Which archtop should I get?
monk
A custom made by Victor Baker or M. Campellone or Benedetto Bravo or
Sadowsky Jim Hall
Im looking more of an Es-175 jim hall joe pass kind of tone.
I quite like the build of the bravo, but it seems like their tone is
really thin and weak sounding - from videos. I felt that the sadowsky
is a bit sterile and flat - I've got a high quality version recording
of it. Thing is, in my country, Im unable to try out any of these
guitars.
VB and MC are making basic solid carved ones for about 4000, so that's
really close to the bravo and jim hall
Any thoughts/opinions?
Phil
I think you want a late 50's or early 60's ES 175!
Charlie X
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree! Anything that you order from a maker is basically a 'mail
order bride'...you have no idea what you will get or if u will like
it. My policy is that i MUST play it first...guessing what you 'might
like' at those prices may be a crazy thing to try.
one thing though..i would avoid carved tops as the feedback is a REAL
nusance..unless you are strictly a 'couch player' will never actually
use this guitar for real.
Id go with a 175...after buying and having and eventually selling a
lot of very expensive and custom instruments, i never really
experienced a huge improvment over my original 63 175.
I do keep a few custom 7 strings, and my JS but the 175 is the go to
guitar in my roughly 50 guitar collection. Just my 2cents...all the
best in the quest...i been there and it can make u crazy sometimes!!
Maj6th
Maj6th
"Charlie X" <diym...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1d70df37-425d-4923...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Bill C
I know the problem with finding and trying archtops here in the
UK ...!
I currently have a VB Bop which I am looking to sell. The VB is a 17"
25" scale carved top and to my ears has a "Wes"/L5 type sound plugged
in. You can hear what it sounds like on Victor's website. Good
acoustic volume too. It's a very fine guitar but I find it too big now
and have come to realise that I prefer the laminate sound after all.
The Sadowsky JH feels very much like an excellent 175 physically. The
body is a little thinner which makes it more comfortable imo. With
flats it sounds more 175-like. With half-rounds less so. It sounds
like a laminate obviously but a little more refined/modern than the
175. It's a *very* playable guitar. The two I've played were almost
identical in feel and sound and flawlessly finished. Surprisingly
responsive acoustically for a smallish body.
If you are looking for an *exact* match for that early sixties 175
sound you might prefer an old 175 as Phil and Charlie say.
Phil
> Would you put the ES165 in the same catagory as the ES175?
>
> Maj6th
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I recommended a 50's or early 60's ES 175 -- not the same animal as a
newer 175 or 165.
Phil
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like to hear that dry, woody chirp an old ES 175 has. Does the
Sadowsky do this? Guess I don't hear that on Jim Hall's newer
recordings. The tone is more modern (but nice!), as you say.
Bill C
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would say the JH has more sustain that the old 175's I've played
(and can remember!) - more "All Across The City" and less "The
Bridge" :-)
Derek
They are absolutely wonderful guitars in every way.
However, to my ears they are a bit brighter than my 175.
I have yet to see any maker capture that 175 vibe. Maybe the 70's
lawsuit era Ibanezs.
I have also played VB and Campellone. Wonderful guitars, but not
close to a 175 imo.
Jonathan (Cleve)
>
> - Show quoted text -
I almost never see '60s 175s on Ebay or anywhere else. I do see ones
from the '50s, but usually at the $8,000+ price point. Did they cut
production down to a trickle on those guitars in the '60s, or are
people just holding on to them?
Also, does anybody know what years they made the fat '50s style neck?
That's what I'm looking for.
I've been put off from considering the newer ones because of a recent
thread about sinking tops on 175s. Now that I look at the recent used
ones, it seems they all have the bridge set all the way up above the
ends of the adjustment screws. It sure doesn't look like a problem I
want to buy into.
Phil
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very descriptive Bill -- got it! ;)
Both great sounds, of course.
Phil
>
> - Show quoted text -
Early 60's 175s are the "Holy Grail", largely because of the PAFs. I
don't have a production count chart handy, but I can check in Adrian
Ingram's book when I get home.
The 50's fat neck seems to have made a reappearance on the mid 90's
models I've played. Indeed I have a '96 that has the chubby neck.
When I pick it up I always think "darn, that's a beefy neck", but it
plays so well and sounds so good that I forget about it in a few
minutes.
Jonathan (Cleve)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks. Do the 175s from the early '60s have a thinner neck? I know by
'67 they had a pretty thin neck, but I don't know about the earlier
ones.
BTW, I've come to believe that the mass of the neck can contribute
substantially to the tone of the guitar. Plus, they're less likely to
need regular seasonal adjustments. I'm also comfortable with that neck
profile, having grown up playing classical. But I think there are lots
of advantages to the beefier neck if it's something you can get used
to.
