Gibson's official specification for the 175)

I don't think neck thickness will make any difference. The problem here is fingers touching adjacent strings. The only cure is a wider neck.


Cheers
Avery Roberts

After looking I found the little neck profile chart that shows that Gibson does not really have one "official" specification for the neck. It has varied over at least 5 different profiles and even in one era with one shape, the thickness has varied. Epiphone has tended also to make its slimmer necks a matter of advertising. I have never found the nuts of Epiphone Broadways, ES175, Zephyr Regent Re-issues (like an ES165) to vary from their Gibson counterparts. Perhaps the original vintage Epiphones did vary, but the models out there today seem to use the same width and nuts, but with slimmer necks.

[Tal_175]

The scale length remains a mystery to me though. They're supposed to be the same length but I'd swear there's more room on the 335.

ES 335 has 22 frets, ES 175 has 20 (hence the gap between the neck and the neck pickup). The necks are attached to the bodies in different places as well. As you can see in the pictures in the first post, the neck of ES 335 has a smaller overlap with the body than ES 175, giving you more neck real estate.

[John A.]

Neither of those numbers matches the measurements I made. My 4 ES175s measured 22mm just behind the 1st fret and the Epiphone ES175 Premium was 19mm. Everyone I have talked to who has played them both (including myself) subjectively feels the Epiphone neck is thinner, some liking that, others not.

Op’s talking about nut width, not neck thickness. The nominal nut width of both Epi and Gibson is 1-9/16”. Those measurements of 43mm +/- a scoche are within rounding and build tolerances of that.

[lawson-stone]

To: Mr. Lawson - Stone. Thank you very much for your corrected measurements. I did think that 16 mm was awfully slim, but if I recall correctly I did get those measurements from the Gibson advertising. So maybe the advertising department didn't quite know what the woodworkers were actually doing.

Your measurements make sense. Gibson necks are made out of mahogany while Epiphone necks usually are made of maple a much stronger wood, so they can get away with a slimmer neck. However the Epiphone 175 premium has a mahogany neck and is still the same thickness as the maple neck on my own Epiphone.

Cheers
Avery Roberts

I'm always a little worried about neck measurements since they seem to vary. I tend only to be able to talk about the ones I have that I've been able to measure. I have a Zephyr Regent re-issue (looks like the ES165) and I'm wondering if it's a mahogany back/neck instrument. It sounds wonderful for a budget instrument. These guitars were definitely not made on cookie-cutters!

[Tal_175]

As I said above, ES 335 neck meets body at the 19th fret vs ES 175 at the 14th fret. That's gonna make a much bigger impact on how "spacy" the neck feels than the small scale length difference between these guitars.

ES 335 gives you an extra usable 5 frets (2 of them doesn't even exist on ES 175).

[John A.]

So I gather that neck width is not the problem, since you're ok with the 335

Not necessarily. Two guitars can have identical fingerboards and nuts, but the nut (and or bridge) slots can be spaced differently. Depending on your fingers and playing style, the one with narrower spacing might feel more cramped.

As for the scale length, if you have a tape measure, measure from the inside of the nut (that's the side of the nut facing the bridge) to the G saddle on the bridge. You should get identical measurements for both guitars. If you don't have a tape measure you can use a piece of string, if you don't have string you can glue or tape 3 strips of writing paper and use that.

My recollection is that both the Gibson 335 and the 175 have identical 24 3/4 inch scale length. Now when you actually measure the scale length on those it will be a small fraction longer than 24 3/4 inches. That very slight extra length is there to correct for the intonation error that occurs when you press down on the string. Pressing down on the string causes the pitch to rise slightly.

I measured my own instrument (an Epiphone Emperor II) and it measures 24 7/8. So that's 24 3/4 scale length plus 1/8 compensation for the intonation.

No. Scale length is defined as the measurement from nut edge to 12th fret x 2. Where the bridge is actually placed depends on how the builder handles compensation. Even though Gibson says their scale length is 24.75”, for most of their electrics it isn’t. The 12th fret x 2 measurement on electrics made after the early ‘50s is between 1-9/16” and 1-10/16” x 2. Epis are a true 24-3/4” scale length. In both cases, the midpoint of bridge will be a bit over 24-3/4”, with the Gibson being a tiny bit shorter. Fret spacing will be slightly wider on the Epi.

[John A.]

As I said above, ES 335 neck meets body at the 19th fret vs ES 175 at the 14th fret. That's gonna make a much bigger impact on how "spacy" the neck feels than the small scale length difference between these guitars.

