ES-175 New or Vintage/Used

[weekapaugh]

I'm interested in a ES-175 and wondering if there is any advantage in going vintage/used over new besides the lower price point the can be found on some? Don't know much about these guitars, any feedback (posts, not guitar) is appreciated.


thx

[Lex Luthier]

Buy a used one. The lacquer has had time to harden, and most probably it will be broken in nicely.

[dkaplowitz]

You can get good deals on ones from ca. 1978-79 (~$1800.). I've heard good things about this period for 175s. The 50s and 60s ones are probably the best sounding, but they're often pretty expensive (~$4000. and up).

I'd say take your time and scour local shops in your area for a while and play as many new and used as you can.

[John Phillips]

Originally posted by weekapaugh
I'm interested in a ES-175 and wondering if there is any advantage in going vintage/used over new besides the lower price point the can be found on some?
Quality.

While Gibson's quality has varied over they years, and there have been questionable periods as well as good in the past, I really don't think their overall quality has ever been lower than it is today.

I know this is not that popular an opinion, and there are many people here who own Historics and the like which they love. But I just don't quite get them I'm afraid. I find the basic wood quality, assembly and finishing (especially fretting and fingerboards) inferior to anything they've ever made on most models, some 1970s 'experiments' excepted. Seeing the horrors of those sectioned Les Paul neck joints (on Gibson's own website) was the final straw. Now I know why the tone and even basic things like the neck angles are so variable - and the Historic one wasn't perfect either, even though it was better than the regular Standard. Any company with such poor basic quality doesn't deserve your money IMO. I'll now certainly never consider a new Gibson, or probably any used one that was made under the current management regime.

[joeprs]

I agree with John P. I also think that it's hit or miss. There is no consistency.

[dcooper]

I'd get a used one also, nice and broken in

gibsons new guitars are subject to bad fret work and sub par finishes,

you can find great ones but you need to try alot sometimes

[Dave Orban]

I'm not sure when they changed plywood suppliers, but the older ones are stupidly light, and the newer ones are heavy and don't resonate at all like the vintage ones.

Mine is from '53, and it's fabulous. I've owned a couple from the 60s that were also very good. I also owned one from 90 that was servicable, but much heavier than the others I'd owned.

If you're considering playing at any reasonable volume, you may want to look into having wooden sound posts installed (a reversible mod) under the bridge. Helps tp minimize feedback considerably.

[Johnnytone]

Originally posted by John Phillips
I find the basic wood quality, assembly and finishing (especially fretting and fingerboards) inferior to anything they've ever made on most models, some 1970s 'experiments' excepted.


Oh really?:o

I'd love for you to try my 2003 R8.

[Dave Orban]

Originally posted by Johnnytone
Oh really?:o

I'd love for you to try my 2003 R8. All kidding aside, I've found them to be hit or miss...

For every "great" one, there are dozens of mediocre ones...

And for that kind of money, that's just plain wrong.

You got a great one... so's ya must'a got lucky... :dude

[Johnnytone]

Originally posted by Dave Orban
All kidding aside, I've found them to be hit or miss...

For every "great" one, there are dozens of mediocre ones...

And for that kind of money, that's just plain wrong.

You got a great one... so's ya must'a got lucky... :dude


My particular R8 was a replacement for another I had purchased that had an imperfection in the neck shape. It was gone over and hand-picked by Ernie King of the Custom Shop, so maybe it IS a good one. But, the funny thing is: I stop by my local GC nearly every Tuesday on the way home from work just for the hell of it. I have played a TON of Gibson's there and I RARELY find anything wrong other than needing a good setup. And I have a pretty good guitar to judge them by.:)

[John Phillips]

Well, you may have a good one. Personally, I've never played one I liked yet, out of several dozen Historics and God knows how many regular production ones.

There's something 'soft' about the wood, that translates into the tone. The older ones always have a 'harder', more focused tone. Some people hear/feel this, others don't. It is a matter of taste as well though. Personally, I prefer the inherent wood tone of even the 70s ones, despite their major shortcomings in other areas usually (weight, wrong shaping often - but oddly, accurately wrong - ugly headstocks, cutaways etc).

