Fret about it?

[gnappi]

I don't think anyone knows the answer about it, but I'll throw it out anyway.

 

I have two larger body archtops, an ES-175 and a Joe Pass. Both have the 14th fret joining the body. My ES-137 custom OTOH joins the body at the 1/6th fret making access to the second octave easier. From a raw playability and upper fret access-ability standpoint the 137 is easier to play.

 

Given that they're all the same scale length and the body shape is the same at the neck joint, why wouldn't Gibson mount the necks like the ES-137?

[rpguitar]

The ES-175 was introduced in 1949, when nearly all guitars were joined at either the 14th or the 12th fret. The ES-137 arrived quite a bit later.

 

One reason is tradition; do you want Gibson to change all of their iconic guitars? The company is betting that the answer is no, and that's probably a good call, judging by all of the reissues. Another reason is that high fret access is not a top priority for the audience that traditionally plays a 175. Also, when the neck is joined at a higher fret, the bridge has to move up towards the headstock end. Want to redesign the bracing on all of those archtops to accommodate the new bridge location?

 

Hope that helps! :)

[Danny W.]

I agree with Roger--this might be okay on a thin-body semi but is not such a hot idea on a full-depth, carved-top.

 

If you want to try it out, though, Gibson made three 17" X 3" models in the '60's with an extended neck access; the Trini Lopez Deluxe, The Barney Kessel Custom and the Barney Kessel Regular. Although both Kessels started out with a 14-fret neck joint, it got moved a few frets in 1964. I've had both versions and feel that the older design is far better.

 

Here's a photo of my favorite Kessel--a '63 Custom. It's the nicest BKC I've ever seen and one of the few guitars I sold that I wish I hadn't.

 

 

Danny W.

[Jabberwocky]

I agree with Roger--this might be okay on a thin-body semi but is not such a hot idea on a full-depth, carved-top.

 

If you want to try it out, though, Gibson made three 17" X 3" models in the '60's with an extended neck access; the Trini Lopez Deluxe, The Barney Kessel Custom and the Barney Kessel Regular. Although both Kessels started out with a 14-fret neck joint, it got moved a few frets in 1964. I've had both versions and feel that the older design is far better.

 

Here's a photo of my favorite Kessel--a '63 Custom. It's the nicest BKC I've ever seen and one of the few guitars I sold that I wish I hadn't.

 

 

Danny W.

 

Gee Louise, is there a Gibson archtop that you do NOT own or had NOT owned, Danny?

 

You could write a book.

[gnappi]

One reason is tradition; do you want Gibson to change all of their iconic guitars?

 

The company is betting that the answer is no, and that's probably a good call, judging by all of the reissues.

 

Another reason is that high fret access is not a top priority for the audience that traditionally plays a 175.

 

when the neck is joined at a higher fret, the bridge has to move up towards the headstock end.

 

Want to redesign the bracing on all of those archtops to accommodate the new bridge location?

 

 

In order:

 

1. Yes I would like to see second octave access better (see closing statement on tradition)

2. They re-issue because they HAVE to in order to stimulate sales, maybe because the players are stuck in a rut and don't buy into new ideas, AND

just maybe want vintage look without vintage prices? Maybe?

3. May not be a top priority but given a choice rather than tradition I'll take the choice

4. So move the bridge, the Kessel, Lopez, 335, and 137 look great, well to me anyway.

5. Again yes. It's a few CAD lines now. No more slide rules anymore.

 

RP, I'm not trying to be contrary but I asked because I like the idea of better access to the neck, heck if we all stood by tradition Harley Davidson motorcycles would still have kick starting, drum brakes, chain drive, and carburetors :-)

 

Finally, Gibson did no favor to collectors who had late 50's guitars sitting in museums when the re-issue craze took over Gibson. A LOT of money was lost there. Now nothing is rare, you just crank out reproductions of glory day models and everyone is happy.

[bobouz]

At least in the realm of thin hollowbodies, Gibson did a very cool thing by building a reissue of the long neck 330 (L version) for those wanting more fretboard access.

[badbluesplayer]

On a hollowbody, the length of the body provides more resonance. If you shorten the body on a 175 it won't sound the same. So it's not just a matter of making the body any shape you want.

 

Not to mention if you shorten the body on a 175, you'll never sell any more of them. That's why they have a 137. So they don't have to ruin the 175 in order to offer a model with higher fret access.

 

The idea is to maintain the traditional line of guitars while offering newer more modern models.

[Danny W.]

