Worthy substitute for the ES-175
oasysco
responses fall into one fo three groups:
1. If you want the sound and vibe of an ES-175, get an ES-175
2. Good subs include guitars A-Z (even though they all have different
specs than a 175)
3. One or two suggestions arise of guitars that may well be a 100% sub
to a 175
I'm not talking about a near-replacement or one that gets within 90%.
I'm talking about a 100% sub in tone, look, feel, construction
materials - only at a way less cost. I'm also talking just about the
neck pup since I don't use the bridge pup much at all, so the sub could
well be a one pickup guitar or one you have to mod with new pups or
whatever.
Without discussing why I'd want to replace a 175, which is immaterial
to finding a 100% substitute, let's just say that since owning a 175, I
have tried:
* Ibanez PM-20, which is not a sub for a 175 in sound or vibe. Decent
enough guitar on its own merit, but if you want a 175, you wouldn't buy
this one
* Samick JZ2 - while not a replacement for a 175 tone-wise, it sounds
darn good for blues/rock/pop and the one I had played liked butter.
Still not a sub for the 175
* Gibson ES-165 - yup, a 100% valid sub for the 175! No wonder as it is
a one pickup 175 to begin with. I have zero doubt that if you drop in a
'57 classic humbuck, you'd get exactly a 175 sound. I'ts already got
the vibe, look, feel, and construction materials.
Are there others? Not a near-miss or close-enough, but real examples of
guitars that sound, play, and look like a 175?
For example, the old Ibanez lawsuits use the darker sounding Ibanez
pups, have a maple neck, etc, which is a tip off they can't sound like
a 175, though they can look like one and maybe even feel like one.
Just curious.
Greg "A curious 'G tee-hee" (sorry Thom, couldn't resist :)
dunlop212
oasysco
"They're great guitars -- superficially similar to a '50s Gibson
ES-175, but really more Gretsch-like in tone and vibe (tighter feel,
slimmer body)..."
[http://tdpri.com/viewtopic.php?p=271185&sid=d3ad39e54dd5e522b8c0aff6f834ee72]
That's what I mean - finding a real 100% sub for a 175 is harder than
it looks if you use my criteria of 100% match on body construction
matl's, tone, look, and feel.
I think the final answer will be, there is no sub (except for the 165),
but before accepting that, I'd like a little more info.
Greg
gerba...@hotmail.com
Five Sharp
#####
<gerba...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1134754268....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
oasysco
But they have totally dif pups and maple necks. If I was going to look
at offshores, I'd think the Ibanez PM100 or PM120 might be real close,
but probably not a 100% match, even though the PM100/120 sounds better.
Greg
Joey Goldstein
I think they have a mahogany neck too and maple top (not sure though),
unlike the Ibanez lawsuit models.
The Aria Pro Herb Ellis model looks promising.
I tried an Aria Pro ES-175 type guitar, don't know the model # (there
were several of these), at a local store a while ago and was
underwhelmed, but it wasn't set up well at all.
BTW That Samick HF-650 I have now doesn't really seem like it's going to
work out. The attack is a bit brite sounding. Probably the maple neck.
Maybe the bracing? Maybe the finish?
There's a 90's era 175 at Long And McQuade here in toronto for just
under $2k CND but it just sounds and plays awful. The frets are huge.
Maybe the original owner had a re-fret?
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
Real 175's have maple plywood tops.
They have maple necks I think.
Real 175's have mahogany necks.
gerba...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> ibanez lawsuit 175's are about a perfect match in sound and feel
--
Joey Goldstein
--
jw
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:43A3000F...@nowhere.net...
> They have a spruce plywood top I think.
> Real 175's have maple plywood tops.
> They have maple necks I think.
> Real 175's have mahogany necks.
