Gibson ES-175D from 1990 and its peculiarities

[Rocket Roll]

Just bought this well-preserved Gibson ES-175D from 1990, and I'm as happy as a guitar player can be. Besides the mythical "mahogany back and sides", this one has been a case queen for most of its life. Came with 20 years old Thomastik Infeld JS111 Jazz Swings, which sounded great, actually.

Upon closer inspection, I've found some interesting things to share.

First of all, it either was played more than advertised, or by an careless player, since she's not mint. Don't really care, just reflecting on human nature to exaggerate.

Then, it's a couple years before Historics (custom shop models, whatever's the name) - from a simpler time when a factory made a guitar, and if you liked it, you'd get it.

Third thing - from what I can see, no kerfed braces, solid ones all the way through. This is the best picture I can make:


Forget about the "ES-175" Jazzguitar article and the statement "1968-present... the back of the neck has the same size as those from the 1963-1964 period." This neck is slimmer than the neck on my 2014 SG Standard, or just as slim. But whereas my SG has broad shoulders and is more of a D, this one's a V. It reminds me of a Clapton Martin 000/Signature Fender Stratocaster neck. Very triangular, very unsupportive. I wouldn't normally pick one based on this neck alone, I'm 6 foot 8 in and I love chunky necks, but what the heck. People play mandolins and ukuleles all the time and live to tell the tale.


Then, the trussrod. I know for a fact that on this guitar it wasn't tweaked a lot, if at all, because the strings were low but the neck was bowed. Previous owner simply lowered the strings and lived with the buzz. But the trussrod protrudes! So it's not because it's disfunctional, but because "it was not a bug, it was a feature". They left the factory like that, I presume.


The pickups. Didn't took them out yet. They measure 7.7K (neck) and 9.2K (bridge). No idea what they are. They should be something before 57 Classics, maybe Pat.No's or 490's, but on those measurements alone, I'd call them 57/57+. Whatever they are, they sound good and will stay. But I wonder what they are.


You can see the markings, small lines, indicating the ideal bridge position. No chance that they are factory original?

This is how the guitar sounded on arrival:

[icr]

Nice guitar thanks for sharing.

I have 4 Gibsons from the early 1990s and the fit and finish look similar.

Traditionally the bridge position would be different for any different saddle or string diameter. Especially if it were a carved saddle, where the intonation is adjusted by bridge placement. So, I'd say 'no' to factory marks for bridge position. I think the (bad) idea that everyone uses the same string gauge and same adjustable saddle so the bridge can be pinned, came many years later.

[Rocket Roll]

Nice guitar thanks for sharing.

Thank you, you're welcome.

Traditionally the bridge position would be different for any different saddle or string diameter. Especially if it were a carved saddle, where the intonation is adjusted by bridge placement. So, I'd say 'no' to factory marks for bridge position.

Thanks again, one mystery down, one to go - what do you think, which pickups do I have?

[ThatRhythmMan]

That truss rod nut definitely did not leave the factory like that. It’s quite marred and has clearly been cranked down.

[icr]

My 1993 Gibson brochures are individual fold-outs. For some reason I don't have the foldout that shows the ES-175. The 1993 ES-165 and ES-335 show 490.

All my Norlin and 1990s Gibsons came with nominal 300k pots. I did change them all to 500k with improved sound to my ear...except for my ES-175. I kept that 300k just to be different as all my other archtop humbucker guitars have 500k pots.

Maybe you already checked the pots, but if they are 300k and you ever compare you guitar to a vintage ES-175 and the older one sounds better, maybe it is the pots.

[Rocket Roll]

That truss rod nut definitely did not leave the factory like that. It’s quite marred and has clearly been cranked down.

Might be the case. I'm no sightseer and don't really know the absolute truth about this guitar's past, but some of that marring is mine, and a lot of the story, as told by the seller, checks out. We'll see how the neck holds up in the future.

My 1993 Gibson brochures are individual fold-outs. For some reason I don't have the foldout that shows the ES-175. The 1993 ES-165 and ES-335 show 490.

Good to know that it's an option. I'm currently not going to disassemble everything to lift the pickups, but perchance I'll borrow a small camera.

All my Norlin and 1990s Gibsons came with nominal 300k pots.

Ah, I didn't expect that. I was going to replace the volume pot for the neck pickup soon, because I tried to lift the knob and it was really stuck, so I had to exercise extreme force and the pot is now shorting. That means I'll have to replace both volumes, because I can find only 500K Gibson pots in Belgrade right now.

