ES-175 New or Vintage/Used

[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

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.

[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 .

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]