I also feel the woodworking quality is higher on the old ones. Nothing could possibly be worse than the sectioned recent LP Standard they had on their site a while ago (I did save the picture, but I'm reluctant to post it here for potential legal reasons). It was so shockingly horrible that I'll never trust another of their guitars I can't see inside the neck joint of again - not from the 80s or newer, anyway. Which means any of them, basically, since you can't look (unlike Fenders which are often criticised for sloppy neck joints, but have never even come close to this level of junk). But if it matters, I played a LP Classic recently that was even more than usually crap-sounding, and with the pic in mind, I carefully tapped on the back of the neck joint. It was hollow. That is not how to build a quality musical instrument. It's no wonder they can't get the neck angles even remotely consistent (and they're almost all too steep).

And as for the fretting, fingerboard finishing and nut work... well, frankly Samick (that build most of the Epiphones) do a far better job on guitars that retail for less than a fifth of the price.

I'd love to think that Gibson were building instruments worthy of their name again, but the evidence just isn't there. I posted on this thread because I'm vaguely considering a 175 BTW... I probably won't buy anything made after 1980.

[Legend]

The amount of "gibson bashing" on this forum does not coincide with my findings either. By reading these forums, you'd think about 80% of gibsons are crap, with only 20% being "the good ones". My findings are the opposite, about 20% being unsatisfactory. I would much rather buy a gibson and have to replace the nut, then by a PRS and have to replace the pickups (which are garbage IMO) right away.

[wilder]

Originally posted by Legend
The amount of "gibson bashing" on this forum does not coincide with my findings either. By reading these forums, you'd think about 80% of gibsons are crap, with only 20% being "the good ones". My findings are the opposite, about 20% being unsatisfactory. I would much rather buy a gibson and have to replace the nut, then by a PRS and have to replace the pickups (which are garbage IMO) right away.

FWIW, my experience is the same. I find many more nice instruments in need of a setup than dogs when looking at newer Gibbys.

Chris

[Johnnytone]

Originally posted by John Phillips
I'll never trust another of their guitars I can't see inside the neck joint of again

So that would mean, oh, roughly, 100% of their stock:D

[Dave Orban]

Originally posted by Legend
The amount of "gibson bashing" on this forum does not coincide with my findings either. By reading these forums, you'd think about 80% of gibsons are crap, with only 20% being "the good ones". My findings are the opposite, about 20% being unsatisfactory. I would much rather buy a gibson and have to replace the nut, then by a PRS and have to replace the pickups (which are garbage IMO) right away. i dunno... i've never found PRS pickups to be "garbage" any more than I've never found gibson pickups to be garbage. Some I like more than others for different types of music, and so on. Me, I have absolutely no desire to sound just like Page, or Greeny, or Duane, or Dicky, or any of the other guitar gods out there, so my demands on a pickup might be quite different from someone else's... Nonetheless, just in terms of sheer build quality, PRS (and Tom Anderson, and others) FORCED Gibson (and Fender) to raise the bar... sometimes they were successful in meeting the higher standard, other times they were not.

Me, I owned over a dozen historics/custom shop Gibsons (after having searched through MANY more), as well as a similar number of Fenders, before concluding that I'd be better served with either a) a good vintage piece, refretted and tweaked to my satisfaction, b) a Baker, or c) a Lentz.

[John Phillips]

Originally posted by Legend
The amount of "gibson bashing" on this forum does not coincide with my findings either. By reading these forums, you'd think about 80% of gibsons are crap, with only 20% being "the good ones". My findings are the opposite, about 20% being unsatisfactory. I would much rather buy a gibson and have to replace the nut, then by a PRS and have to replace the pickups (which are garbage IMO) right away.
Of course I mostly see the unsatisfactory ones, since I tend to get them to set up, but what I think is revealing is that they almost all have other problems too. I can't believe that it's only the badly-built, badly-finished ones that are also left with poor setups. I have no idea what the proportion is (I don't go around trying new Gibsons in shops, I have no interest any more), but even the sheer number is completely unacceptable for a "quality" maker IMO - far worse than Fender, who actually make more guitars.

I agree about replacing PRS pickups BTW (I'd say they are not to my taste, rather than garbage - they're well-made)... but I think exactly the same about Gibson ones, so that's a draw. Anyway, it's not the same thing - that's just taste. You should never have to replace a nut on a $1000+ guitar that has passed "quality control". And I've never - not once - seen a PRS with the kind of problems I routinely do on Gibsons. They're not perfect either (I've seen minor cosmetic flaws on them too), just in a different quality league.

[Bryan T]

Do check out a few Heritage guitars to see if they meet your ES-175 needs. For some, only a Gibson is good enough, but I think Heritage makes a better and cheaper guitar.