>
Jim
gerba...@hotmail.com
between maple ply and spruce ply. ply resonates like ply which can
sometimes resonate alot like a solid top. no two guitars made from the
same materials will sound exactly the same nor will two made from
different materials sound dramaticly different by default. beyond that
environmental varriables may or may not play a large or small part in a
guitars sonic signature at any given point. i played a ibanez 175 that
sounded like an L4 that sounded alot like a vintage gib175 .The only
sure fire way to get what you want is to actually check the guitar in
question out. even then there are no promises. that being said all you
can do is know the dimensions you want and look at guitars that fit
these parameters. bar that, buy a black market monkey and teach him to
wistle yer favorite tunes.
dirk
Maybe i missed this but how did you work out
with the broken 165 ?
Dirk
"oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1134751381.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
charles robinson
Charlie
"oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134751381.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Five Sharp
#####
"charles robinson" <robins...@comcast.net> schreef in bericht
news:XOWdnelxntG...@comcast.com...
pmfan57
Was the Aria Pro Herb Ellis a "lawsuit" model? I thought they had a
real legit deal with Herb Ellis on that one. They used to advertise in
GP. I played one and it was real nice.
billc...@hotmail.com
five times what I payed for the 125. I was considering buying the 175.
The electric sound was identical. The playability was slightly better
on the 125 - maybe due to setup, otherwise they felt the same.
Acoustically the 125 was far better than the 175. The 175 looked better
because of the cutaway. At the end of the day though it's a case of
A/Bing an individual guitar against another, not model A against model
B. If you must have humbucker(s) then I accept that the P90 is a
different thing - but I've never got on with humbuckers. I have a hunch
that the mahogany neck and rosewood fretboard is part of the sound of
the 175 and its relations, but this may be BS. I also note that Martijn
van Iterson plays a 125 - need I say more!
Five Sharp
175!
#####
<billc...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1134764294.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Derek
Derek
tone, and they just fall short, however they are cheaper.
Max Leggett
news:cafbe$43a32169$d55d8e9b$12...@news.chello.nl...
> Yes, that's right. But the ES 125 is not a substitute. Just a poor man's
ES
> 175!
You used to own a 125 didn't you? I remember you liked it. How does it
differ tonally from the 175? The price is certainly right.
billc...@hotmail.com
> Yes, that's right. But the ES 125 is not a substitute. Just a poor man's ES
> 175!
has been that at least one of the 125's I've played has been a better
guitar than the 175's I've played - meaning better for me of course ...
Joey Goldstein
gerba...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> i think your foolin' yourself if you think you can hear a difference
> between maple ply and spruce ply.
Guess I'm fooling myself then.
I have an Ibanez AF 120 that's got a spruce plywood top and I notice a
timbral difference with that guitar. Sure, it's also got a slightly
thinner body than a 175 too, but I've played a lot of maple ply archtop
guitars and they *all* have a certain buzz that this one and the Epi Joe
Passes (also spruce ply) I've rented in the past as well.
> ply resonates like ply which can
> sometimes resonate alot like a solid top. no two guitars made from the
> same materials will sound exactly the same nor will two made from
> different materials sound dramaticly different by default. beyond that
> environmental varriables may or may not play a large or small part in a
> guitars sonic signature at any given point.
Yes. There's lots of variables. So why mess with one you know about and
can avoid?
> i played a ibanez 175 that
> sounded like an L4 that sounded alot like a vintage gib175 .The only
> sure fire way to get what you want is to actually check the guitar in
> question out. even then there are no promises. that being said all you
> can do is know the dimensions you want and look at guitars that fit
> these parameters. bar that, buy a black market monkey and teach him to
> wistle yer favorite tunes.
--
Joey Goldstein
I think so, but maybe not.
The deal with the lawsuits is that they were filed after the guitars
were put on the market.
> I thought they had a
> real legit deal with Herb Ellis on that one. They used to advertise in
> GP. I played one and it was real nice.
--
art...@invalid.co.uk.invalid
"charles robinson" <robins...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There is none.
>
> Charlie
>
When did the modern ES175 get rehabilitated? I had a new ES175 in the
mid 1990's that was well made and set up and easy to play but had no
vibe at all. It might as well have been a solid with a humbucker as
far as I was concerned. Sold it at a profit (never before or since)
and never regretted the sale.