Phil
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've played a '64, '65 and '66 within the last year or so. They all
had slim neck profiles, but the '64 and '65 had normal width at nut,
while the '66 had the really tapered/small nut width. I liked the '64
feel best -- slim, comfy "D" - ish neck profile but wide (normal)
width.
They all also had the classic 175 sound. Woody, chirpy, dry, however
you want to describe it. My '96 doesn't quite nail that sound.
Also, they were all really light -- much lighter than my '96.
Oh, and they all cost 2 to 4 times my '96!
Bill C
There is some good info on the necks here ...
http://www.provide.net/~cfh/gibson.html#specs
fwiw - I've owned a 57 125 which had a nice clubby neck and played a
57 175 which had a clubbier and better playing neck. Also played a 50
175 which had a neck like my 125 but didn't play as well ...
Jonathan (Cleve)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, that's great information. Thank you both very much.
Tom Sacold
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com/
I play the Peerless Manhattan.
http://www.jazzguitarzone.com/manhattan.html
Have a listen to this demo by Matt Otten playing the Peerless Monarch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCNqwYntT4
Dan Adler
Even the 70's and 80's don't come near the 60's ES-175's. I have a
70's one, which by itself sounds and feels great, but if I play it
after touching my 60's it feels and sounds like I'm playing a toy, and
back in the case it goes.
DannyW.
>
> one thing though..i would avoid carved tops as the feedback is a REAL nusance..unless you are strictly a 'couch player' will never actually use this guitar for real.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You mean like those well-known 'couch players' Kenny, Wes & Johnny?
Seriously, I've been gigging with carved-top guitars for 50 years for
everything but rock. It's true that they can be more prone to feedback
than a laminated guitar, but with the right amp, attention to stage
setup, and some skill on the part of the player ( ;-)), they work just
fine.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/3577098078_445a8f9436_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3350672636_f87f2d7689_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/3268020811_18a6f8fff7_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3195/2725619549_ce31b0ae8e_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2677996779_c99c050ff3_b.jpg
Danny W.
David J. Littleboy
"DannyW." <danny...@cox.net> wrote:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2677996779_c99c050ff3_b.jpg
Damn! Colin Powell on bass! I'm impressed.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bg
> On Aug 25, 7:36 am, Charlie X <diymu...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > one thing though..i would avoid carved tops as the feedback is a REAL nusance..unless you are strictly a 'couch player' will never actually use this guitar for real.
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> You mean like those well-known 'couch players' Kenny, Wes & Johnny?
>
>
And Kenny Burrell, and Bruce Forman and Mark Whitflield and the
Benedetto players,like Bruno, Alden, Vignola, Wilkins etc.
Bg
Charlie X
top just doesnt have the allure that it holds for you. I talked to
Jack Wilkins last week in Mcungie...he has a few benns....when he is
unsure about the sound system or available amps he brings his tal
farlow ..and with his carved tops, he uses an AER amp...not prone to
feedback.
I have a JS and an L5 and just grab the 175 out of convieneince i
guess...but you cannot say that there are more carved top players than
laminate players...it WAY lopsided on the side of laminates.
Joe pass
herb ellis
barney kessel
Jimmy Bruno (now playing laminate)
Jimmy Rainy
Cal Collins
Joe Diorio
Tal Farlow
Grant Green
Jim Hall (in the 50s..not sure if his Sadowsky is lam?)
Wes (played 175 on the 1st album or 2)
Howard Roberts ...
Thats the quick list off the top of my head...there has to be 20 more.
and many of these guys are famous for their tone, unlike whitfied,
forman, alden, bruno, and some of the other great players u list.
but ..thats just me..whatever you choose..make sure u love it.
Bill C
> Jim Hall (in the 50s..not sure if his Sadowsky is lam?)
Jim's Sadowsky is a laminate, also afaik his D'Aquisto electric
hollowbody
Charlie X
Burrell....many of his best recordings for Blue note in the 50s were
with a 175.
Not to compare which is better..that is up to each person to
decide...but consensus is pretty clear.
I have not seen anyone of note going with a Baker or some of the
others on your list. But if it feels right...DO IT!
DannyW.
That's a lot different statement from what you had first posted.
BTW, Grant switched to carved tops after having used a laminate early
on, as did Kenny.
Danny W.
DannyW.
You should see who's on piano :-)
Danny W.
Charlie X
yea..thought so too...i also think brunos Bennadetto was a
lam...usually when u see built in pups and control knobs through the
body of a custom makers product, its usually a lam...but not always
and Gibson drilled the solid tops with no concerns also.
My main thing between all of those choices is not what its made out
of..but the scale length. Generally, a longer scale is supposed to
sound better, but a 175 has a short scale. I have short scale fingers,
so a short scale guitar always feels better and helps me play better.