But the guitar sounds fine with those that are already there. I presume that with 300K pots it's a bit darker than with 500K pots? Sounds bright enough for me, even too bright at times.

[jazzkritter]

Nice guitar! I had a 90 mahogany back bought new, had to sell but did love it.

it's a couple years before Historics (custom shop models, whatever's the name) -

The ‘custom shop’ was alive and well in 90. My 89 L5 had a sign off sheet from the custom shop. Difference is Gibson hadn’t turned the custom shop into THE CUSTOM SHOP lol. All I got in 89 was a sign off sheet.... no COA, no case candy, and of course no crimson folio. Those fellas sure know how to market))’

My 89 pickups are “patent number” (2,737,842).

[Doctor Jeff]

Might be the case. I'm no sightseer and don't really know the absolute truth about this guitar's past, but some of that marring is mine, and a lot of the story, as told by the seller, checks out. We'll see how the neck holds up in the future.



Good to know that it's an option. I'm currently not going to disassemble everything to lift the pickups, but perchance I'll borrow a small camera.



Ah, I didn't expect that. I was going to replace the volume pot for the neck pickup soon, because I tried to lift the knob and it was really stuck, so I had to exercise extreme force and the pot is now shorting. That means I'll have to replace both volumes, because I can find only 500K Gibson pots in Belgrade right now.

But the guitar sounds fine with those that are already there. I presume that with 300K pots it's a bit darker than with 500K pots? Sounds bright enough for me, even too bright at times.

You need this:

Pullit Knob Puller | stewmac.com

I had an ‘80 mahogany 175 years ago and just bought another (‘88) from a guy on the forum here. I don’t recall the details of the bracing and neck, I just remember that it was a sturdy guitar.

I know it’s been said before, but each 175 is its own beast. Many people have pointed out that Gibson didn’t make things a standard way every day for long periods of time, they made slight mods along the way. Or they used up extra stock (pots and caps and so forth) that was available.

Also knowing a thing or 2 about wood, I think it is a marvel that any neck is straight after 30+ years, even with a truss rod. Fortunately many of the ones that are still on the market have stood the test of time.

So it’s said that you just have to play any 175 to make sure it has the sound you want. If you can LOL—sometimes you just take a leap of faith.

Nice sound from yours—exactly why I wanted to get another one. Will look forward to getting mine in the next week or so.

[citizenk74]

Nice guitar! Congratulations, and play it in good health!

[icr]

I presume that with 300K pots it's a bit darker than with 500K pots? Sounds bright enough for me, even too bright at times.

500K would make it brighter. Frequently a benefit on a Les Paul to my ear. On ES-175 I don't know, because if you play with the volume rolled off then the effect of the overall pot resistance is less and less.



You can't really do this test on an archtop, but you can easily add 200k to a 300k pot on a switch and quickly go back and forth between 500k and 300k as you play. Everyone I know can hear the difference. You can't leave it that way, however, because in the 500k position, you can't turn the volume off.

[Rocket Roll]

The ‘custom shop’ was alive and well in 90. My 89 L5 had a sign off sheet from the custom shop. Difference is Gibson hadn’t turned the custom shop into THE CUSTOM SHOP lol. All I got in 89 was a sign off sheet.... no COA, no case candy, and of course no crimson folio. Those fellas sure know how to market..

Way I heard that story told, Gibson Custom Shop was a division from 1986, and produced special models and limited runs, but THE Custom Shop (as in: division in quality, ie. "regular crap" and "real instruments" having their own separated production lines) started in 1994.

...just bought another (‘88) from a guy on the forum here.... Nice sound from yours—exactly why I wanted to get another one. Will look forward to getting mine in the next week or so.

Thank you, and congrats - I've seen the sale thread, and wondered who'll be the lucky guy.

Nice guitar! Congratulations, and play it in good health!

Thanks from the heart! It's my first original ES-175 and I love even its acoustic sound. Sounds more complex and/or louder than the clones - I've got an Aria 2302 and had an Epiphone Swingster that went to the former owner of this ES-175 as part of the trade/sell deal. This ES-175 is nicer than that Swingster, and I've chosen that Swingster (made in Indonesia, btw) among four others.

500K would make it brighter. Frequently a benefit on a Les Paul to my ear. On ES-175 I don't know, because if you play with the volume rolled off then the effect of the overall pot resistance is less and less... Everyone I know can hear the difference.

I'd love to have it as original as possible - where I live, every modification is sacrilegious and, in another player's point of view, a clear sign that you're the idiot thinking that those fine engineers in American factories don't know what they're doing. Which is sometimes so true. But my main motivation, in this moment, is the fact that it sounds great as is.