Arthur
--
Arthur Quinn
real-email arthur at bellacat dot com
gerba...@hotmail.com
>can avoid?
that's just the problem. you don't know what the guitar sounds like
until you play it. what yer head says should suck, yer ear might
love.... or there's always that monkey thing.
mark
I fell for this line of thinking this past January when I was looking
for a decent archtop that would be close a 175 in tone/feel. I took a
2-hour trip up to North Jersey to check out a mint condition 50's ES-125
and it sounded *nothing* like an ES-175. But that wasn't all that
surprising considering it had P90's, which I learned that day that I
don't much like. But also, it felt nothing at all like an ES-175.
Incidentally, the Ibanez 2355 lawsuit model I played that same day did
feel/sound close to a 175, but still a tad too bright. They go for
around a grand, which, when you get to that price range you may as well
go a little more and buy an ES-165.
mark
charles robinson
in Florida during the time that they were out he was playing one on his
gig.He would talk about what a great axe it was, If you were looking for a
box to buy this was the one to get, the pickups were extra hot etc. In other
words he was doing a one man sales campaign.
Charlie
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:43A325F5...@nowhere.net...
charles robinson
recently. I just finished a gig with some musicians who didn't know that I
was playing a different axe and all of them commented on the great sound
that I was getting . This new one is as good or better than any I have ever
owned.
Charlie
<art...@invalid.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:308c61da...@rpc700.net...
Winston Castro
wrote:
>Not the ones I played.
>
Because they often sound and play better?
Not to burst anyone's bubbles, but I have never been too impressed
with the 175's playability or "vibe.' Almost undisputably, the tone
is certainly there if you like the sound. I do myself BTW.
Not much use disputing that the tone is great. But it's all a bit
subjective isn't it?
Only a guess, but surely Heritage has something that not only
substitutes the 175, but completely blows it away?
Winston Castro
<robins...@comcast.net> wrote:
>There is none.
>
>Charlie
>
That's basically it in a nut shell.
Some better, some worse, some simply different, but none that is
really a direct substitute.
Winston Castro
>In message <XOWdnelxntG...@comcast.com>
> "charles robinson" <robins...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> There is none.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>
>When did the modern ES175 get rehabilitated? I had a new ES175 in the
>mid 1990's that was well made and set up and easy to play but had no
>vibe at all. It might as well have been a solid with a humbucker as
>far as I was concerned. Sold it at a profit (never before or since)
>and never regretted the sale.
>
>Arthur
That makes sense IME. To me its strong point is tone. The vibe and
playability I can live with out. But like anything it's a trade off,
if you want close to the exact tone of a 175, you better play a 175.
Five Sharp
but certainly no match for my ES 175. And that Heritage claim of yours I am
not buying either I'm afraid.
I have said it a 1000 times here already. A good 175 is pretty much
unbeatable for classic jazz sound.
#####
"Winston Castro" <a...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:2aj7q19ubds5nlmoi...@4ax.com...
Five Sharp
#####
"Five Sharp" <d.on...@chello.nl> schreef in bericht
news:67a4$43a3d2d7$d55d8e9b$20...@news.chello.nl...
Winston Castro
wrote:
>No, because the ones I played felt cheap and sounded unimpressive. Not bad
>but certainly no match for my ES 175. And that Heritage claim of yours I am
>not buying either I'm afraid.
No "claim." If you had your glasses on, you would have read "a guess."
Heritage guitars are often made closer to the original Gibson specs,
from way back when, than modern Gibsons themselves. Not much disputing
that the overall quality is *usually* somewhat better.
>I have said it a 1000 times here already. A good 175 is pretty much
>unbeatable for classic jazz sound.
I don't think anyone would argue with that point, least of all, me.
billc...@hotmail.com
> Only a guess, but surely Heritage has something that not only
> substitutes the 175, but completely blows it away?
The Heritage 175 derivatives are all carved top aren't they? I've never
played one but I wonder if this wouldn't lead to a different tone.
Aesthetically I personally prefer the 175.
