ES-339 ... ES-175

[anothersixstringer]

Greetings!

Just joined this forum after being a 'guest' for a long time. I am the proud owner of a Gibson ES-175AN, which is being enjoyed for Jazz/Swing/Blues in a couple of jazz small combos and a big band.

Ocassionally, I get called to join some classic rock bands, and I bring my ES-175 over there with nice results, although I have some trouble with the .12 Thomastik Infeld strings I have on it (mostly for rock-called bending). I have to say that somehow I have managed to be feedback-free, by positioning me outside the amp's critical range.

I am toying with the idea of getting an ES-339 as I can see the benefit of having a Rock dedicated axe.

After checking the specs, seems that both are kind of the same: Mahogany Neck, 57 Classic pups, hollow-body....

The differences I have noticed are kind of not critical : memphis tone circuit, body differences....

Looks like the only apparent advantage would be to have lighter strings on the 339...

Maybe you all, knowledgeable members of this forum can provide some comments and advise?

Thanks in advance

[bobv]

Well, a 339 isn't really a hollow body. it's technically a semi-hollow body because of the maple center block and spruce contour braces - in other words the center line of the guitar is solid and only the wings are hollow. However the construction would be similar otherwise - bent laminated rims and contoured top and back, glued together with the same kind of kerfed linings you'd find inside an acoustic guitar. And you can pretty much crank a 339 before it feeds back, and when it does it's only if you want it to (basically not much more feedback prone than a solidbody).

 

On the other hand, you might want to cover both ends of the spectrum before filling in the middle - so if you don't have a solidbody that type might be your next move to add to the 175 "jazzbox."

[Archer993]

That's an interesting question. I have an ES-339 and a collection of LPs. I have been gassing for a 335 or your mentioned 175.

What's interesting about my LPs is that they are all a bit different from one another - tone and feel. The 339 doesn't have the same build quality as the LPs BUT it definitely delivers a different, more sparkly tone than any of the LPs do.

 

Depending on the amp and ampp settings I think you can easily extract a very rock n roll tone from the 339.

 

I would suggest you play a 339 vs an LP Standard and see which one wins you over...... I think it will be obvious.

[Murph]

That's an interesting question. I have an ES-339 and a collection of LPs. I have been gassing for a 335 or your mentioned 175.

What's interesting about my LPs is that they are all a bit different from one another - tone and feel. The 339 doesn't have the same build quality as the LPs BUT it definitely delivers a different' date=' more sparkly tone than any of the LPs do.

 

Depending on the amp and ampp settings I think you can easily extract a very rock n roll tone from the 339.

 

I would suggest you play a 339 vs an LP Standard and see which one wins you over...... I think it will be obvious.[/quote']

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree with ya there archer.

 

I played a Les Paul for 14 years, gigging bars from Phoenix to Lake Charles, to Illinois. Also own a killer '79 SG.

 

After some Strat/Tele days I bought an ES-339 last Sept. I'm gigging bars with it doing everything from Classic/Southern rock, Country, Motown, and Blues. It has sustain for days with the '57 Classics, a perfect finish, even the setup was almost perfect. I bought an '08 Les Paul Studio for my daughter last Nov., and it's a nice guitar and all.

 

But.....................

 

Saying a Custom Shop 339 doesn't have the build quality of a Les Paul Standard is very misleading.

 

It's very obvious to ME which one has the better build quality. The one in the "Custom" case.

 

Best to ya.

 

Murph.

[knuckles]

Just received my new es-339 and the build quality was flawless, stunning absolutely no issues.

[anothersixstringer]

Thanks everyone for your kind answers

I think that the main difference for me would be that one about having more neck space on the 339, and that it is not a full hollowbody. I had my share of solid bodies and I think I would go for that 339, maybe some time in the mid-term future.

Today, I was browsing the local music shop when a beautiful SG caught my eye. Not what I was looking for something like it in any way, but it really looked great. Turned out it was an used Epi Elite '61 Faded (cherry) at a fabulous price, I had to get it and the thing is just fabulous!!! The rock guitar problem is solved now, only remains the G.A.S. for the 339.

Cheers :)

[brundaddy]

my $.02:

I play my es 175 in a loud rock and roll band. For me, room size is the primary factor in feedback sensitivity. If we rehearse in a small room, I have to do 1 of 3 things-- turn down the vol. on both pickups, keep 1 pup vol on 10 & the other on 0 so I can use the pup selector as a kill switch, or use a pedal as a kill switch.

 

If you insist on keeping flatwound .12s, then you may want to pick up a 2nd guitar just so you can have whatever strings you like to bend always on it... I bend the hell out of my strings (roundwound .10s) and have no trouble with the bridge walking on me on my 175. There are tricks to keep the bridge in place without pinning it.

[JohnWTuggle]

The 339 looks really cool. I'm seriously thinking about getting one. I play in a few different tunings and like to keep my SG in Open E. I miss the humbuckers playing in standard tuning. Those 57 classics are my favorite pickups. When I saw the 339 comes with those, I knew I had to give that thing a whirl.

 

Hopefully I'll get to try one soon. I do like the 335 too. Does anybody have both of these?