-
Anyone have thoughts on this era of es-175? I have a line on one, from a friend of a friend. I saw a couple photos. The top and back appear very Flamey and it doesn’t appear to have been played much at all. I’ll look it over, in hand, Tuesday. The cert says es75anni-12, I think. He’s asking 3700. Number sounds huge to me, but looking about, maybe not. What say you?
thanks.
-
04-20-2024 07:45 PM
-
These days $3500 sadly is a good deal on a clean 175.
Jack Zucker had a very nice one for sale. Maybe pm him.
-
A little over a month ago I bought a Gibson ES-175 made in 2005, according to the serial number. This is a very nice instrument. Somewhat to my surprise, I find the ergonomics of it excellent. When standing with it on a strap, it naturally hangs out about a 45° angle which I find very comfortable. It's a little thicker than my 17 inch carved arch top and I thought it would feel smaller, but the somewhat thicker body seems to make them seem about even. It seems to be well-made and the finish is flawless.
The acoustic voice is not particularly strong but that's to be expected; amplified, however, I am very pleased with it. For lack of a better way to put it, it is very even up and down the neck and across the neck. No matter where I play on the guitar, there are no surprises in terms of tonality, volume, etc. It is an effortless jazz sound compared to my carved archtop, which I always feel like I am fighting with a little bit to get a sound I like through the amplifier. The ES-175 sits well in a mix with other instruments; at its brightest, it is nowhere near as bright as my carved arch top. A little woofy with the tone turned all the way off (no surprise there).
I did replace the TOM bridge with a Kluson bridge that has nylon saddles, which to my ears was a good change. It was just a little twangy with the steel saddles.
Here in the Midwest flyover country, where the market for used instruments is probably fairly weak, $3000 is a more typical recent asking price for these instruments. Hopefully you can talk the seller down a little bit from $3700.
-
A picture would help ....
-
A couple photos I obtained.
-
I nearly gave away an identical Blonde ‘97 in 2016 for $2k. And months later sold a L4CES for $3k. How times have changed in 8 years. I acquired a Wesmo L5 for $5k back then. These are the times we’re now all living in. But $3700 isn’t so bad. I’d go to the seller with $3500 cash in hand and see if he could resist taking it. After all, asking price is just that. Good luck!
-
Well, when you see the guitar in a couple of days, play it and see what you think. Take your amplifier along with you. You might start playing it and thinking "I'm home." If that's the case, a couple hundred bucks is probably no big deal if the seller won't budge. I am surprised how much I feel at home on my ES 175, coming from an Ibanez GB10, a 17" Benedetto style carved archtop, various solid bodies. The size, weight, neck, tone, etc., are very good. The neck is almost as good- so close- as my Ibanez GB10, which has the nicest neck of any guitar I've ever played, so that's high praise.
-
2012 was the year that Gibson used laminated rosewood fretboards on many of their guitars, as a result of running afoul of the US government regarding the documentation of their rosewood imports, being raided by the feds, and having a lot of their wood seized. There is plenty of information about it on the net, for those who are interested. Regardless of any effect it has on the sound of these instruments (none), it does have an effect on their value - they are worth a bit less than the same models without the laminated boards.
-
I don't know about that era.
I have a 1968 sold to me as new in 1973.
When I compare it with my Eastman AR605 and AR610. The Gibson, although a fine instrument, in contrast, looks like a high school shop project.
-
"I haven't had good experiences with Gibson 175s from 2012... I've played several, including VOS, and had 2 standards! One had a neck twist, the other was okay, but I always felt a 'heavy' sound in all of them... muddy bass strings, imbalance, and even adjusting pickup height, poles, etc. Something like a sound with less dynamics than expected! I also notice this in videos when someone demonstrates one... look at Gregsguitars videos, for example, and compare the 2012 with others. Then I had a 2006... 2002... different sound, without these characteristics... I got a bad impression of that year! It's important to say that this is just my personal experience and that it wasn't 175 blondes.
Last edited by caue amaral; 04-22-2024 at 12:26 PM.
-
The 59 Reissue 175 from around then is much lighter, woodier and more resonant in my experience.
the “non historic” standard 175’s hit and miss- some much too heavy and overbuilt imo
agree the sandwich fretboard make no difference in sound
-
I've got 2012 and the neck is not great. I don't think they were using very stable Mahogany back then. Or more accurately, they weren’t quality controlling for it.