Bryan

[John Phillips]

Originally posted by Johnnytone
So that would mean, oh, roughly, 100% of their stock:D
Pretty much, although on a 'long tenon' Les Paul, or SG, you can see quite a lot inside the neck pickup cavity, or under that little cover plate. And Firebirds have through necks, so they're OK :). But not much else...

If you've seen the pic, you'll know why I think this. I looked at it again for the first time in a few months while posting here today, and it's still shocking. Absolutely no wood-to-wood contact along the floor of the joint at all, or at the end. Great big gaping angled cavities, presumably to allow 'adjustment' of the fit - not filled with glue either, just air. And the whole lot hidden from the outside by the smallest overlap at the back of the 'step' on the heel, and by the fingerboard.

A separate pic of the tenon itself, out of the joint, shows it's crudely shaped and absolutely incapable of being fitted accurately - it must just be held by a bit of glue and a prayer. You can't possibly expect something like that to be structurally sound or good-sounding. It makes the average sloppy Fender 70s three-bolt join seem like high-precision engineering.

Even the Historic long-tenon joint shown, while far better, is not perfect and does not have glued wood-to-wood contact over its whole area.

The bigger point is that it doesn't just apply to individual guitars, it shows that their whole manufacturing standards ethic can't be trusted. They must have thought it was perfectly good, or they wouldn't have posted the pics... they were, however, quick to pull them once comments began to show up on the net.

[dkaplowitz]

I'm with the "Gibson bashers". I've been wanting to find a great Les Paul that's under $10,000. but the ones I've played locally off the wall of the dealers are no where near worth close to $3000. or $4000. they are going for. They sound dead, lifeless, uninspiring. They often play that way too. No amount of set up will raise these guitars from being pretty mediocre.

There's a 175 at a shop near me that's actually really resonant and nice to play. This thing has huge finish cracks in the cutaway ...and they aren't from abuse. They're from factory defects and/or carelessness from whoever (if anyone) checks for these things when leaving the factory. Cool if the thing was marked a 2nd and cut down to 40% of the MSRP, but the shop is forced to only go down 30% from MSRP otherwise they'll lose their ass on it. Sad because these flaws are bad enough to scare me away from it even at that price.

And I'm no big fan of PRSi, so it's not that I don't like what's been said about them here.

[Johnnytone]

Originally posted by John Phillips
You can't possibly expect something like that to be structurally sound or good-sounding.

I think there were a few records recorded with these sub-par Gibsons . . .

[John Phillips]

And with 50s Danelectros too.

The difference is that the Danos weren't claimed to be 'best' quality guitars... although I'd argue that they were possibly better built.

[Johnnytone]

Originally posted by John Phillips
I'd argue that they were possibly better built.

This is too funny.

Thanks for a good laugh today.:)

[arriba]

Try to find an ES175 from the 50's or early 60's.
they are light, have great P90's, PAF's or PAT# pickups and
they gain in value.

Here are mine , both from 1958.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v431/Hospelt/Gear/2GibsonES175SB-B.jpg

[aeolian]

In my experience, ply top Gibsons, whether 175's or 335's are so variable as to make the vintage worthless in terms of predicting sound quality. Some 175's are really dead and boxy sounding, while others have some life. It's never going to have the rich complexity of a solid carved spruce top instrument, but it doesn't feed back as quickly either. And sometimes, a slightly boxy tone carries in a mix better. You need to play as many as possible, and play the one you buy. I would never buy a plywood guitar without playing it first.

[Brion]

The best 175 i've played was one of the mahogany side/backed ones from '89/90. It had a headstock repair (by gibson no less) and the jack area had been repaired too. Despite all these issues it sounded great. I've played my Dad's mid 60's 175 many times and never got along with it. I've played some nice old ones too, but there is just something special about that '89 one. I say play as many as possible and find the one that speaks to you.

[Mr.Hanky]

Never mind John, he has a major Gibson bug up his ass.

*Hanky passes John his extra long needle nose pliers.*

[Johnnytone]

Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
Never mind John, he has a major Gibson bug up his ass.

*Hanky passes John his extra long needle nose pliers.*

who?

[John Phillips]

Originally posted by Mr.Hanky
Never mind John, he has a major Gibson bug up his ass.
FYI, I don't. I simply have an issue with any company, Gibson or otherwise, who make such appalling quality instruments and charge the money they do for them. If PRS made the same kind of crap I'd slate them for it too.

