STRINGS FOR 175

[Geff]

The only strings I can find that exactly match the stock guages for the 175 are Gibson L5s. I am sure they are great strings but the price is a bit steep.

 

Can anyone tell me of another brand that offers a set in the correct guage.

[Versatile]

I used to have an ES 175 strung with 13-56 which worked very well

 

Available from many suppliers at reasonable prices......

 

V

 

[ksdaddy]

I don't currently have a 175 (big old Gretsch in the stable) but I've experimented with many brands and gauges, looking for the right combo of price, feel, tone, all that. My vote = garden variety D'Addario nickel 12-52 (can't recall the specific title... XL something obviously).

[stein]

I got through reading all about your "compromise" guitar on the other thread. There is really one advantage you might enjoy with that, in that it can get away with a lot of different strings.

 

There are no "stock" strings for a 175. It can do well with both light and heavy strings, but also might be worth trying flats or others that a jazzer might like. There are lots of options that would be right at home, depending on what you want to get out of it.

 

You might try a set of heavy D'Addario XL's with a wound third for something more like a traditional electric sound with some of the meat you might get from an accoustic. If you want to go all out jazz tone, try a set of D'Addario chromes, which are flatwound strings, and problably the brightest of the flats (but flats aren't bright-think Wes montgomery or Joe Pass).

 

Or corse, it really wouldn't be out of place to go light electric like a set of 9's if you were so inclined.

 

It has been awile sinse I really checked to see what is out there, but basically that guitar should respond well to anything that you would use for an electric solid body as well as anything you would put on a jazz box.

[stein]

One more thing regarding flats-they are more expensive mainly because they are harder to make, but they last a LONG time.

 

And regarding flats, they sound and play very different than a round wound. It may be worth the cost just to experience them if you think you may get into the jazz thing, and if you end up liking them, it will problably save you more in the long run because you won't need to change them nearly so often.

[Geff]

Guys, thanks for all the input. The main reason I want to keep the original guages for now is I dont really want to have to get into adjusting truss rods and replacing nuts and all that stuff just yet on a guitar I only just brought home!.

[mrw1960]

It depends on what type of music you play. If your into Jazz you could use Flatwounds. On my 175 It really doesn't matter what gauge. I replaced the stock nut to a Graphtech TUSQ XL.The stock nut was inferior quality. You might want to consider replacing the nut, Made a HUGE difference.I also replaced the stock PUPS to Gibson Classic 57's, put in a US made wiring harness with quality Pots and Caps. I play Blues. I use DR Pure Blues 10-46 strings. Super sweet tone. I've also used D'Addario Pure Nickel Strings. You do not have to use Gibson strings IMO. So many choices out there. Congrats on your new 175! Have fun.

[Fadedepi]

There are no "stock" strings for a 175.

 

The ES-175 Reissue comes from the factory strung with .011 - .052's. I would consider these as the "stock" string gauges for this guitar. Of course we're all free to deviate.

 

Fadedepi....

[kawa]

The only strings I can find that exactly match the stock guages for the 175 are Gibson L5s. I am sure they are great strings but the price is a bit steep.

 

Can anyone tell me of another brand that offers a set in the correct guage.

 

Available ; 09 ～ 13

 

In case of Gibson ES-175

 

Current Shipping Strings ; Gibson Brite Wires "10"

 

Former Shipping Strings ; Gibson SEG-900M ("12")

 

from "jazzguitar. be ; http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guitar-amps-gizmos/14796-strings-es-175-a.html

[milod]

For what it's worth, I love my Elixir 9-42 on the 175 ... and almost everything else "electric."

 

It's not a pure jazz sound, if you will, but I'm a gentle fingerpicker so it's still pretty thick sounding.

 

m

[Elias Graves]

On a big hollow body, truss rod adjustments are about as frequent as string changes anyway, :) so experiment with different ones.

 

EG

[Geff]

I noted the comments about replacing the nut and I think that will get done at some point. One thing that does strike me immediately is that the stock nut looks cheap and doesnt really fit with the aesthetic of the guitar overall.. For now I am just enjoying playing the thing! I found a set of Ernie ball custom nickel wound with a wound third in 11-52. It is not an exact match through the gauges but pretty close. I will give them a try as they are significantly cheaper than the Gibson set.

 

If they dont give me a decent sound I will likely start to try different "pure nickel wound" sets until I find a brand I like. I guess it is going to end up as a compromise between what sounds good unplugged and what sounds good through the pups.

[milod]

Personally, I figure the 175 is a "pure electric" in the sense that it was designed specifically to be played as an electric guitar rather than a mod to an acoustic archtop.

 

Functionally that means your "sound" is what comes out of a given amp. That also means you may have all kinds of options of modification of the sound. So... that's largely why, besides personal preference, I'm perfectly happy with those light Elixirs. But then I'm also not flatpicking.