I try to avoid Gibson post 1990’s but there were some awful 90’s Gibson’s and there are some great post 90’s ones.
Just pay attention to the neck and make sure the truss rod works.
The number one manufacturer I’ve refused on inspection, is Gibson. Roughly 30% of them, the necks are not good.
-
I had a 2008 ES-175 that had a neck twist that made getting the action where I like it to be, impossible. My 1997 ES-175 is superb as is my 2017 ES-175. Judge each guitar on it's own merits. The era is no indicator of quality. Both of the 1970's ES-175's that I had were great (though the 77 had a volute and a maple neck). The 1982 ES-175 that i had was superb. But both ES-175's that I had from the 60's were not great examples.
-
SS's experience points clearly at the truth that there is no era of Gibson's (or any other manufacturer's) output being uniformly good or bad. Have to take each instrument on its own merits.
-
My ES-175 is from 2007 and has a similar construction, without the rubber grommet around the switch and with the same style tailpiece. I'm very happy with the guitar. Wouldn't trade it for another.
Last edited by icr; 04-23-2024 at 09:16 PM.
-
I can underline Archie's point about trussrods on Gibsons. Like SS, I've had at least 7 175s, rangeing from early 60s, through 70s, 80s, 90s, to 2000s models. One thing that consistently bothered me about them is that the later the date, the more you had to really crank the trussrod to get the neck straight- which I dislike doing for obvious reasons. And this is with TI 12s! I sometimes wonder if the trussrod design has changed over the years, since I have an old Gibson L4C electric from 1958 which only requires one single turn to get the neck arrow-straight, and which hardly moves with the seasons. I eventually gave up on 175s, and now use a 70s Ibanez copy as a casual gigging guitar.
Originally Posted by Archie
-
I'm going to take it for a ride today, and we'll see....
-
mine is a 2012/2013, i did a video about it.
It's not as open sounding as the '80s models. Basically they've made the build heavier and heavier over the years and the 2013 eras have a more robust build which translates to less of the acoustic thunk we all know and love. Still, it's a great sounding guitar. I recently tried to replace it with an '89 but the '89 had some issues so at this point - since a good 175 is very hard to find, i'll stick with the bird in the hand.
-
The sad fact is that most of the guitars that are 30+ years old are starting to show signs of aging. Sinking tops, loose bracing, neck twists, fingerboard tail rises, etc... Some of these can be fixed, but unless you have a guitar re-braced, you're unlikely to fix a well sunken top. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
My '63 kessel is a great guitar but had to have the bracing reglued. Several other 175s and other archtops from the '60s, '70s, '80s i've tried have had similar issues. Compounding this is that many of the dealers (even those highly touted on these pages), either don't know how to check these or are too busy to properly do so.
Therefore, while I'd love to have a '63 175 which would be a sister to my Kessel, it's probably unlikely I'll ever find one in proper condition unless the previous owner did some work on it to restore it.
I think the '90s era 175s are really good as are the early '00s. I haven't played a 2017 one but I know you know your 175s and undoubtedly have a good one.
The other thing to consider is that the guitars - even from a similar era - are inconsistent and TBH, few of the employees play enough jazz to know if they even made a good archtop. So many demos of these guitars are from rock and blues guys. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't tell you if the guitar is going to be good for jazz...
-
I played the 2012 es-175 yesterday afternoon, made an offer, and it was quickly accepted. I think this was a guitar that was bought and cased for most of its life. The frets show almost zero marks; l can't really even call it wear. There were no marks to be found on the body, anywhere; just a very light layer of almost encrusted dust from not being dusted at any regular interval,.... easier to feel than see, and some tarnish on the tail piece and bridge. Very clean for a 12+ year guitar, but you could tell it had not been touched in a good while; put away dusty and sat. The rosewood looked really nice, though I don't know if it's a lam board or not..... obscured by binding all round. The neck was almost perfectly straight, really perfect, the action sweet, and intonation about spot-on; only the low E sounded maybe a tad off. I was told the strings were old D'Addario .010 gauge flat wounds, and that seems correct. The neck angle and bridge placement/height settings all look like where you'd want them, with plenty of adjustment available, either way, if needed. I tried it through my early 70's Vibro Champ. The pickups, switching, and pots all worked perfectly and quietly, with surprisingly nice, useful taper to the pots. So far, I'm impressed. Next up: I'll likely take it all down, oil all the rosewood bits, polish the body, clean the hardware, tighten everything up, and restring with .012 gauge. Another project..... but a fun one. I should be able to make really, really, nice look like new. I already gave the dust encrusted case a good scrubbing and that came back like new.