Did you or did you not see the pic I have been refering to? If not, don't presume to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about or that I have a 'bashing' agenda.

Yes, I have the pic. No, I will not post it here, since it's Gibson's copyright property and I will respect that, despite my contempt for them as a company.

If you didn't see it, trust me, you would not believe your eyes. I've been aware of minor quality gripes with Gibsons for years (I've worked on hundreds), but nothing quite prepared me for what I saw there. However, it did suddenly make sense of why their guitars are so variable both in tone and in major structural dimensions such as neck angle.

I am talking about gaps of up to 1/8" in places inside the neck joint - no wood-to-wood contact along the floor of the joint at all, on the Standard. Not filled with glue or anything else - just a gap. The gap at the end of the tenon is in the 1/4" range, although that is less important. The tenon is simply far too small for the recess. Of course, this is all hidden from the outside, so unless you've seen one cut in half, you have no idea.

Even the supposedly superior Historic was very far from perfect - an apparently much better fit, but still not along the majority of the tenon floor, and still not glued fully. A gap is still a gap, at the end of the day. These were finished instruments that had been sectioned BTW, not mockups. I must thank Gibson for publicly revealing their construction methods :rolleyes:.

The problem I now do have is that having seen such rubbish, I can't trust any other one I can't see inside of - since the company obviously thinks that it's OK to do that.

[Dave Orban]

Originally posted by John Phillips
FYI, I don't. I simply have an issue with any company, Gibson or otherwise, who make such appalling quality instruments and charge the money they do for them....

+1

[Johnnytone]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/Johnnytone/tenon.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/Johnnytone/holes.jpg

[Bryan T]

I guess that explains the variability in neck angles on Les Pauls then, doesn't it? Geez!

Bryan

[Bluedawg]

In the end

If you pick up a guitar and you like. It is a good guitar, who cares what anyone else thinks.

Good luck with the 175 hunt.

:rolleyes:

[HEY!YOU!]

That's funny ??....when I was at the Gibson Custom shop last year I saw them fitting neck joints from 2 ft away. They were tight as you could get, taking a little off at a time until it just fit without glue, no gaps at all.
I think that picture is bs or demonstrating something other than what their finished product is.

[John Phillips]

Originally posted by HEY!YOU!
I think that picture is bs or demonstrating something other than what their finished product is.
That picture was on Gibson's own website. It shows two sectioned finished guitars, LP Standard at the top, Historic at the bottom.

It was to demonstrate the 'superior' long-tenon joint on the Historics. There was another one which showed the tenons before insertion into the sockets, and the shaping was crude beyond belief on the Standard.

It's interesting that you say they make them fit hand-tight with no glue, since that's exactly what's been done with the Historic in the pic, just not quite well enough. I would guess that if more glue had been used and the joint clamped more heavily, it would have completely closed up along the bottom and would therefore be done right.

Believe what you like, all I can say is that although it was shocking, that pic does definitely explain a lot.

[Mr.Hanky]

Actually that picture explains jack sheet cause if the guitar plays and sounds good, then it is good, period end of story.

[Mr.Hanky]

Originally posted by John Phillips
FYI, I don't. I simply have an issue with any company, Gibson or otherwise,

Well then how do you explain this.....

http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84933&highlight=gibson

To me that was a bit biased, Gibson's fault???

C'mon you hate them, admit it.
SAY IT!!
SAY IT!!

;)

[John Phillips]

Do you really need it spelling out, or are you just an apologist for Gibson?

What it explains is the extreme variation of neck angles - notice how the Standard has an excessive angle compared to the Historic, which directly impacts playability; the variability in tone - you're surely not going to say that it makes no difference how good the fit is, are you? People have been criticising Fender for sloppy neck joints (that are a tenth as bad as that) for years, on the basis that it affects the tone and stability; and most importantly the sheer bad attitude to building a guitar properly that this particular company has. They seem to think that because you can't see it from the outside it doesn't matter (as, apparently, do you). Wrong, IMO.

I believe that if someone buys a guitar that they can't see inside the neck joint of, that they have a right to expect that it has been built properly, not thrown together and we'll see if it sounds any good. Especially at the sort of money and marketing position that applies to Gibson. I'd take a bet that no Korean-made Epiphone looks anything like that inside. They also IMO have the right to expect that it won't fall apart if given a minor knock, which occurs in the factory-supplied case (as some of them do).