Of all the jazz guitars I've played and/or owned over the years,
including luthier guitars and "lawsuits", the ones that have spoken to
me in terms of sound. playability and "vibe" have all been Gibsons, a
couple of old 125's, a recent 165, an old L-4C, an old L5-CES ...
Five Sharp
#####
<billc...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1134820275....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
oasysco
>Maybe i missed this but how did you work out
>with the broken 165 ?
The broken 165 is now inthe hands of UPS. Shame, too, because it looked
to be a good one. Just a shame.
Greg
>Dirk
Chip L
X-150 Savoy.
"oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134751381.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Holdgaj
better than a 175.
Joey Goldstein
playability or appointments, away is not the goal.
Heritage does not have single guitar that is really very 175-ish.
Their 575 has a carved maple top and is thinner than a 175 and sounds
nothng like a 175, although it is a ncice guitar.
Their Sweet 16 is the only Heritage I've played that sounds remotely
175-ish. It's got a carved spruce top but the feel is real close.
--
Vince
sold it because I got one with the narrow neck which didn't suit me. For
tone, the guitar that I wish I still had was a Gibson Johnny Smith. It just
had great tone - but I sold it. Silly me.
Having said all of that, I think we put too much emphasis on one link in the
tone chain when we focus unduly on the 175. Cables, Amps, tubes, speakers,
room acoustics, recording equipment all dramatically affect the sound.
Consider Jim Hall. He used to have a 175. He now uses his signature guitar,
I guess. For years, he used the violin shaded guitar - don't remember the
name. But, it's not important to what I have to say. No matter what, Jim
Hall sounds like Jim Hall - no matter what guitar he's holding.
Kenny Burrell had one too, but now he plays the guitar with his name on it.
Do you think his tone suffered because he switched?
Pat Metheny - another 175 fan. Pat's 175 modifications are legendary.
However, when I saw him, he wasn't playing a 175. I think he was playing
his signature guitar. Guess what, Pat Metheny sounded like Pat Metheny.
I have a feeling that if Wes were alive and he picked up an L-5 clone made
by Samick, that he would sound like Wes.
Query: Does it matter as much as we pretend that it does?
Don't shoot me, "I'm just sayin'....." as the young kid say.
Peace,
Vince
Norm K
remotely
175-ish. It's got a carved spruce top but the feel is real close."
Interesting. I've got a Sweet 16 and a 165 and find them to be like
day and night in feel and sound. My 165 is a 1991 model so an older
(50s-60s) 175 might sound closer to the 16. However the 16 has a
longer scale and narrower neck that feel very different to me.
Norm
mark
> Heritage guitars are often made closer to the original Gibson specs,
> from way back when, than modern Gibsons themselves. Not much disputing
> that the overall quality is *usually* somewhat better.
>
>
Quality may or may not be better but typically a carved solid-top guitar
would be better made one could safely assume. But therein lies the
problem - Heritage doesn't make an ES-175 clone. They make a somewhat
similar H575 model but it is solid top and I believe thinner. Could be a
maple neck too but I don't remember. Not to mention the Heritage
pickups. I'm sure they are great guitars (especially for the money, if
you can stand the headstock : ) but they are not an ES-175.
The only substitute I have found that is somewhat affordable (not to me
though) is an ES-165. No surprise there though.
mark
mark
>
> The broken 165 is now inthe hands of UPS. Shame, too, because it looked
> to be a good one. Just a shame.
>
Did you get your money back?
mark
mark
>
> That's basically it in a nut shell.
>
> Some better, some worse, some simply different, but none that is
> really a direct substitute.
While I've never had the opportunity to play one, I can't imagine that
an ES-165 doesn't sound pretty darn close if not exact. Unless you're
playing Ted Nugent style with the bridge pickup : )
mark
>
> I fell for this line of thinking this past January when I was looking
> for a decent archtop that would be close a 175 in tone/feel. I took a
> 2-hour trip up to North Jersey to check out a mint condition 50's ES-125
> and it sounded *nothing* like an ES-175. But that wasn't all that
> surprising considering it had P90's, which I learned that day that I
> don't much like. But also, it felt nothing at all like an ES-175.
