Any experience with ES-175 Norlin era?

[johny_gtr]

This is another topic about buying an ES-175 guitar.

I saved some funds from selling some modular synth stuff, and would like to buy a great ES-175. It will be my first ‘blind’ buy, where I couldn’t play on guitar before buying, because nowadays I’m digital nomad and live too far from used guitars shops. I’d like to play chord melody stuff, old standards, as well as some of my own tracks, only fingerpicking. This guitar is only for home or spontaneous chamber jazz jams. All my life I play on strats and teles which mostly have slim necks. My favourite is my cs strat neck (9’5 radius, large C shape, nut width 1.650, butt width 2.200 with neck .860-.980 1st-12th fret). I also have Epi Casino, MiJ, from the 70s with a slim maple neck.

1. I’m watching the Norlin era ES-175 because of its maple neck (if I understand right, all Gibsons were with maple neck in the 70s) because of its durability (I don’t want to worry about a broken neck every time my guitar head touches a table) and humidity stability (I bet that maple neck is better in places where humidity can change from 25 to 60 indoor in 2 days).
   
2. Another wish is having a guitar with not a chunky neck. I can adapt to really slim necks (my 52 RI tele has a really slim neck with 7’25 radius), but it’s hard for me to play on acoustic guitars or Gibsons with neck profiles from the 50's.

I’m in need of your help with:

1. Do you recommend the Norlin era ES-175 or not and why?
   
2. Which possible problems I could find on (reverb.com) photos or ask about them except broken neck, not working truss rod, or low frets?
   
3. Any other comments are highly appreciated.

Thank you.

[John A.]

Not all 70s Gibsons had maple necks. This lays out the chronology of 175 spec changes:

Chronology of the Gibson ES-175 Electric Guitar >> Vintage Guitar and Bass

175’s started using them in ‘76. Before that, they had 3-piece mahogany necks for a few years, and 1-piece mahogany before that.

I think the consensus is that volutes didn’t really solve the Gibson broken headstock problem. But a deep-bodied guitar like a 175 has much less risk of suffering a broken headstock than a thinner body like a LP, SG, or 335 because if/when they fall the headstock is less likely to hit the ground. So I wouldn’t worry about this one way or the other, and make sure not to drop what ever Gibson you get.

I don’t think it makes sense to make generalizations about Norlin-era Gibson. I think it’s fair to say that certain models and or features were problematic and the finishes and wood grains were generally not as pretty on many models. But a 175 (and most other models) will still likely be an excellent sounding and playing guitar regardless of when it was made.

The only exception to that theory I go by is guitars made ca. 2017-9 around the time of the bankruptcy and sale of the company. I’ve played a bunch of really messed up Gibsons from that period and wouldn’t buy one without checking it out first.

Others here know way more about 175s than I and will have more useful things to say.

[GNAPPI]

The complaints about the Norlin gits didn't bother me, I've played duds made before and after the Norlin era.

Many companies still have volutes, are heavy and made of plywood, have wide or thin maple necks and they stay in business.

As far as the one the OP is looking at any used git has things to worry about but since you can't play it before buying it's a good idea to make sure the seller has a fair return policy.

[johny_gtr]

Thank you John for your response.

"I think the consensus is that volutes didn’t really solve the Gibson broken headstock problem" - I see that maple neck is more durable than mahogany one, and don't think much about volutes. If they would be fix of the broken neck problem, all modern Gibson were with them (on not, if it allow to sell more guitars).

[Stringswinger]

I have owned three Norlin era 175's in the past and i also had two pre-Norlin 175's. I would take back any of the Norlin 175's but I am glad to be rid of the two pre-Norlin 175's that i have owned. How is that for an endorsement of Norlin 175's? I have also owned four post Norlin 175's (I still have three of them) and I am glad to be rid of the post Norlin 175 that I have sold. As has been said, there are good ones and not so good ones from every era.

One of my Norlin era 175's had a maple neck with a volute , the other two had one piece Mahogany necks without a volute. The maple necked 175 was a tad brighter, but still quite acceptable. I doubt that the maple neck made it a more sturdy guitar. My understanding is that is was less labor intensive to use maple as Mahogany required lots of hand applied filler, and that is why Norlin made the switch. In those days, the bean counters held sway over Gibson guitar production.

If I did not own a 175, I would most certainly look at Norlin era 175's but I would not buy one sight unseen unless I had a reasonable return policy or I got a good enough price that would make it an easy guitar to sell if I did not like it.

Good luck in your search!

[Jabberwocky]

The Roger Borys B120, Sadowsky Jim Hall, and Collings Eastside (optional) are laminated 16" archtop guitars with maple necks. They don't suffer from having maple necks. Edit: The Sadowsky JH has a mahogany neck. My mistake.

