Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums


All Access
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About skipburz

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I posted this question over on The Gear Page, but thought I should ask it here as well. The dealer sheet for my 1989 ES-175 lists the pick-ups as "59 Reissue Pickups." Do you all think these are 490T/498R? The neck measures at 7.34 ohms and the bridge at 9.2 ohms and have a patent number stamped baseplate. I do not believe they are Bill Lawerence HB1 "circuit board" pups. And even though the guitar was built in early-89, I believe this is still too late to have Shaw pups. Does that mean in all likelihood they're 490T/498R? Any thoughts? Thanks.
  2. Greetings, Tony. I'm so glad you found a 335 you love. The whole business of neck shape and feel can be a real rabbit hole. I owned and played a '67 for many years that had a neck that was different from every other '67 I've come across - much thinner. I'm not sure what was going on on Parsons St. in Kalamazoo when my neck was shaped. Perhaps someone different was working the sander that day! A 175 is a very different beast. In terms of weight, I've suffered from back, neck, and shoulder pain due to an injury 30-years ago. I play both my 175 and 335 daily, and don't find the 175 any tougher on me than my 335. They feel different, so switching back and forth actually helps. (As an aside, my new favorite strap is the KLIQ AirCell. It stretches a bit, which provides some "give" when pushing down on your guitar. Again...just an aside.) Good luck!
  3. So where is the nickel, do you think, if not in the ribbon?
  4. I posted this question on the Jazz Guitar Forum last night, but thought I would post it here as well. I was poking around on the Gibson website and saw these nickel flatwounds: Gibson | Flatwound Electric Guitar Strings Has anyone out there tried them? Also, the package says "Flatwound Nickel", but the ad says, "stainless steel wrapped". I assume they're talking about the core being stainless steel. Thanks!
  5. I think you guys are correct that its body depth and the sum total of all the variables. Thanks for the input.
  6. A couple of years ago, when I finally saved up enough "shekels" to go shopping for a 175, I probably played 25 different guitars. I was up in NYC for a couple of weeks, and went to just about every guitar shop in the five boroughs. Everyone was nice, but none of them jumped out as a "must have, until I played this one from '89. It sounded different from every other one I had played. That's when I found out about the mahogany models from the 80s as well as what was going with quality control and morale in the shop in the late-80s. That sealed the deal for me and I was able to get this one at a great price from Bernunzio's in Rochester. (Great guys to work with!) With a set of Thomastiks played through my Fender or Quilter it sounds just beautiful. I'm not normally a "tone chaser", but I recently put in a set of Lindy Fralin's Pure PAFs, which makes it a bit more clear and articulate without getting bright (especially for chord-melody playing). Lindy lives nearby in Virginia, so I was able to work with him on the windings and output. Thanks again.
  7. Thanks for the reply. Concerning neck thickness, I know this can be a real rabbit hole with Gibsons. I've owned several 335s over the past 35 years, each completely different in feel. What's curious to me is that the thickness and shape of the neck on these two guitars are pretty close, yet they feel very different under my fingers. (I only gave the thickness at the first fret, but the two necks are consistent.) Both fingerboards are rosewood. I like your theory about body width. Being average height with not especially long fingers, I'm sure the "angle of attack" is off a bit. Concerning your question about the mahogany back and sides, most ES-175s made between 1983 and 1990 were mahogany back and sides rather than maple. These are my absolute favorite 175s - especially the ones built from '86-'90 after Henry bought Gibson and morale and quality control really improved. Thanks again.
  8. The 335 is the standard TOM bridge and stop tailpiece and the 175 is the stock trapeze. Thanks.
  9. Greetings. So, my two main guitars are a 2012 335 and a 1989 175. The 335 is near perfect for me. It seems to know where my hands are going before I do. However, I'm primarily a jazz play, so for solo or small combo gigs I like to play my 175, which with the mahogany back and sides, sounds just wonderful. (Not that I can't get a nice jazz tone out of my 335.) I have them set up almost identically - same strings, same action/string height, nut width, etc. The neck profiles are pretty close as well (1st fret is .815 on the 335 and .822 on the 175). However, I'm not sure why they feel so different under my fingers. The 175 is not nearly as fast as the 335 and I seem to have to work harder and to be more intentional with my fingers. It's just not as natural to play. Could it be just because the 175 is close to needing a fret job? Are there other factors I'm not considering like string length from nut to tailpiece? Thanks for your thoughts.
  10. As the OP, I thought I would weigh back in. First, I agree with "Wmachine" that the '59 VOS Reissue is an incredible guitar. However, I just picked up a 1989 175 with mahogany sides (which as a jazz player, I love!). For some time, I've been intrigued by the late-80s/early-90s Gibsons. I have a relative by marriage who has worked for Gibson since before Henry and is still there under J.C. It seems that morale really picked up after Henry and his partners bought the company in 1986. When you talk to folks working in the shop during that time, pride in their work, quality of materials, and the overall vibe of the place really buoyed back up in the late-80s. My new '89 175 with patent number pickups is darn near perfect (for me). And the price was a steal compared to the current price for newer 175s, especially the VOS model. I had a new 2016 that lasted about month and I sold it for almost double what I just paid for my '89. I know that's far afield from the OP, which was about neck dimensions. On my '89 175, the first fret is .822, which might be on the thin side for some, but is perfect for me.
  11. Greetings. I've got an 1989 ES-175 on the way to me to try out. I'm getting it from the original owner who says he never changed the PUPs. Therefore, I'm assuming they will be the Bill Lawrence "circuit board" pups from the late-80s. I found a photo online of the ES-175 ad in the 1989 Gibson catalog. The specs list "1 R-4; 1 L-6 Humbucking Pickup" (see pic below). Was R-4 and L-6 the model number that Gibson gave to the Lawrence CB pups? Thanks much.
  12. Greetings, Does anyone know which humbuckers came stock in ES-175s from 1988-1990? I assume this is a bit too late for the Tim Shaws, but I'm not sure which ones came next. I assume they're Alnico II. Anyone know? Thanks much.
  13. Very helpful! Thank you!
  14. That's helpful and my belief as well - that it's more of a rounded C than a slim taper (which I cannot play without getting hand cramps). Thanks!
  • Create New...