>
> Incidentally, the Ibanez 2355 lawsuit model I played that same day did
> feel/sound close to a 175, but still a tad too bright. They go for
> around a grand, which, when you get to that price range you may as well
> go a little more and buy an ES-165.
>
> mark
To add to this - I remember when ##### was doing videos with his ES-125
and the thing sounds phenomenal. Not cheap like the one I played. But
that's when I realized that it's mostly in the hands too.
mark
Joey Goldstein
--
Joey Goldstein
I was at Jay Wolfe's home in Florida and I tried about 6 or 7 Heritiges
looking for one that sounded like a 175. The only one that came close
was the Sweet 16. I figured it had something to do with the 16" body. I
always thought it had a 24.75" scale too, but I guess not.
--
Eric
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Interesting. I've got a Sweet 16 and a 165 and find them to be like
>> day and night in feel and sound. My 165 is a 1991 model so an older
>> (50s-60s) 175 might sound closer to the 16. However the 16 has a
>> longer scale and narrower neck that feel very different to me.
>>
>> Norm
I mentioned this before, but the Heritage line is quite variable.
I was quite turned off by a couple of their guitars that I tried a
year or two ago.
Then about five months ago I tried another and A/B'd it with a couple
of L5's and a Sadowsky, all acoustically.
Not only did the Heritage blow away all the others in sound and
playability but it was the best acoustic jazz box I'd ever played.
And I had been previously impressed with the Sadowsky.
Granted I didn't plug them in so I don't know how they'd sound
amplified, but none of my Gibsons or other archtops have an acoustic
sound that comes even remotely close to that Heritage.
What was the model number etc.? Who knows, I didn't pay attention at
the time. It was selling in the range of around $4000 CAN.
If I ever were to buy a Heritage though, I'd have some serious
surgery done to the headstock.
billc...@hotmail.com
This is a good point. Whatever guitar I play I sound like me (for
better or worse). But I feel much more comfortable playing a Gibson
with a 24.75" scale than any other guitar. I know I play better when
I'm confident with the way the guitar feels, sounds and responds to
different levels of attack.
Vince
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:43A48D6A...@nowhere.net...
Stan Fong
"charles robinson" <robins...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:grydnZ7LMJL...@comcast.com...
IMO, the older 175's have the best vibe. During the 70's the Gibson vibe
took a turn for the worse. They just didn't have the character and vibe I
was use to from the older Gibsons. Part of that is because Gibson made the
tops thicker and heavier. That made the guitar stiffer and less resonant. I
understand they did this to help resolve the feedback issue. By doing that,
the vibe and character were sacrificed. I really didn't care for the Gibsons
during the 70's and 80's. They were acoustically dead sounding and stiff
for the most part.
It wasn't until the 90's Gibsons were starting to get a little better. I've
tried some of the more recent Gibsons from the 90's and they seem to be
getting closer to getting the old vibe they use to have. They're still not
like the old ones but better than what they were putting out in the 70's and
80's. Bottom line is it's pretty tough to beat an old Gibson. Pre 70's
Gibson are the ones I really like the most.
Stan
Five Sharp
(especially the later years of the decade) but in 1982 Gibson got a new
management that boosted quality control right away and returned to the old
specifications. In fact it was the 1990s that they left these old
specifications again and issued their ES 175s and ES 335s with their current
flames etc.
It is my experience that I generally do not favor the intruments after 1990
but I like the 1982-1990 guitars a lot. The best ES 175 I have ever played
is my 1982 mahogany one. I'd not trade it for a 1950s one even. And my 1987
ES 335 is a fine guitar as well.
I discussed this extensively with a collector and trader. This is not
something I made up.
My remarks do not apply for Custom shop guitars by the way.
Regards,
#####
"Stan Fong" <skin...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:zq-dnRNhJuu...@comcast.com...
Stan Fong
"Five Sharp" <d.on...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:26cf4$43a55d0d$d55d8e9b$18...@news.chello.nl...
