ES 125 versus ES 175
Dick Onstenk
between a Gibson ES 125 and an ES 175, apart from the cosmetic differences
such as the absence of bindings, inlay and the cutaway for the ES 125.
Wood wise, are there differences?
Dick
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10-1-03
Greg D
news:b11iih$urcr1$1...@ID-105352.news.dfncis.de:
> I once heard a vintage dealer say that he did not know the differences
> between a Gibson ES 125 and an ES 175, apart from the cosmetic
> differences such as the absence of bindings, inlay and the cutaway for
> the ES 125.
and body depth (except for those thicks ones made for a short while) and
electronics. I don't think any 125's were made with '57 classics, but when
those pups came out, 175's had them.
>
> Wood wise, are there differences?
Some 175's were made with maple, others with mahogany bodies. I think all
125's were maple.
Greg
>
> Dick
Dick Onstenk
ES 125 with a single P90 pick-up in neck position. ES 175s were like like
that too in those pre PAF days.
The body depth for my ES 125 is the same as for an ES 175.
Dick
"Greg D" <oas...@cox.net> schreef in bericht
news:Xns930FA4C28B2...@68.1.17.6...
Greg D
> 1951 ES 125 with a single P90 pick-up in neck position. ES 175s were
> like like that too in those pre PAF days.
>
> The body depth for my ES 125 is the same as for an ES 175.
In that case, per http://www.provide.net/~cfh/gibson3.html, there doesn't
seem to be much of a difference other than the cosmetics and cutaway.
Looks like those earlier 125's were made with maple and mahogany, too.
Greg
matt u
1949 ES-175 to, uh, supplement the 1953 ES-125 (full depth, no cutaway)
that I've been playing for the past year. I've got them both here in
front of me as I write this.
As you mention, the binding, inlays, etc. are not the same. In terms of
wood, the tops seem to be the same. There's a tiny bit more grain
apparent in the 175, but that's probably just a matter of a different
piece of wood. The backs are clearly different. The back of the 175 is
the same wood as the top - maple(?) laminate. As you know, the back of
the 125 is mahogany (right? I'm never positive...) The sides do look
like they're different - the 125's sides have the same wood as its back;
and the 175's sides are what I would guess are the same as the top and
back, but they're finished in a very deep color that makes it hard to be
sure. An interesting detail is that the heel is a bit wider on the 175.
The weights of the guitars are very close. Other material differences -
the tuners are much better on the 175 and the tailpiece is heavier. The
bridge on my 175 is rosewood, and its full length makes contact with the
body, as opposed to the two "feet" on the 125. Also, the pickguard
attaches to the body via a bar and bracket on the tail end and to the
side of the neck toward the head, rather than the bent metal tab and
screwed into the body by the neck. Finally, the pickguard on mine is a
bound (not multi-ply) translucent tortoise-colored material that has not
warped in the least, but I think this is unique to pre-1950 Gibsons.
I'd love to find out what the pickguard is made of - anyone?
Acoustically, the 175 has a deeper, more throaty tone. Amplified, I am
very surprised how difference there is - the 175 has smoother, drier
tone, where by comparison the 125 is more twangy and tubby. It is
important to note that the 175 has its original pickup, where I replaced
the 125's finicky original pickup with a Gibson re-issue P-90.
However, I don't remember the 125 ever sounding like this.
Of course, the cutaway allows access to the 15-19th frets, which is
great, but the 125 always buzzed out above the 15th anyway. Not at all
on the 175. I've never had another guitar that played this well.
I can't fully explain how thrilled I am with the 175. I expected a step
up, but my every expectation has been surpassed. It's great to have an
instrument that is not a compromise - no "pretty good for the money" -
this is one that I don't ever expect to replace. I'm very fortunate to
have been able to afford this at the same time I found it.
Hope you don't mind the detail, I guess I've been looking for a chance
to gush.
Matt
tomw
lowsoun...@yahoo.com says...
snip
> Acoustically, the 175 has a deeper, more throaty tone. Amplified, I am
> very surprised how difference there is - the 175 has smoother, drier
> tone, where by comparison the 125 is more twangy and tubby.
This describes my early 50's ES135 perfectly(original P90s intact).
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/