If i could find an old L5 with a short scale (they are out
there..scale length on an L5 used to be an option!) for under 10k I
would like to have one. Mine is just too big for me really. Sound
wise, ...i dunno..i think other factors like pups, amp and style have
more of an effect on tone than what the top is made out of..especially
after its drilled out with pups and knobs. Many threads compare a 175
and the L4...concluding the L4 is thinner sounding and brighter. I did
a shoot out at Mandolin bros in April...L5, 175 and L4. THey all
sounded slightly diff through the same amp (Fender super rev -
blackface amp..the one they will never put up for sale) but it really
came down to feel and which tone u like. I didnt think the L4 was thin
or lacked anything in tone whatsoever...my only concern at that level
was that it would feedback sooner than the lam.
If you are on a tight stage right next to your amp...or, get stuck for
the night with a too loud drummer..or are in a larger venue, .your
'skill' wont matter. You will have to turn up and fight feedback
sooner rather than later. If you never have those situations
though..it may not be a concern or if youre just a couch player. I
love the floating pup solid top when on the couch! on the gig is
something very different however.
Good luck..let us know what u end up with!
skrohn
I have a 58 175 that was a parts guitar. I have most of the parts.
Wasn't sure what I wanted to do with it for a long while
but decided that I am going to sell it.
The body and neck are great.
There was some jack plate area damage that is now being fixed by Chris
Mirabella. You won't be able to see any remnant of the issue.
At this point, the instrument is an open book.
It should get new frets, and needs hardware.
If anyone is interested, we can discuss pickups, frets,
tailpiece,case, etc ... and arrive at a price.
If not, my plan is to put it together using all replacement
parts, sell it complete and sell the parts that I have separately.
Could be a good opportunity for someone to get that
58 wood and neck, playing great (refretted and setup
by Chris Mirabella) at what I think would be
a good price point for something with those sought after qualities.
It should be available in a few weeks.
Contact me if interested.
Thanks,
Scott
damonseed
> Im considering the following:
>
> A custom made by Victor Baker or M. Campellone or Benedetto Bravo or
> Sadowsky Jim Hall
>
> Im looking more of an Es-175 jim hall joe pass kind of tone.
>
> I quite like the build of the bravo, but it seems like their tone is
> really thin and weak sounding - from videos. I felt that the sadowsky
> is a bit sterile and flat - I've got a high quality version recording
> of it. Thing is, in my country, Im unable to try out any of these
> guitars.
>
> VB and MC are making basic solid carved ones for about 4000, so that's
> really close to the bravo and jim hall
>
> Any thoughts/opinions?
Yeah bro you should just get an old gibson you probably spend the same
and get a better guitar. a nice 330 goes for like 3000 from 61 say
somethin to think about
Tim McNamara
type tone but with better quality than you can get from Gibson now.
monk
Robert benedetto told me in his email that scale length does not
affect tone. I always thought that it did.
Michael L Kankiewicz
As far as imitating a 175, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned The Heritage
575. (Although I admit I have never played one.)
MK
bigdog
a Yamaha SA2200 through a jazzkat and a Clarus with a Raezer's edge,
I bought the Yamaha. Very surprising and tone I hadn't expected.
Quality was unsurpassed. I have no financial relationship with
Yamaha.
db
Phil
> Consider the Tom Painter laminate archtops, if you want a vintage 175
> type tone but with better quality than you can get from Gibson now.
Do you have a Painter guitar?
Bill C
> I have not seen anyone of note going with a Baker or some of the
> others on your list. But if it feels right...DO IT!
imo Victor builds a great guitar and he's a fine player ...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=20359447
Tim McNamara
<e5753ccb-b894-4923...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Phil <pdem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nope, just going from Jack Zucker's demo videos, Tom's demos and images,
and his discussion of his approach (e.g., making his own laminates that
are more like the 50s Gibsons than what Gibson makes today). To my
ears, Tom's guitars sound more like vintage 175s than do modern Gibson
175s.
thomas
Hey, anybody can review a guitar they've actually played. Where's the
challenge in that?
Phil
I was asking because I'm interested in a Painter, and wanted to get
some feedback. I've never had a chance to play one myself.
Charlie X
>
> - Show quoted text -
WOW...he said that to u? I have talked to him at least 4 times about
building me a 7 string with a 24.75 scale and he tells me he wont do
it because that is too short for the low A to give any volume. He says
it has to at least have that extra 1/4 inch and preferably 3/4 to get
a good low A sound.
I need to call him to see if he is changing his mind on that! I have
a 24.75 7 string (not his) and tend to agree that its hard to get the
best sound on the low a...He said that to u????