>I respectfully disagree here Stan. Indeed the 70s were a bad era for Gibson
>(especially the later years of the decade) but in 1982 Gibson got a new
>management that boosted quality control right away and returned to the old
>specifications. In fact it was the 1990s that they left these old
>specifications again and issued their ES 175s and ES 335s with their
>current flames etc.
>
> It is my experience that I generally do not favor the intruments after
> 1990 but I like the 1982-1990 guitars a lot. The best ES 175 I have ever
> played is my 1982 mahogany one. I'd not trade it for a 1950s one even. And
> my 1987 ES 335 is a fine guitar as well.
>
> I discussed this extensively with a collector and trader. This is not
> something I made up.
>
> My remarks do not apply for Custom shop guitars by the way.
>
> Regards,
>
> #####
>
Dick,
I knew I was going to get some flack here. That's okay we're all entitled to
our own opinions. I'm just a fan of the older Gibsons and always will be.
I'd never sell or trade my '49 175 as long as I'm alive. I know I would have
some serious regrets if I did. Even though it's feedback prone, has a noisy
p90 pickup, and clubby neck, it has that classic sound. It has character.
During the 70's my guitar teacher told me not to get a new Gibson. He ended
up going to the store with me and picked out an Ibanez copy of the 175 which
was $330 at the time. I didn't even consider a Gibson. Well I ended up
selling the Ibanez when I found my Gibson hanging up high on the wall at a
San Francisco music store. Once I played it I was hooked. I brought the
guitar back to my teacher and he just loved the old 175. He said "Now this
is a real guitar." I remember he played it for quite awhile because he
enjoyed it so much. His personal guitar was a 295 with P90's. He liked
playing my 175 because it was like his 295 with better intonation.
How much more do you like your 175 over your 125? I know they're different
animals but I suspect your 125 has a really nice vibe to it. Some of the
main things I look for in an archtop are it's resonance and vibe. Setup can
be fixed or adjusted. Tone can be fixed with strings, pick, amp etc.
Resonance and vibe is something that is either there or not there. There no
fixing or adjusting when it comes to resonance and vibe. To me the older
Gibsons have it more so than the newer ones.
Stan
Stan
Five Sharp
There's no doubt that the older Gibsons are great instruments and generally
speaking better than most new ones. Still I think my 1982 ES 175 is a better
instrument than my 1951 Gibson ES 125. The ES 125 sounds very good and
really classic but it lacks a certain definition in its sound. It's a bit
dark and woolly. The ES 175 sounds just as woody but does not have this
muffled quality to it. Think early Joe Pass. Apart from that the playability
from the 175 is better. Id love to think that it's an exceptionally good
sounding one (though we all have that for our own guitars, right?). Maybe
it's all the mahogany which meakes me love this 175 so much. Apart from the
traditional magogany neck it also has a mahogany back and sides. That
probably accounts for the exceptional mellow and woody character of this
guitar.
I basically disagree with you only on the claim that 1990s Gibson are better
than 1980s. My experience is just the other way round ...
Regards,
#####
"Stan Fong" <skin...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:0pGdncqZq-R...@comcast.com...
Winston Castro
wrote:
>I respectfully disagree here Stan. Indeed the 70s were a bad era for Gibson
>(especially the later years of the decade) but in 1982 Gibson got a new
>management that boosted quality control right away and returned to the old
>specifications. In fact it was the 1990s that they left these old
>specifications again and issued their ES 175s and ES 335s with their current
>flames etc.
>
>It is my experience that I generally do not favor the intruments after 1990
>but I like the 1982-1990 guitars a lot. The best ES 175 I have ever played
>is my 1982 mahogany one. I'd not trade it for a 1950s one even. And my 1987
>ES 335 is a fine guitar as well.
>
>I discussed this extensively with a collector and trader. This is not
>something I made up.
>
>My remarks do not apply for Custom shop guitars by the way.