In order:

 

1. Yes I would like to see second octave access better (see closing statement on tradition)

2. They re-issue because they HAVE to in order to stimulate sales, maybe because the players are stuck in a rut and don't buy into new ideas, AND

just maybe want vintage look without vintage prices? Maybe?

3. May not be a top priority but given a choice rather than tradition I'll take the choice

4. So move the bridge, the Kessel, Lopez, 335, and 137 look great, well to me anyway.

5. Again yes. It's a few CAD lines now. No more slide rules anymore.

 

RP, I'm not trying to be contrary but I asked because I like the idea of better access to the neck, heck if we all stood by tradition Harley Davidson motorcycles would still have kick starting, drum brakes, chain drive, and carburetors :-)

 

Finally, Gibson did no favor to collectors who had late 50's guitars sitting in museums when the re-issue craze took over Gibson. A LOT of money was lost there. Now nothing is rare, you just crank out reproductions of glory day models and everyone is happy.

 

The problem really is that moving out the neck on a full depth hollowbody makes for a very weak structure, and you still have to deal with the depth of the body in the last few frets. If you want a guitar that sounds good and plays well right up to the end of the neck, Gibson has lots of choices, from the ES-3XX series, to the CS-3XX series, to the Johnny A, to the HR Fusion to the ES-137. Lee Ritenaur, who often plays an ES-335, has his artist model carved-top made with a 14-fret neck, as are George Benson's Ibanez models. While some of it might be tradition, it's also the desire to have the best tool for each job, and a 16-fret deep hollow body is not that. The Kessel came out almost fifty years ago, so it's hard to argue that doing this would be any sort of new idea for jazz players--it's just that they didn't love it the first time around.

 

You are right that moving the bridge or even changing te top carve is not a big deal. Gibson's L-5 Signature series have a 15.5" body with a 25.5" scale and the whole top carve and bridge location are different from a 17" L-5. But note that when Gibson did the extended neck on the Kessels and Trini deluxe they didn't change the bridge location because they made it a double cutaway and reduced the neck tenon. You can verify this by looking at the Kessel photo I posted and notice where the upper cutaway would intersect the neck--it's at the same 14th fret as an L-5. For the 17-fret neck, they just removed a bunch of heel and support, just one of the reasons this version of the Kessel is not as sought-after as the earlier version. You could not do this with a deep single cut-away body.

 

Other makers approach the problem the same way. Here's a Lacey Premier with extended access:

 

 

Note that if it were a single cut it would be a 14-fret neck.

 

BTW, you contradict yourself--in answer #2 you say players don't want to pay vintage prices and yet you end by saying that vintage collectors lost money from the release of reissues. Prices of vintage guitars have not been affected by that at all. When I converted my vintage collection to reissues I came out way ahead dollar-wise, and prices of vintage archtops are still much higher than that of newer stuff.

 

Danny W.

[gnappi]

 

BTW, you contradict yourself--in answer #2 you say players don't want to pay vintage prices and yet you end by saying that vintage collectors lost money from the release of reissues. Prices of vintage guitars have not been affected by that at all. When I converted my vintage collection to reissues I came out way ahead dollar-wise, and prices of vintage archtops are still much higher than that of newer stuff.

 

Danny W.

 

There's no contradiction at all there. Players, collectors, and dealers are not necessarily the same people. A friend of mine had hundreds of thou in guitars and didn't play note 1, and he moaned a LOT when the re-issue craze first came about, because rarity went away. Your experience was OK I guess, I don't know how but good on you :-)

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to open up a can of worms with EVERY body style ever made and which over the past had x frets to play on. The the 175 and 137 are very similar bodies, and with the 137 being slimmer in thickness it would seem that the 175 could easily be re-designed to accommodate a similar neck attachment scheme.

[Danny W.]

There's no contradiction at all there. Players, collectors, and dealers are not necessarily the same people. A friend of mine had hundreds of thou in guitars and didn't play note 1, and he moaned a LOT when the re-issue craze first came about, because rarity went away. Your experience was OK I guess, I don't know how but good on you :-)

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to open up a can of worms with EVERY body style ever made and which over the past had x frets to play on. The the 175 and 137 are very similar bodies, and with the 137 being slimmer in thickness it would seem that the 175 could easily be re-designed to accommodate a similar neck attachment scheme.

 

You should compare the prices of reissues versus originals, in LPs or Strats or ES-335s to see how little difference the reissues make on the value of scarce originals.