[Rocket Roll]

My 1993 Gibson brochures are individual fold-outs. For some reason I don't have the foldout that shows the ES-175. The 1993 ES-165 and ES-335 show 490.

I've managed to get a hold of a small camera (I don't like to remove strings and unscrew the pickups if I absolutely do not have to), and this is the pickup. Looks like a 490, but without the extra holes, so it could in theory be a T-top, if it weren't so hot. Both of the pickups have that "4" pencil mark on them - I don't have an idea what it represents.

[Jabberwocky]

...Both of the pickups have that "4" pencil mark on them - I don't have an idea what it represents.

Number 4 implying use of AlNiCo 4 magnets, possibly.

[Doctor Jeff]

Funny I read that post above, thinking what an authoritative writer, a little full of himself—then I realized it was me! LOL...

The idea that I am an expert on anything except maybe 1970’s prog rock and infectious diseases during the Civil War is kind of funny.

I can’t get inside right now to look at the bracing on my ‘88, and I haven’t adjusted the truss rod or looked at the pickups. It’s supposed to have Shaws I think. I will say the neck is a shallow D. Not at all a V.

[Rocket Roll]

Had to replace the neck volume pot (finally), so I've found that it's already been replaced - with a 500K DiMarzio. I've measured the other, original pots, and surprise surprise - all are 500K! Looks like original wiring and original tone caps. I've tried to restore it to the best of my abilities. I especially like that "barrel input jack" thingy, very classy. Here are some more pictures - I've photographed the pickups and pickup rings. I know that these codes mean something to some of you, so here they are.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

That's a really nice guitar! I prefer the mahogany bodies to maple. The tone's a bit warmer on the mahogany ones I've played than on the '60 175DN I bought in high school and was my only axe through high school, college, and a few years into graduate school.

I'd suggest not considering the bridge marks as indicators of the "ideal" position. It's just as likely that a prior owner either unknowingly knocked it out of place while changing strings and left it there, or removed all the strings at once and put it back where it looked right when restringing. Another possible explanation is that it was accidentally shifted a bit while detuned, e.g. left in the case for a long period of time or shipped somewhere with tension reduced. I've seen many people loosen the strings just enough to allow forcing the bridge to shift a little (whether it needed it or not), which often leaves marks like those on your guitar. And although not as common on an archtop like a 175 as on lower end guitars, many players play mostly within the first few frets and never know that their intonation is off.

Don't assume anything. Measure to find the right starting position, and carefully align the bridge for center and scale length. Then check intonation and adjust accordingly. And enjoy that wonderful guitar!

[Rocket Roll]

Don't assume anything. Measure to find the right starting position, and carefully align the bridge for center and scale length. Then check intonation and adjust accordingly. And enjoy that wonderful guitar!

Exactly what I did. I do enjoy it, thanks! It wasn't played a lot with its previous owner, so I witnessed it "opening up" a bit in a last year. Sounds "very acousticky" now

[jaymen]

Nice guitar, I too have a 1989 ES-175D mahogany back and sides. Seeing yours now makes me curious to see just what is inside mine as far as pots and caps.

I'm a little surprised to see they used the cheapest .02uF ceramic disc capacitors they could find. One would expect at least a Mylar, or high quality film caps (Orange drop) or the old school rolled paper/foil/oil caps.

I will have to look at my wiring because I saw yours uses the newer style instead of the 1950s wiring which grounds the center lugs of the pots. I prefer the early 1950s pot wiring as it has less interaction between the volume and tone pots when they are turned down.

At a minimum, if my 175 is like yours, I will have to swap out those cheapo disc caps and rewire the pots to 1950s specs. It sort of explains why I was never really happy with the tone/volume controls on my 175, but it plays well and sounds good.
Jay

[Gitfiddler]

Another happy '89 ES-175 owner here. (See avatar) Mine was barely played by the previous owner(s), so it took a while for it to open up after about a year of my playing it. But now it sings with a bit more authority acoustically. Plugged in it does that '175 thunk thing' in spades. The controls work as intended, with a decent linear taper. Volume rolled off a tad darkens the tone perfectly.

I have no complaints about this box, and never even looked inside the f-holes to examine its construction. I just play it and enjoy it. After reading this thread maybe I'll take a peek inside. But nothing will be dismantled for close examination. The seller pulled the pickups and confirmed they are Shaws. To me they sound great.

Nothing sounds quite like an ES-175.

@Rocket Roll...Congratulations on your new acquisition. Play it in good health.