Charlie X
Yes...victor is a great guy..but he has limited his output to about 5
guitars a year (see his site) so you may have to wait a while.
Bill C
> Yes...victor is a great guy..but he has limited his output to about 5
> guitars a year (see his site) so you may have to wait a while.
... or buy mine! ;-)
Tim McNamara
<6c4defa8-3e22-4073...@q5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
thomas <tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote:
Oh, well then...
My archtop is a Matt Cushman made in Great Falls MT to the Benedetto
pattern. I sometimes refer to this type of guitar as a Cloneadetto,
since there are so many lutheirs basing their work on Benedetto's book
and videos.
I have one of Matt's early guitars which I got from him for about 1/2
price on eBay; it has an experimental water-based finish he was trying
out, was dissatisfied with and I think he sold it cheap rather than
refinish it. The guitar looks decent, feels good to play and has a very
nice woody sound through the amp (I did have to install a tone pot to
cut the highs, it was much too bright initially). I get compliments all
the time on how nice the guitar sounds. It feeds back very very easily,
however, since it is a carve top with floater. Only my nylon string
feeds back easier. I am moving towards playing without a pick again and
this guitar doesn't seem to work well with that. I might try 11s
instead of 12s and see if that helps- the feel of the stings is very
stiff on this guitar.
Matt's very friendly and easy to deal with, and his prices are very
competitive (www.cushmanguitars.com I think).
I have a "Part-O-Caster" that I built up 20 years ago from a Warmoth
Strat body (alder, IIRC) and neck (maple with ebony) with a Gibson-style
headstock. This was initially a sort of tribute guitar to my
then-favorite guitarists (Strat body for Rory Gallagher, black with
cream pickguard for Clapton, pickup arrangement and three-on-a-side
tuners for Jerry Garcia, etc.; my list of favorite guitarists has grown
somewhat since then). I didn't play it for years because the sound was
so unsuitable for jazz and have since converted it to a Gibson Classic
57 pickup in the neck position- at Joey Goldstein's recommendation- and
recycled the Seymour Duncan JB to the bridge position, with the result
that I have a superb solid body guitar for jazz. I use D'Addario Jazz
Light 12s with it and they feel much softer than on the Cushman. The
tone is amazingly fat, warm, resonant and well separated like the best
of 175s I have heard but with the sustain one hears with Ed Bickert.
This is also the best-sounding guitar for fingerstyle playing that I
own- usually I get a thin plinky sound on steel strings when playing
with my fingers, but this guitar doesn't do that.
Early in the summer I bought a $180 Tele Squier Affinity guitar, in the
classic butterscotch and black color scheme. Much to my surprise this
is a very nice guitar and has a decent-but-not-great early Ed Bickert
(think "Pure Desmond") type sound. It's the guitar I haul with me to
leave in the car if I am going somewhere to play after work. I am
thinking hard about putting in a Charlie Christian pickup in the neck
position, though. It tolerates 12s just fine. QC is lacking, I had to
look at four or five of these to find one with a straight neck.
My fundamental advice is to not overlook the possibility of a solid body
guitar for jazz. 10 years ago I would not have said that, but finding
Ed Bickert through the newsgroup changed my mind.
I've got an Ibanez GB-10 that I bought used in 1983 or so. These are a
well-known quantity around here so I don't need to review it. The old
ones are excellent instruments if a bit bassy. I don't know about the
newer MIK ones, I've never even seen one. I use this one mainly when I
will be playing standing as it is much more comfortable for that than
the Cushman and looks much nicer than the Part-O-Caster. I don't like
the short scale as well, though.
My final guitar to mention is a Takamine EC132C which I got after
getting hooked on Gene Bertoncini's playing. I can't make it sound good
through an amp, piezos pretty much suck IMHO. I've never, ever found a
piezo system I like. I may try swapping in the Cool Tube preamp to see
if that warms things up enough. But I really like playing nylon
strings, the wide neck and long scale, and using a quasi-classical
technique; I probably put more hours in each week on this instrument
than any of the others. For some reason my swing feel is better when
playing fingerstyle.
PascalD
I'm not sure about the laminate / carved discussion we have here. I
believe the most important point (maybe only for me) is the sound
unplugged. I play an '88 175 for some time, and could not get a
satisfactory acoustic sound. Plugged in, it's a total different
story. So I started to look around at affordable carved to get an
acoustic sound as well as a nice plugged in sound. I found the Eastman
John Pisano!!! Although only 16 inch wide, it has a nice acoustic
sound, better in my opinion then the bigger Eastman 810, even more
expensive 910. They both sound similar plugged in, although the 175 is
more "percusive" and the Pisano subtler, but very alike. not very
dark, but a lot of body with definition.
Pascal