 

m

[Geff]

Milod,

 

I know where you are coming from and accept your analysis of it as primarily an electric (two full size humbuckers are a bit of a give-away) although it is one of the deepest bodied fully hollow electric models available. But the simple fact is that I play it more often unplugged (at least at the moment I do) and I think it sounds pretty good that way..

Initially, I thought it sounded a bit bright and lacking at the bottom end but either my ears are adjusting or it is mellowing a little with use (I havnt had it long). It is my go-to guitar when I just feel like picking something up and practicing.

 

I dont actually own a pure acoustic or (electro acoustic) (for now).

[milod]

Thing about the 175 is that it was designed as a smaller body electric even though it looked much like the earlier archtops converted for electric. Some actually call it a 3/4 size guitar. But it's pretty deep compared to a solid or thin semi-hollow. I think I consider it "small" 'cuz I started acoustic.

 

That period after WWII through maybe 1960 was incredible for electric guitar designing and we're definitely the beneficiaries today and still use much of the stable that arrived in that time period.

 

But don't forget that the 175 design was specific for electric, even though it is very nice just sitting in a living room acoustic. Personally I think of string choices for it as an electric as opposed to as an acoustic archtop electrified. A friend, btw, has an early 1950s flattop Gibson with Florentine cutaway and a magnetic pickup at the neck similar to the original 175 - but it does better pure acoustic, IMHO.

 

Then that's just me... Still... I love the size and feel of the thing.

 

m

[stein]

Regarding the nut: It should not be nessessery to change the nut for a change in string type or for every gauge if it is properly cut. Even less so on a headstock that doesn't have a straight pull over it because you won't get rattle from an improperly cut nut. I would not give it a second thought until you start having problems, which you might never have.

 

Also, while what Milod says is highly accurate and true (I have read about it many times, but he was there), about the 175 being an "electric" guitar, there are a couple things to also consider. When the electric solidbody came out, it wasn't accepted by all, and it was felt by many that a "real" guitar still had to be accoustic in nature, and even the "electrics". Many of the first electrics, particularly Gibson, were full accoustics with pups, like the later L- series, the early ES series and so forth. The ES-175 was designed using these same principles, and the same technology and construction, as the full accoustics that were adopted for electrics. This was it's place in the product line.

 

I once read a history of string technology, and while I remember very little, one thing I do remember regarding nickel strings was they were still meant to have accoustic properties. Flatwounds, also, were in use on a lot of instruments well before the guitar was electrified, and have a steel construction. Regardless, nickel strings still fit right in between flats and brass or bronze strings in tone, and many use them on pure accoustic archtops.

[milod]

Stein...

 

Pretty much right on. WWII brought some interesting and very rapid changes that worked to the benefit of guitars and guitar technology. For example, radios shrank and so did PA systems.

 

All that electronic "stuff" had made perhaps 10-20 years advancement during the war. After the war, musicians came to benefit.

 

Also the war taught a lotta guys about certain types of standardization. Consider this: Whether it's a Gibson or Fender or a cruddy early import for the US marketplace after WWII, functionally all "new" electric guitars could connect to the same amps, again regardless of manufacturer, and work well. Just that degree of standardization was of great benefit to musicians, perhaps especially guitarists.

 

The G vs. F games might have been far different had either company decided to use some other sort of technology so a Fender guitar would not work on a Gibson amp or vice versa. "We" still benefit from their decisions not to play that game.

 

The 175 was an early "electric" by intent - but I have a hunch somebody at Gibson saw the writing on the wall that electrics were coming to be a big deal. There always would be a market for traditional flattops, but... where would the electric market go? Nobody really knew. Then in the '50s cars got better radios, AM radio was king, small combos with various amps took over the local music market and...

 

Frankly since around 1960 the major changes have been with increasing change in electronics for amplification and electric guitar signal modification, not the guitars themselves. The one possible exception would be the piezo type pickup for AE guitars.

 

Keyboard electronics also made rapid improvements. But guitars? In ways until the Firebird X, I'd say it's been very slow and incremental change - and not necessarily "improvement."

 

Take almost any electric guitar today and drop it back to 1963 and I doubt you'd find anybody being very surprised except by piezo bridges, robot tuners and some of the sexy electronic stuff in the newer Gibsons and older stuff in the Variax and similar stuff. But the shapes? Naaaah.

 

m

[ne14t?]

I dont know how much a difference there is in nuts, but on my Explorer when I changed out the Gibson Brite 10's to Ernie Ball Heavy Top Skinny Bottom I didnt have to do anything to the nut it worked out great, have had the same strings on for a month and a half now, my guitar see's all sorts of weird tunes so I am constantly changing the tensions on it and I havent had a string slip or anything yet. I could see this possibly being a different story for flat strings, I have no knowledge in that area as I have not used them before.