[Rocket Roll]

I'm a little surprised to see they used the cheapest .02uF ceramic disc capacitors they could find. One would expect at least a Mylar, or high quality film caps (Orange drop) or the old school rolled paper/foil/oil caps.

I actually wasn't surprised at all, because Gibson is known for using ceramic caps even today (I have a recent SG that came with ceramic discs, as well), and if you google "Gibson MP 203M" you'll see a lot of comments and photos of all kinds of Gibsons which came from the factory in the 80s and 90s with them.

As far as the sound goes... let me put it this way - I've built a lot of guitar effects and some amps, I've modded and repaired guitars extensively in one period of my life, and while caps DO have sound (because they're not ideal and different dielectrics have their own resistance and inductance), I've learned the hard way to leave well enough alone and to respect "period correctness".

Every Gibson from the eighties and nineties does have it's own thing going on, very often, and we're used to hearing it in its stock form, so any change can take away from "that thing". If there was something wrong with those caps or if they were non-stock, I'd be tempted to experiment (or restore), but I just like this thing as is.

I will have to look at my wiring because I saw yours uses the newer style instead of the 1950s wiring which grounds the center lugs of the pots. I prefer the early 1950s pot wiring as it has less interaction between the volume and tone pots when they are turned down.

I do like the fifties wiring as well, but I'll leave this one as is. For variety's sake. And because of the fact it, again, sounds good as is - and I constantly play it with volume pots on 2-3. Maybe it's because I use Thomastik Jazz Swing 11's, and they're pretty bright... I don't really know.

@Rocket Roll...Congratulations on your new acquisition. Play it in good health.

Thank you for kind wishes! I will.

[Jimmy Mack]

Well, yes, congrats on that guitar. Love it!

But, everyone has Gibson p/ups with that patent #. I wonder when they will stop stamping it (if they haven't already).

My '81 L5CES had Shaw pickups (I think they had the same Patent #) LOL. I did not like them. So when changing them, I changed the crappy Gibson pots too. They ranged in value from 90K to 310K. How is that justifiable ? Did someone choose that set to get a specific response?? I don't think so. As Andy Bartosh says, "there are no bad L5's", so why would someone who is an amateur (the previous owner) choose weird pot values? Also the ceramic disc caps.
And the guitar already had 50's wiring, so I kept that.

My RI '57 CS LP Custom also had pot values that had no justification. AND....some of them stopped working. After replacing them with 500K pots, the guitar sounded much better.

By all means, if you like the tone of the guitar as it is, enjoy it and don't listen to me and my ranting! Make music.

[Rocket Roll]

My '81 L5CES had Shaw pickups (I think they had the same Patent #) LOL. I did not like them. So when changing them, I changed the crappy Gibson pots too. They ranged in value from 90K to 310K. How is that justifiable ? Did someone choose that set to get a specific response??

I would venture to say that there's a possibility you had a "300K volume/ 100K" tone wiring version, which was a late 70's/ early 80's Gibson thing, especially on jazz boxes. I guess they had their reasons - and even that combination had its champions, i.e. metal dudes.

But then again, I personally changed so much in so many guitars when I was after a tone I didn't get from the stock configuration that now I go by: "If it's a Stradivarius and you're not playing it, consider non-invasive modding first."

[ThatRhythmMan]

Well, yes, congrats on that guitar. Love it!

But, everyone has Gibson p/ups with that patent #. I wonder when they will stop stamping it (if they haven't already).

My '81 L5CES had Shaw pickups (I think they had the same Patent #) LOL. I did not like them. So when changing them, I changed the crappy Gibson pots too. They ranged in value from 90K to 310K. How is that justifiable ? Did someone choose that set to get a specific response?? I don't think so. As Andy Bartosh says, "there are no bad L5's", so why would someone who is an amateur (the previous owner) choose weird pot values? Also the ceramic disc caps.
And the guitar already had 50's wiring, so I kept that.

My RI '57 CS LP Custom also had pot values that had no justification. AND....some of them stopped working. After replacing them with 500K pots, the guitar sounded much better.

By all means, if you like the tone of the guitar as it is, enjoy it and don't listen to me and my ranting! Make music.

Ummmmm…….what happened to those Tim Shaws?

[Stringswinger]

Ummmmm…….what happened to those Tim Shaws?

That is a good question. I had an 82 ES-175 (maple back and sides) that had Shaw PUPS and I thought they sounded great.

[deacon Mark]

I think my son's Les Paul has Tim Shaw pickups could that be? It sounds good though and works for jazz for sure.