 

As for the 137 and 175 you keep overlooking the fact that the 137 is a semi with a center block while the 175 is a full hollowbody. It's not just the thickness that's different.

 

Danny W.

[rpguitar]

I agree that reissues have no effect on the value, perceived or monetary, of original vintage guitars. A new recreation of a 50, 60, 70, or 80 year old instrument is no more a clone of the old one than you are a clone of your grandfather. Weird analogy perhaps, but does it make sense? Your grandfather's experience and wisdom - his LIVING - can not be reproduced. Neither can a freshly made Gibson 1934 Reissue L-5 be equivalent to one actually made in 1934.

 

The collectors AND the players know this.

[bobouz]

Have to say, my new ES-330 VOS is so satisfying, it has cured the desire to seek out a vintage piece.

So a reissue may have an impact on the market, but in general I'd wager a minimal impact on the selling price of a well regarded vintage instrument.

[stein]

The simple answer I guess is that if the 175 were different, it wouldn't be a 175.

 

2 frets might not seem like a big deal, but in reality, it means making a different neck, and changing the position of the bridge. That slight change would make a MAJOR difference in the sound of the guitar, just in the bridge position.

 

In the end, all to gain 2 frets? I wonder how many would really be wanting that. I see your point, but at the same time, I doubt such a change is really worth 2 frets to most poeple.

 

So...when it comes to actually getting a REAL improvement in fret access, and you look at those guitars that do, they are mostly semi-hollow designs. I think part of it is structure, in that a long neck provides more stress, but also, on a semi-hollow, it matters much less where exactly you put the bridge, sinse you aren't really judging the guitar on volume or how it resonates.

 

Or, from another view, moving the bridge toward the waist on a semi-hollow doesn't affect the energy transfer that much compared to the change in a full-hollow guitar.

[stein]

Finally, Gibson did no favor to collectors who had late 50's guitars sitting in museums when the re-issue craze took over Gibson. A LOT of money was lost there. Now nothing is rare, you just crank out reproductions of glory day models and everyone is happy.

I am not sure I agree with this view. Who lost money? Who lost out?

 

For instance, there are about 1700 origonal Les Paul "Burst" that exist. And say, 30,000 poeple that want them. Should Gibson make them again to satisfy demand? Or, should Gibson and the rest of the world be concerned about preserving the "rarity" of the model?

 

Where is there a responsibility to the "collecter" here?

 

If a person is supposedly "making money" because a model is rare and not everyone can have one, what money has he actually made? He didn't loose money because the public got what they wanted, there was never any money "earned" or produced there in the first place. What ever fortune was there never existed if someone could simply build more.

 

There isn't anything "owed" to the collecter as far as preserving the value of his collection if it becomes valueable because everyone wants a particular guitar again. And if any money is to be made from such a thing, there is no rule that says it shouldn't be made by selling a certain model to poeple that want it. Where does the interest of the collecter become more important than that of the poeple that want THAT guitar, or the company that can build it?

[Jabberwocky]

I am not sure I agree with this view. Who lost money? Who lost out?

 

For instance, there are about 1700 origonal Les Paul "Burst" that exist. And say, 30,000 poeple that want them. Should Gibson make them again to satisfy demand? Or, should Gibson and the rest of the world be concerned about preserving the "rarity" of the model?

 

Where is there a responsibility to the "collecter" here?

 

If a person is supposedly "making money" because a model is rare and not everyone can have one, what money has he actually made? He didn't loose money because the public got what they wanted, there was never any money "earned" or produced there in the first place. What ever fortune was there never existed if someone could simply build more.

 

There isn't anything "owed" to the collecter as far as preserving the value of his collection if it becomes valueable because everyone wants a particular guitar again. And if any money is to be made from such a thing, there is no rule that says it shouldn't be made by selling a certain model to poeple that want it. Where does the interest of the collecter become more important than that of the poeple that want THAT guitar, or the company that can build it?

[JimR56]

I am not sure I agree with this view. Who lost money? Who lost out?

 

For instance, there are about 1700 origonal Les Paul "Burst" that exist. And say, 30,000 poeple that want them. Should Gibson make them again to satisfy demand? Or, should Gibson and the rest of the world be concerned about preserving the "rarity" of the model?

 

Where is there a responsibility to the "collecter" here?

 

If a person is supposedly "making money" because a model is rare and not everyone can have one, what money has he actually made? He didn't loose money because the public got what they wanted, there was never any money "earned" or produced there in the first place. What ever fortune was there never existed if someone could simply build more.

