Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

ES-175


Bluesape

Recommended Posts

Anyone got one of these? I've had mine 31 years - pumped gas to pay for it - sweetest sounding axe I own, but being a big jazz box, it's a little harder to rock out on. I don't play it a lot these days, but I'd feel a real sense of loss if I let it go, and I've been offered good money for it. Anybody else got a sentimental piece they hang onto?
Never a DUH! moment! Well, almost never. OK, OK! Sometimes never!
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by Bluesape:

....it's a little harder to rock out on.

 

...I'd feel a real sense of loss if I let it go, and I've been offered good money for it. Anybody else got a sentimental piece they hang onto?

Ya think? I don't. Some of the best rockers used large hollowbodied guitars.

 

If you can live without the money, keep the guitar. You'll spend the money and it will be gone. You'll admire and cherish the guitar forever. I've sold and/or given away some serious axes over the years, and there are times when I'm sorry that I did that with most every one of them. (I only miss a couple of the amps though, go figure...)

 

Of course, they are tools, and there are more where those ones came from.

 

I'm used to a number of my guitars being out in the studio and being able to just grab any one of them at will. Since I gave up the studio and moved to an apartment, the guitars are mostly left in the closets. It's wierd enough that they are put away, but at least I know that they are there.

 

Bill

"I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot."

 

Steve Martin

 

Show business: we're all here because we're not all there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the D model? Or does it have just one P-90? It looks a lot like the ES-300 I have (but without the funky looking pickup).

 

I'd keep it if money isn't a problem. Guitars like that will only appreciate over time. I definitely wouldn't give (or sell) it to someone who doesn't appreciate what a piece of craftsmanship it is unless they make you a _very_ good offer.

 

Like they say, they aren't making any more 1970s guitars. So I'd hang onto it if I could. The fact that Gibson still makes ES-175s attests to its popularity. They've been making that model since 1949 (56 years).

 

Besides, if you play it and enjoy playing it, why get rid of it?

Born on the Bayou

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I love those, and the ES-165/"Herb Ellis" models, too (pretty much the same thing, but with only one neck-position pickup).

 

I'm with KPB, I'd also string it with flat-wounds, either "13's" or "14's", or maybe those small-winding round-wound "be-bop" strings that Thomastik-Infeld uses for some of their George Benson line of strings, also "13's" or "14's". Especially with other guitars on-hand for rock 'n' blues 'n' country 'n' such...

Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do?

 

~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~

_ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had no urges to sell it - sorry if I came accross that way.

 

It's a '65 or '66 with one humbucker, tobacco sunburst. It's had 8s on it for over 30 years, dunno if it would take heavy strings, don't wanna know. I just gotta get it out more, and yeah I know Steve Howe, Neil Schon, and others use jazz boxes at times. I guess feedback is the main reason I don't bring it out much.

Never a DUH! moment! Well, almost never. OK, OK! Sometimes never!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been my experience that the short scale Gibson archtops need 13's to get the best tonal response....8's would barely get the top moving.

 

You'll also notice a slight increase in the gain/feedback ration with a heavier string...raises the top resonance frequency...

 

I'd take that thing to a good tech, and have it completely gone over...fret dress, fresh BIG strings. And if you're used to playing REALLY light strings, you'll have a light touch with your right hand...so you can drop the action WAY down...will play like butter and have that FAT tone you can only get from a Gibson archie....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, on a flat-top acoustic, "twelves" feel TOO LIGHT to me! Same with a bona-fide/dedicated jazz-box.

 

I'm NOT saying anybody's wrong liking really light gauge strings, just that they're wrong for ME.

Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do?

 

~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~

_ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dave251:

It's been my experience that the short scale Gibson archtops need 13's to get the best tonal response....8's would barely get the top moving.

 

You'll also notice a slight increase in the gain/feedback ration with a heavier string...raises the top resonance frequency...

It's got a maple top, and the last thing it needs is more feedback. A buddy here has a 175 with 12 or 13 flatwounds. I'm gonna have to A-B them through my rig to see if the difference is desireable enough to make that change. I still don't think it would get a ton of use, as I'm more acclimated to a solid body.
Never a DUH! moment! Well, almost never. OK, OK! Sometimes never!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Dave means is, the gain before feedback ratio is improved, due to the rise in the resonant frequency when the top is loaded with more tension from the strings.

 

An acoustic arch-top behaves like an inverted speaker cone, with the string-pressed bridge pushing and pulling in and out on the top as the strings vibrate. Greater string-tension there is kinda like a higher degree of speaker damping in a tighter-sounding tube-amp, where the speaker's bass-excursion is more tightly controlled and less flappy. Then factor in the higher frequency-point of acoustic resonance that Dave cites, and between the two, you'll get less feedback for the same overall volume.

 

Granted, we're not necessarily talking about typical gainy peaky electric rock or even blues volumes...

 

A flat-top acoustic, on the other hand, usually has the string's pulling the bridge (and thus the top, to which it's glued) in a rolling, rippling motion towards the fingerboard, across the top from back to front (tail to neck).

Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do?

 

~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~

_ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dances With Werewolves:

See, on a flat-top acoustic, "twelves" feel TOO LIGHT to me! Same with a bona-fide/dedicated jazz-box.

 

I'm NOT saying anybody's wrong liking really light gauge strings, just that they're wrong for ME.

I'm with the mad Irishman on this, I started out playing lo when the lightest strings you could buy were 10s. I run 12s on my dreadnaught and 11s on my Epi Joe Pass, might go to 12s on that too.

 

20 years ago, just after I started to play lefty, I was on W. 48th in NYC in one of those used guitar stores. He had a lefty 1963 ES-175 for $600.00. I put a deposit on it and came back home, intending to send him the balance and have him ship it to me. Back home, "buyer's remorse": I wasn't sure I'd be able to play lefty well enough to justify buying that guitar. So I cancelled the deal and got my deposit back.

 

Now, 20 years down the road, I play pretty well, and every time I think of that guitar I find a flat, hard surface and bang my head on it a few times...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a Steve Howe fan, I've always wanted an ES 175 (D). I've played several older ones that were nice, including one wned by the guy who sold me my/his ES 335. Very nice. However, a year or two ago I played a newer ES 175, at a Gibson showcase in Nashville, of all places, and couldn't stand the sound. Well, plugged it was ok; unplugged it didn't sound anywhere as nice. I think part of it was the finish; seemed like a thinner, satin-type finish that just felt, well, cheap. So I'd say stick with the one you've got; you can't just replace "it" with a newer one and end up in the same ballpark.

"Am I enough of a freak to be worth paying to see?"- Separated Out (Marillion)

NEW band Old band

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the difference in the tone between the older 175s and the newer ones is that the older ones used a ridiculously thin nitro-cellulose lacquer finish that let the wood do its thing.

 

I don't know what they're finishing the newer guitars with but I think they lay it on pretty thick.

 

In the dings that go to the wood in the '95 Les Paul Studio I just got, you can tell the finish is really thick (like 1/8 of an inch thick).

 

A finish that thick might not stifle a solid body much but it's got to really affect a hollow body guitar like wrapping it in plastic.

Born on the Bayou

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by popcritic:

My daughter Kaki King has owned a 70's ES-175 for several years. She used it back in May when she was the "house band" for several shows on NBC's Last Call with Carson Daly. I thought it looked and sounded great.

 

Best--

 

Dave King

Hey Pop....don't you know tone is in the hands? And she got her hands from you(well, I'm assuming you partially contributed anyway)? You should be a proud guy....

 

So we want to know what gauge of strings she uses on the 175...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...