ES 335 gives you an extra usable 5 frets (2 of them doesn't even exist on ES 175).

I guess it depends on what’s actually bothering the OP. I guess maybe if he has long arms the low frets on the 175 feel too close to him? But that doesn’t seem like what he’s complaining about. Usually when people talk about a neck feeling cramped it comes down to width/string-spacing, and sometimes scale-length, which are the only dimensions that affect how your left fingers sit on the neck and how your right fingers/pick interact with the strings.

[Tal_175]

I guess it depends on what’s actually bothering the OP. I guess maybe if he has long arms the low frets on the 175 feel too close to him? But that doesn’t seem like what he’s complaining about. Usually when people talk about a neck feeling cramped it comes down to width/string-spacing, and sometimes scale-length, which are the only dimensions that affect how your left fingers sit on the neck and how your right fingers/pick interact with the strings.

It seemed to me like he was talking about more than one way the necks felt different to him. I was under the impression that in the quote below he was referring to the "lengthwise" feel:

Took out the trusty old digital calipers and learned the Epi and Gibson have the same nut and bridge width. The scale length remains a mystery to me though. They're supposed to be the same length but I'd swear there's more room on the 335.

[John A.]

It seemed to me like he was talking about more than one way the necks felt different to him. I was under the impression that in the quote below he was referring to the "lengthwise" feel:

Hard to tell. Perhaps the OP can clarify.

[Prof Silverhair]

Thanks everyone, really appreciate all the help.

I measured both scale lengths - 12 3/8 from the bottom of the nut to the 2nd fret at 12 on both. This is somewhat interesting. I have a more difficult time getting my fingers into frets after 7 of the Epi than I do the Gibson. For example, I have no problem with an Amin7 at 7 with the Gibson but I can't get my fingers flat or narrow enough on the Epi to have it ring correctly. Very frustrating and confusing.

After reading all your replies, I think I'm wrestling with string spacing and neck shape. I have very reputable shops near me but I don't think it's really worth investing in a new nut if it's a neck issue. Which brings me to the neck....the Epi is much closer to a thin, flat D and the 335 is a thick C to thick D. FWIW, guitar size isn't an issue. I'm an XL human so lower bout size and thickness isn't really an issue. In fact, I find the thicker Epi more comfortable than the thinner 335.

Thanks again, everyone's collective wisdom is greatly appreciated.

[John A.]

To the General Membership: What about fretboard radius? What is the fretboard radius of the OP's Epiphone Premium 175, and if different than on the OP's 335, how much of an effect would that have on comfort, feel, finger clearance, and playability?

Cheers
Avery Roberts

They both should have 12" fretboard radii (nearly all Gibsons and Epi's do, except for some really old ones). Vintage Fenders (and reissues) are 7.25". Modern fenders split the difference at 9.5". Martins are usually 16". Other makers tend to follow one of those standards, except that. Classicals (and some "shredder" style electrics) are typically completely flat; "crossover" nylons are typically 16".

The conventional wisdom is that all else equal smaller radii (i.e., more curved boards) are easier for some chords (especially barre chords) and more difficult for large string bends because the string frets out at the center of the board. Whereas larger radii (i.e., flatter boards) are a little more difficult to fret some chords cleanly, but easier for bending and for faster single line playing. In the real world it's tough to isolate radius from other factors like fret size, overall neck profile, hand anatomy, and technique.

I currently have 3 guitars with 12" radii and one with 9.5", and in the past I've had a 7.25, a couple of 16's and a classical (which I assume was flat). My current guitars feel pretty similar to me, except that the 9.5" (Fender) does fret out a little more on big bends. The I had 7.25" was a strat that was such as disaster in other ways that I really couldn't say how much of what I didn't like about it was the radius. The flatter boards felt fine to me.

[sgosnell]

The actual placement of the saddle depends on the strings and the action. Setting intonation for heavier strings and higher action tends to force the total string length to be very slightly longer, as the string is stretched more when fretted, and the tension is higher. Changing string type/gauge, and changing the action by a lot, might require adjusting the intonation, depending on one's tolerance and the amount of change. I don't find it to be a problem, but I don't often make radical changes to my string gauge or action height. Switching between .012 and .013 sets isn't enough of a change to require me to move the bridge, most of the time.