You're right that the company has no responsibility to vintage collectors, however you seem confused about the investment aspect. As has already been pointed out, the vintage market is not particularly (if at all) affected by what goes on with reissues. Vintage guitars are their own thing. Their values are determined by things other than the availability of reissues. They have value as investments (and as musical instruments, to those of us who actually play them), despite the fact that those values can fluctuate. Anyway, you can "build more" in terms of reissues, but you can't "build more" vintage guitars.

[stein]

You're right that the company has no responsibility to vintage collectors, however you seem confused about the investment aspect. As has already been pointed out, the vintage market is not particularly (if at all) affected by what goes on with reissues. Vintage guitars are their own thing. Their values are determined by things other than the availability of reissues. They have value as investments (and as musical instruments, to those of us who actually play them), despite the fact that those values can fluctuate. Anyway, you can "build more" in terms of reissues, but you can't "build more" vintage guitars.

I think EVERYONE is confused about the "investment" aspect of vintage guitars.

 

My particular view, that is, from what I have seen, is that the "reissue" craze has driven up the values by creating interest. Poeple want to know EXACTLY what makes them so special. If anything, the origonal vintage guitars have become more valueable as templates or study pieces to use to recreate the "magic", or determine if there is any.

 

Either way, the trend for the "vintage spec", OR the effort to most accurately recreate the vintage ones in more and more detail has served to make the origonals more desireable.

 

As far as "INVESTMENT" value, I think calling them investments and treating them as market commodities has driven the prices up to unrealistic levels. For a few years, the ONLY thing driving the cost up was projections the price would increase, and they were compared to other commodities such as property, stocks, or other investments. The problem with that is, they don't have anything to back them up as far as value. They don't have anything that qualifies them as "investments" to be able to justify their worth, or justify the prices they were getting.

 

A guitar does not fit the definition of "investment". That market is crashing, or has crashed.

[JimR56]

I think EVERYONE is confused about the "investment" aspect of vintage guitars.

 

My particular view, that is, from what I have seen, is that the "reissue" craze has driven up the values by creating interest. Poeple want to know EXACTLY what makes them so special. If anything, the origonal vintage guitars have become more valueable as templates or study pieces to use to recreate the "magic", or determine if there is any.

 

Either way, the trend for the "vintage spec", OR the effort to most accurately recreate the vintage ones in more and more detail has served to make the origonals more desireable.

 

As far as "INVESTMENT" value, I think calling them investments and treating them as market commodities has driven the prices up to unrealistic levels. For a few years, the ONLY thing driving the cost up was projections the price would increase, and they were compared to other commodities such as property, stocks, or other investments. The problem with that is, they don't have anything to back them up as far as value. They don't have anything that qualifies them as "investments" to be able to justify their worth, or justify the prices they were getting.

 

A guitar does not fit the definition of "investment". That market is crashing, or has crashed.

My particular view is that there are a lot of people (mostly guitar players who would prefer vintage guitars to be more affordable and kept more in use) who are frustrated and bitter about them gradually being priced out of their reach. Obviously, guitars can and do fit into the whole world of investing. Just because they were designed to make music and not to be bought/sold/traded, that doesn't mean they can't become investments over time via a natural market process, like old coins or stamps (or violins!) or just about any commodity you can name that has a collector's appeal. So, it's not a question of whether they can be investments, for many like yourself, it's really all about whether they should. You can wish for things to be different, but welcome to the real world.

 

One of the few things I agree with you about is that many vintage guitars go through phases of being priced well above where they probably ought to be (guitars like Strats that were churned out by the thousands on assembly lines). Still, if the demand is there, and people in large numbers are willing to pay crazy prices for them, then it's no mirage. You say they have "nothing to justify their worth"? I can't even believe anybody would say that, with the vintage guitar market having existed (and thrived at times) for decades. Of course there are things about them that justify high prices, and a public demand that has kept those prices at high levels. As I said the market fluctuates (for a variety of reasons for various brands and models), but the main reason for this "crash" you refer to has everything to do with the economic recession. You present some "interesting" theories, but I'm having trouble trying to apply facts to most of them. For exaxmple, vintage reissues do not "create demand" for originals. It's the other way around. Originals (being out of the reach of most) create a demand for the reissues. All the guys buying R9's does not increase the demand for original '59 Les Pauls. Increased "desire" (ie, fantasizing) maybe, but not "demand" as in increased purchases. The opposite effect (somewhat decreased demand for expensive originals due to the availablity of R9's) would be a far more logical expectation. I think your other theories are similarly misguided.