>
>Regards,
>
I don't think there is anyway to precisely quantify it. Us guitar
players are a finicky bunch when it comes to our axes. As are
keyboards players,drummers, horn players and just about all musicians
I suppose.
One man's treasure axe is another player's garbage axe.
My favorite guitar in my entire collection, is an early 1980s fender
Squier Strat. (Made in Japan) For those early models, the quality was
arguably about the same as with an American Strat.
But aside from all that, it's simply the damn meanest sounding
blues axe that I have ever heard played. And also has am amazingly
nice sound for jazz and yes, the compulsory wedding gigs, popular
music, etc... It's 100% stock, I have never replaced one thing on it.
The vibe feels a bit weird playing old jazz standards on it, but
amazingly a workable/suitable tone is there.
To another player, it might be some worthless hunk of junk.
Winston Castro
wrote:
>IMO, the older 175's have the best vibe. During the 70's the Gibson vibe
>took a turn for the worse. They just didn't have the character and vibe I
>was use to from the older Gibsons. Part of that is because Gibson made the
>tops thicker and heavier. That made the guitar stiffer and less resonant. I
>understand they did this to help resolve the feedback issue. By doing that,
>the vibe and character were sacrificed. I really didn't care for the Gibsons
>during the 70's and 80's. They were acoustically dead sounding and stiff
>for the most part.
I understand your points. But remember though, that guitars even of
the same year/model/make, can very quite a bit from axe by axe.
I think it's still possible to "find that gem", the oyster with the
pearl in it so to speak, even amongst the newer guitars.
And same goes for the reverse, their are some real clunkers as far
as playability and tone amongst the older ones. But in general, I'd
say you are mostly right...
Pataud
> Quality may or may not be better but typically a carved solid-top guitar
> would be better made one could safely assume. But therein lies the
> problem - Heritage doesn't make an ES-175 clone. They make a somewhat
> similar H575 model but it is solid top and I believe thinner. Could be a
> maple neck too but I don't remember. Not to mention the Heritage
> pickups. I'm sure they are great guitars (especially for the money, if
> you can stand the headstock : ) but they are not an ES-175.
>
There's this one:
Pataud
> Quality may or may not be better but typically a carved solid-top guitar
> would be better made one could safely assume. But therein lies the
> problem - Heritage doesn't make an ES-175 clone. They make a somewhat
> similar H575 model but it is solid top and I believe thinner. Could be a
> maple neck too but I don't remember. Not to mention the Heritage
> pickups. I'm sure they are great guitars (especially for the money, if
> you can stand the headstock : ) but they are not an ES-175.
>
(whoops, pushed send too early)
There's this one:
http://www.heritageguitar.com/models/H516.htm
Mahogany neck, laminate maple body etc.
I've no idea what it sounds like though...
Pataud
> The Heritage 175 derivatives are all carved top aren't they?
I just posted upstream that I noticed that Heritage makes a laminate
version of their 575 called a 516:
Joey Goldstein
Thinner than a 175.
Stan Fong
"Winston Castro" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9qpbq1dkurk8td5q7...@4ax.com...
>
>
> I understand your points. But remember though, that guitars even of
> the same year/model/make, can very quite a bit from axe by axe.
>
> I think it's still possible to "find that gem", the oyster with the
> pearl in it so to speak, even amongst the newer guitars.
>
> And same goes for the reverse, their are some real clunkers as far
> as playability and tone amongst the older ones. But in general, I'd
> say you are mostly right...
>
Winston,
I agree. There are some good ones and bad ones old and new. Just like you
said someone's treasure maybe someone else's trash and vice versa. The main
thing is we all have the guitars we like and want. That's what really
matters.
Stan
Pataud
Ah, I missed that.
Would be closer than a 575 though I guess.
Joey Goldstein
575's have a carved top.
Pataud
Precisely what I meant. The laminate 516 would be closer to the tone of
a ES-175 than the carved 575. But as you said the difference in
thickness means neither would be a worthy substitute for the ES-175.
Joey Goldstein
Well you never know until you try it. The 516 might be a great sub for
the 175, but the specs point to that not being likely.