There are two Norlin periods: early Norlin ES-175s have maple everything; late period Norlin ES-175s, from 1982 to 1988, have laminated mahogany back, rim, solid mahogany neck.

Don't just look at Norlin ES-175s. The early 1990s Henry J Gibson ES-165 Herb Ellis is worthy of a look-see. They are about the same price on the used market.

The Borys B120 and Sadowsky Jim Hall are the better ES-175. The Borys B120 starts from the mid-$4000s used. The Sadowsky Jim Hall can be found in the low to mid-$3000s used from Japan. I would point you towards a used Sadowsky Jim Hall. It is the better ES-175.

IN MY HUMBLE AND POSSIBLY MISGUIDED OPINION.

[John A.]

Thank you John for your response.

"I think the consensus is that volutes didn’t really solve the Gibson broken headstock problem" - I see that maple neck is more durable than mahogany one, and don't think much about volutes. If they would be fix of the broken neck problem, all modern Gibson were with them (on not, if it allow to sell more guitars).

If you're comparing a 3 (or 5) piece maple neck to a 1 piece mahogany neck, the maple neck will be stronger, but that's more because of the way it's made than the species of wood. Three piece mahogany necks (also common in the Norlin era) are probably about the same strength as 3-piece maple necks, depending on the specific pieces of wood used. If you think it matters, I'd say go ahead and get a maple one. But if you don't want the headstock to break, don't rely on the wood species to prevent that. Just make sure you don't drop it, regardless of what wood it's made from.

[deacon Mark]

I think really it is safe to say the best way to evaluate really any Gibson is pretty much on its own. Different eras seem to have some differences, but you really have to simply check the guitar out individually. I am with SS those Norlin Gibson were fine mostly and really outside the plain wood and sometimes the black and yellow sunburst pickguard-like-finish, they are decent. I had a 1978 L5c that was plain wood black and yellow but very light and responsive, it was a great guitar.

The exceptions are the late 1960's that tend to have narrow necks. Not all of them but that would be a guitar I would completely avoid. The Gibson's from the 1920's to at least 1965 are all pretty decent but you still have to check the guitar out simply because of the age of it. The 1930's L5's and Super 400 are usually great and not many duds that I have played.

I am partial to Gibson from about 1990 to about 2010. To me the Hutch era was when QC seemed to be at it best. I don't care what anyone says I own 3 Hutch signed Gibsons and L5 and Super400. They are as well set up as anyone fine luthier made jazz guitar no question. In particular my 2003 L5c made especially as an acoustic is quite responsive and will give any acoustic archtop a run for the money.

Find a Norlin era Gibson and see how it plays. Remember that fancy wood makes for eye candy but not sound. I remember Bill Barker once made a plain-jane, Barker guitar with maple back and sides with no real figure. He did it to prove a point and also to maybe keep the guitar for himself as maybe no one would be interested in the guitar. Barker said the guitar was like his others and fine acoustic sound. He played if for about 4 months then then someone bought it from him.

[yebdox]

The Roger Borys B120, Sadowsky Jim Hall, and Collings Eastside (optional) are laminated 16" archtop guitars with maple necks. They don't suffer from having maple necks. Edit: The Sadowsky JH has a mahogany neck. My mistake.

There are two Norlin periods: early Norlin ES-175s have maple everything; late period Norlin ES-175s, from 1982 to 1988, have laminated mahogany back, rim, solid mahogany neck.

Don't just look at Norlin ES-175s. The early 1990s Henry J Gibson ES-165 Herb Ellis is worthy of a look-see. They are about the same price on the used market.

The Borys B120 and Sadowsky Jim Hall are the better ES-175. The Borys B120 starts from the mid-$4000s used. The Sadowsky Jim Hall can be found in the low to mid-$3000s used from Japan. I would point you towards a used Sadowsky Jim Hall. It is the better ES-175.

IN MY HUMBLE AND POSSIBLY MISGUIDED OPINION.

I purchased a Sadowsky Jim Hall 7 or 8 years ago, with this same rationale, thinking I was getting a ‘better built’ 175. I still have it, appreciate it because it is unforgiving, is extremely well built and is light and comfortable, but it is not a substitute for a 175. I had to buy a ‘59 VOS to find that tone, and love that guitar because you pick it up and start playing and all those classic tones are there with little to no effort.

The JH is thinner by nearly an inch, DOES have a maple neck (I think there were a handful in the early days that had mahogany, but not many, if any) has a mid rangey voice without a lot of low end or a lot of upper range overtones. I swapped the pickup out for a Burstbucker ll I had lying around with almost no difference; the voice is in the wood and construction, same as the 175.