IME mahogany is at least as stable as maple, perhaps even a little more so. Hardness does not track stability linearly, and with a truss rod a neck can be as thin with one species as another. The Epi ES175 Premium does have a thin neck, front to back, compared to many other makes and models. Some people just don't like thin necks, regardless of how wide they are. Some people love them. One can either love them from the start, learn to like them, or get rid of them. It's entirely personal preference. I prefer somewhere in the middle, but I can adapt to any, it's not the most important part of a guitar to me.

[John A.]

Hi John A. and thank you for your reply. The OP said that he couldn't finger an Ami7 chord at the 7th position, but could finger the same chord on his 335. Said he couldn't get his finger flat on the board.

I think the chord must be this one: XX7988 (XXAEGC) It seems to me that if the Epiphone had the flatter radius, he would have trouble fingering that chord. I have a 1992 Epiphone Emperor II which has a 15" radius, so maybe the Epiphone premium has something similar.

Obviously if the OP can't play certain chords on the Epiphone that are playable on the Gibson, then the Epiphone is a non-starter for the OP.

You have more experience than I do with various fingerboard radii, perhaps you could be so kind as to offer your opinion as to whether or not this could be the OP's problem, and if so, would it be feasible for a luthier to re-radius the fingerboard?

Cheers
Avery Roberts

It sounds to me like some combination of string spacing (possibly also fingerboard width) and neck profile is what's bothering the OP. I doubt fingerboard radius is the problem. The only intervention I think of might be worth bothering with is string spacing. That's quick and relatively cheap (anywhere from free if you can handle filling and re-filling the slots for free to maybe $100 all in to have a luthier install a new nut with wider spacing). It might not work, but it's pretty low risk, and you can always go back to the original spacing.

To re-radius the board, you'd have to remove the frets and then refret it after sanding down the board, which would mean sinking $400-500 into an $750 guitar (unless you can do it yourself), which would be now be worth even less due to the modification. Maybe worth doing as an experiment if you're willing to risk the $ consequences and/or can do the work yourself, but not a great way to arrive at a guitar you're sure you'll love (especially if radius is not the culprit). It would make more sense to sell it and move on. Plenty of fish in the sea. The one wrinkle is that if you absolutely must have the very specific 175 sound, it's hard to find that without buying an actual Gibson ES-175. The cool thing about the Epi 175 Premium is that it gets the sound for a stupid-cheap cost.

[lawson-stone]

Hi John A. and thank you for your reply. The OP said that he couldn't finger an Ami7 chord at the 7th position, but could finger the same chord on his 335. Said he couldn't get his finger flat on the board.

I think the chord must be this one: XX7988 (XXAEGC) It seems to me that if the Epiphone had the flatter radius, he would have trouble fingering that chord. I have a 1992 Epiphone Emperor II which has a 15" radius, so maybe the Epiphone premium has something similar.

Obviously if the OP can't play certain chords on the Epiphone that are playable on the Gibson, then the Epiphone is a non-starter for the OP.

You have more experience than I do with various fingerboard radii, perhaps you could be so kind as to offer your opinion as to whether or not this could be the OP's problem, and if so, would it be feasible for a luthier to re-radius the fingerboard?

Cheers
Avery Roberts

having owned many Gibson and Epiphone archtops, including ES175 models of both, I have found the fingerboard with and string spacing on them all to be the same. I went back and forth between my Epi ES175 and Gibsons regularly and experienced no transitional issues. I could tell the Epi neck was slimmer, but it didn't affect playing. Likewise, my L5ces, Epiphone Broadway and Elitist Broadway all felt the same as to radius, fingerboard width, and string spacing, only the Epi neck being slimmer was noteworthy. The Aria Pro II PE180 has the same fingerboard width and string spacing, and I think the same radius, as the L5ces and Broadways, but the nick is thicker and I do notice that. These jazz guitars all tend to stay pretty much the same on string spacing, radius, and fingerboard width if they are working in the Gibson universe. I think my Loar LH650 actually has a flatter neck radius than the ES175s do, and it might be a wider fingerboard, I should measure it. My Heritage Eagle (RIP) and Peerless Monarch also had slimmer necks, but the fingerboard width, spacing and radius didn't seem different from the L5ces/Broadway. That's all I have to compare with.

Except for the slimmer Epiphone neck on all these models, I can't see how someone would have trouble playing something on the Epiphone that they played fine on the Gibson. The fingerboards and string spacing are the same, the radius is the same. It's the neck thickness, or maybe the OP needs to just play the guitar more and get used to it.