Very Happy! Thanks to everyone who chimed in on this thread!Last edited by Gregc57; 04-24-2024 at 11:06 AM. Reason: spelling and corrections!
-
Great words of wisdom Jack.
-
I enjoyed Jack's video. I may have seen it before, but it is especially on-point for me at this time, so Thanks again, Jack!
-
This is a great post. The two 60's examples that I had may have been good guitars in the 60's, but they were not when they came to me. The two 70's examples that I had were great, but that was long ago and today, those guitars may not be as good as they were when I owned them. Originally Posted by jzucker
And no doubt, the builds on the 175 did get heavier over time. My 2017 ES-175 is from the last year of production and is the heaviest example that I have ever owned at 7.5 pounds. Soon after I got it, I put it up for sale, not liking the heavy build and I even lined up a buyer. The night before the buyer was to arrive, I spent some time playing the guitar and discovered that it sustained like no other 175 that I had ever owned. I cancelled the sale and have now played countless gigs with that guitar. My 7 pound 1997 model is more "acoustic" and my 6.5 pound 1959 reissue model (made in 2017) is even more "acoustic". While the quality varies within each era, the build also varies, so one should seek the qualities that are important to that player.
And if you are going to get an old one, make sure it has been restored, otherwise you should have two things available, a great tech and a fat wallet.
-
Yours is also a great post with a lot of great info. I've also had a couple '70s 175s that were great but the most recent examples needed a ton of work. Maybe a '59 reissue would give me the vibe I'm looking for and be a new enough build that I wouldn't need to worry about it falling apart. My only concern is that I hear that the necks are super fat on those...
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
This is a great post. The two 60's examples that I had may have been good guitars in the 60's, but they were not when they came to me. The two 70's examples that I had were great, but that was long ago and today, those guitars may not be as good as they were when I owned them.
And no doubt, the builds on the 175 did get heavier over time. My 2017 ES-175 is from the last year of production and is the heaviest example that I have ever owned at 7.5 pounds. Soon after I got it, I put it up for sale, not liking the heavy build and I even lined up a buyer. The night before the buyer was to arrive, I spent some time playing the guitar and discovered that it sustained like no other 175 that I had ever owned. I cancelled the sale and have now played countless gigs with that guitar. My 7 pound 1997 model is more "acoustic" and my 6.5 pound 1959 reissue model (made in 2017) is even more "acoustic". While the quality varies within each era, the build also varies, so one should seek the qualities that are important to that player.
And if you are going to get an old one, make sure it has been restored, otherwise you should have two things available, a great tech and a fat wallet.
-
The neck on the 59 reissue is pretty fat. That took me awhile to get used to. Some guys actually like that, I tolerate it. And with the skinny frets, unpotted pickups and light build, the 59 reissue can be too bright for some. I find that for playing a gig where I need maximum acoustic crunch for playing rhythm guitar, it does almost as well as a carved, acoustic archtop, while still proving the feed back free performance that we expect from a 175. But it is a very different experience from an early 60's example. If I was comfortable paying the crazy money that they sell for, and found one in great shape that ticked all the boxes, an early 60's example would be my choice. Originally Posted by jzucker
We keep hearing that the archtop market is going to crash when boomers age out. Well if that happens (and I do not expect it to), this boomer (assuming I can still play my guitar without the necessity of wearing a bib) will be after one guitar and one guitar only, an early 60's two pickup 175. After all, it is the jazz guitar tone of Joe Pass (along with this style of play) that I have been chasing all of my adult life. OK, I might need an early 60's L-5 as well for the Wes Montgomery thing. It seems that I have also been chasing his tone and playing as well......
Reply With Quote
Who killed jazz ?
Today, 03:31 PM in From The Bandstand