The JH is versatile the way a GB10 is versatile, but it’s a struggle to duplicate the classic 175 voice on it. It’s its own voice, and a very good one, but it really is not a 175. For reference, I have an L5 Wesmo and the aforementioned GB10… all great guitars, but the L5 and the 175 just do their thing so easily. The JH and the GB10 have a bit less character built in, you have to work with them a bit, though they are very versatile and could easily be your only archtop, filling a number of tonal needs. All IMO. But, thinking the JH would be a better 175 is what led me down this path. I am happy, though, with both.

[hotpepper01]

I had a 1978 Norlin made ES175 in dark sunburst. I believe it must have seen all the pubs and clubs around the world at least twice. It played and sounded great. I remember the day that I bought it. It was a consignment and took me about less than 10 minutes to decide. I gigged a lot with it. It had only 2 downsides. The scalelength is 24.75 and I do prefer the longer 25.5. The other thing was it very sticky neck. That got worse each year. And although there were quite a few times that I left the L5 at home and took the 175 out, I sold it in the end..

Norlin guitars are as good as non Norlin guitars IMHO. I have a Norlin blond 77 L5CES and a 1975 LPC as well. Yes, the wood grain might be less intense, but can they play and sound. You have to try them. Just like guitars from any other period. They are all individuals..

[floatingpickup]

I have owned several Norlin guitars and all of them were good guitars. Like the previous poster, I did have one with “sticky” finish on the neck, but I assumed that was likely a result of the previous owner not looking after it. I also agree with another recent post, that guitars like the Sadowsky, etc. do not sound like ES-175’s. I have always owned and gigged with 175’s and they truly have their own sound. I had a Borys B-120 for a few years and, although it was a great guitar, it did not have that classic 175 sound. I’m sure some players would likely prefer the sound of the Borys, but it certainly was different than my 175’s.
Keith

[Stringswinger]

I have owned several Norlin guitars and all of them were good guitars. Like the previous poster, I did have one with “sticky” finish on the neck, but I assumed that was likely a result of the previous owner not looking after it. I also agree with another recent post, that guitars like the Sadowsky, etc. do not sound like ES-175’s. I have always owned and gigged with 175’s and they truly have their own sound. I had a Borys B-120 for a few years and, although it was a great guitar, it did not have that classic 175 sound. I’m sure some players would likely prefer the sound of the Borys, but it certainly was different than my 175’s.
Keith

I took delivery of a Borys B-120 for a fellow forum member during the pandemic and circumstances led to my holding that guitar for well over a year. I compared it extensively to my three Gibson 175's and can say with certainty that it is a very different guitar. Some will prefer the Borys with it's wider nut and slimmer body. But those looking for the traditional jazz guitar sound of Joe Pass, Herb Ellis or Jim Hall (my favorite sound in a jazz guitar) will only be satisfied with the real deal.

FWIW, I presently own Two Gibson L-5's, a Gibson Super 400, a Campellone and three genuine D'Angelico's along with my three Gibson ES-175's. For the last 20 years I have played almost 200 paid jazz gigs a year and a Gibson ES-175 has mostly been my tool of choice. The other guitars are more valuable, prettier and have their own vibe, but they do not get me where I want to be on the bandstand. YMMV

[Rickco]

Ive had a '74 since '76. it weighs 6.5 lbs and is 4.5 mm thick at the F hole same as as the vaunted late '50s. Mine is a mahogany neck which I love others prefer the maple. The constuction and woods (nat) are as good as any 175 gibson ever made. Mine has 57 classics which I found to sound better than "t tops" or "pat sticker" No 2 guitars are the same so if you cant try it make sure you can return it. Also "vinage wiring" doesnt get better. Pots and caps do not improve with time they degrade, even if a cap measures well its ESR may have changed. I say this because often an older guitar gets blamed for poor sound because the pots and caps are shot. I replaced the harness on mine a few years ago and the improvement was very audible. When you find a 175 you like it can be a lifetime guitar.

[bluenote61]

Looking for a Norlin-Era 175s don't forget to check for a sinking top caused by a broken bracing. This is not seldom for 175s of that era.

[Rickco]

Looking for a Norlin-Era 175s don't forget to check for a sinking top caused by a broken bracing. This is not seldom for 175s of that era.

In 50yrs of owning , playing and knowing 100s of 175 players Ive never come across this or have known anyone that has. So I would have to disagree if this is a norlin flaw it would have to be very seldom and probably because the guitar was stored in a barn.