I don't "hate" Gibson or their guitars, although I do have utter contempt for their construction methods, hence why I criticised them for ridiculously breakable headstocks too. Yet another thing that could be massively improved to the standards other makers in the industry achieve on far cheaper instruments.

Anyway, I've said my thousand words (and some), just look at the picture. It tells you all you need to know about modern Gibsons. End of story.

[Mr.Hanky]

I see you are still in the denial phase.

[John Phillips]

Now that's funny :).


FWIW, I don't 'bash' products or companies for no reason. But where there are faults (real, provable, backed up by real-world experience and hard evidence) I will always say so out loud. This applies to ANY product - I'd be happy to post the things that are wrong with my favorite pieces of gear made by my favorite companies, if they're relevant to someone else. I think it's important for me or anyone else with practical experience and some knowledge of how things are built and/or repaired to say so for the benefit of those who don't have that and are thinking of buying something.

Just look at the pic, see what it tells you about Gibson's quality control, and then tell me who's in denial.

That's all I'm going to say.

[sosomething]

Originally posted by John Phillips
Now that's funny :).


FWIW, I don't 'bash' products or companies for no reason. But where there are faults (real, provable, backed up by real-world experience and hard evidence) I will always say so out loud. This applies to ANY product - I'd be happy to post the things that are wrong with my favorite pieces of gear made by my favorite companies, if they're relevant to someone else. I think it's important for me or anyone else with practical experience and some knowledge of how things are built and/or repaired to say so for the benefit of those who don't have that and are thinking of buying something.

Just look at the pic, see what it tells you about Gibson's quality control, and then tell me who's in denial.

That's all I'm going to say.


It IS probably best to let it go, John. You've tried, but if someone can look at that pic and still feel that Gibson's current production quality isn't an issue, you might as well be talking to a wall. I've had this exact same conversation on other forums and have gone round and round without ever getting through.

Simply put: I prefer to give my money to companies that give a shit about their products, their vendors, and their customers. Gibson has shown consistantly that it doesn't anymore.

If quality isn't an issue (as in 'you don't care how poorly it's slopped together') then go buy a '70's Aria LP copy and save a grand or two. Give it to the homeless or something. That is, unless a MOP "Gibson" logo inlaid in a black headstock veneer is worth several thousand dollars to you.

[Rich T Fingers]

Regardless of all this I can say that it is possible to find a great Gibson ES175 made in the last ten years - I have one. It's a '97 blonde that I got new and it is beautifully made and sounds wonderful. It even sounds so good acoustically that I have used it in recording as an acoustic.

[Old Tele man]

...yeah, but being able to say "I TOLD you SO!" when someone gets a 6-sting "lemon" sure makes me chuckle!

[Mr.Hanky]

I'd love to agree with you all but my 82 Norlin era Les Paul makes a very strong argument.

As I said, if it sounds good and plays good, it is good.


If you take one pic posted on the internet as fact you are smokin some serious sheet and I need to party with you.

Norlin era LP's unite!!

[Mr.Hanky]

Face it John, you are a Gibson hating PRS Nazi.

My new R7 makes the same argument that my 82 does.
There are a ton of very happy players out there with new or newer standards as well. And again I will reiterate, if it sounds good and plays good, it is good. I don't give a sheet if they fill the neck gap with Plutonium and the finish looks like it was done with molasses.

So there, how do you like them woofers and tweaters!

[Mr.Hanky]

:D

:dude

Lighten up!

[Old Tele man]

...ah, but there's an equally valid statement to be made by turning that sentenace around:

re: "...if it sounds good and plays good, it is good."

re: "...if it looks badly and is built badly, it is bad."

...some people are enamored by simply a name... others, however, believe the quality, fit and finish should justify the value and cost. Which person are you?

[Mr.Hanky]

Originally posted by Old Tele man
...ah, but there's an equally valid statement to be made by turning that sentenace around:

re: "...if it sounds good and plays good, it is good."

re: "...if it looks badly and is built badly, it is bad."

...some people are enamored by simply a name... others, however, believe the quality, fit and finish should justify the value and cost. Which person are you?

I'm the guy who picks it up and plays the god damn thing and doesn't get overly anal about how it was built, how it looks and how much it will appreciate in 20 years.

I have owned plenty of guitars that have unbelievable fit and finish and can't come close to the sound and simplicity of a LP.

Shut up!
Plug In!
And PLAY!