[QAman]

Don’t be fooled by assuming all Norlin period instruments are the ones to avoid. People tend to believe what they hear without first hand experience- and then continue to spread that gossip.

I’ve owned many guitars in the past 40 years of collecting, including several L-5 acoustics. None of them compare to my 76’ blonde. It’s extraordinary, and George Gruhn said “ Its one of the best sounding 70’s L-5 he’s ever played. I have that documented on a video.

Compared to the price escalation with other Gibson periods - the Norlin period is where the gold nuggets reside. Of course, the educated buyer already knows this.

Here is a pic of my 76’ - go find another one like it. It’s dead mint and a pure powerhouse of sonic pleasure - purchased at a 30% discount to current prices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluenote61]

In 50yrs of owning , playing and knowing 100s of 175 players Ive never come across this or have known anyone that has. So I would have to disagree if this is a norlin flaw it would have to be very seldom and probably because the guitar was stored in a barn.

I know at least 2 with sinking top, including one I owned. Reason for breaking of the bracing: The bracing in a 175 is a flat piece of wood which will be kerfed every 20 mm or so from one side until the last 1-2 mm of wood remaining. After that you can bend easily the bracing into the arched top and it does not need to be carved. It's a cost saver. If that slots are not made carefully, the may get too deep and less wood is remaining below the slots and the bracing can break by the time. It is a matter of quality control whether such failures in preparation of the bracings will be sorted out. I suppose later ones are 'saver' against sinking top due to thicker tops.
And, a Google search will show you pics of that issue. And not all of them might have been stored in a barn.

Gibson ES-175 Sunken Top?

[bluenote61]

Don’t be fooled by assuming all Norlin period instruments are the ones to avoid. People tend believe what they hear without first hand experience- and then continue to spread that gossip.

I agree. I owned a wonderful ES175 from the early 70s. It had a wonderful woody tone. Also the T-top humbucker of that era are good pickups.
The only issue was a broken bracing (see my post above) which was possible to repair.
I sold the guitar eventually to a friend. And you don't sell bad guitars to a friend!

[Rickco]

While Ive never encountered a 175 with bracing or sunken tops. Based on this and other posts it happens but it is "not seldom" it is quite seldom. Particularly if you consider the number of 175s out there compared to verified failures of this kind. Ive heard the same thing about many guitars including DAs etc etc. Any archtop could have this flaw but thankfully its rare and easy to spot if your shopping used guitars.

[dconeill]

In 50yrs of owning , playing and knowing 100s of 175 players Ive never come across this or have known anyone that has. So I would have to disagree if this is a norlin flaw it would have to be very seldom and probably because the guitar was stored in a barn.

I've had one ES-175 out of several Gibson guitars that I've owned. The ES-175 was a Norlin-era example and it had a sunken top, to the degree that it became unplayable, or at least I couldn't play it.

I would be cautious in trying to buy a guitar sight-unseen. Make sure that where-ever you buy it has a no-questions-asked return policy, perhaps that requires the purchaser to pay return shipping (reasonable risk-sharing).

Here are a couple of brands that seem to be well-regarded and that offer ES-175-type guitars. I have no experience with these.

• No one has mentioned the Ibanez PM-200 yet. It's modeled structurally after the ES-175.
• Another option is Westville, Archtop Tribute and related brands. These seem to be hard to come by outside of Japan, though some people manage. See walkin.jp, Archtop Tribute | WALKiN', and All Models — Westville Guitars. Archtop Tribute has Gibson-styled reproductions, while Westville are their own stylings.

[Rickco]

Theres a '80 on ebay sitting at $2400 no bids. Seller looks solid might be a steal.

[skykomishone]

I own a 'Norlin' era 175. I bought it new in '72. One piece mahogany neck. It's been a fantastic guitar. I repaired the braces.
It's better than new and will never leave me while I'm on planet earth. We've been through too much together.
My other 175 is a '55. It's also a fantastic guitar.

[Rickco]

Frickin nice! thats a head turner, what did you have to do to the braces?

[Rickco]

re reading the ops question "I’d like to play chord melody stuff, old standards, as well as some of my own tracks, only fingerpicking. This guitar is only for home or spontaneous chamber jazz jams." I got caught up in the 175 discussion. The popularity of the 175 is unquestionable and you can probably find a good one with some time and research. As you can see there is a lot of experienced intel on this subject here. However, Im not sure it would be my first choice for your application. If your giging with it...no question but for your stated purpose there may be better options. Others might have suggestions.

[skykomishone]

Frickin nice! thats a head turner, what did you have to do to the braces?

Glue mainly. Glue was in short supply that day at Gibson.