ES-135 - Identity Crisis? - Page 3

indianation66 · August 25th, 2008, 09:38 PM

Mr. Chitlins,
That is a passionate, anything but "gray area" sentiment regarding the 135. I got lucky and love mine, regardless of my lack of knowledge regarding the insides. I always did look at a woman's legs first, well before her heart! Sometimes I learned my lesson, sometimes she learned hers!
Ironic as it may sound, poor craftsmanship labels are usually dispensed to the foreign guitar makers, not mid-America Tennessee. It must have been made on a Monday!

Addendum: You didn't finish your story regarding the response. Did Gibson appease with fervent accomodations, or ignore you?

Indian Folklore and Wisdom--Love, Learn, Listen

charliechitlins · August 26th, 2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indianation66

I always did look at a woman's legs first, well before her heart! Sometimes I learned my lesson, sometimes she learned hers!

I have to confess, too, that I'm a little shallow that way. That's how I ended up with the 135. I fell in love with that bright red beauty.
The only aesthetic sticking point for me was, I thought that the "ES-135" script on the headstock looked cheesey.
For whatever reason, I'm one of those players who can plug in just about any guitar and sound like me.
And I think that 98% of tone is a combination of amp and fingers.
When I listen to gig recordings, I often can't tell if I'm playing my Epi ZBD, ES-225, Dalelectro or Tele.
So, for better or worse, I need a guitar with a good set-up that plays relatively well, and when I look down I want to see a cool-looking guitar.
I think a big part of my enjoyment is playing an instrument that I'm enamored with.
It sure isn't the $62 at the end of the gig that keeps me going!

BluesTele · November 2nd, 2008, 01:57 PM

i'm definitely in the minority.

i own and have owned alot of guitars and i have to say
i love the es-135 with p100's.
i still have the one i bought the first year they came out.
below is a youtube vid where i'm playing it.

YouTube - Meandering With The 'B'

indianation66 · November 2nd, 2008, 03:53 PM

I honestly don't remember if I posted my 135 collection. If I did, reiteration will be key, if not, melody displayed!

JohnnyCrash · November 22nd, 2008, 11:11 AM

I've got a ES-135 and it differs in a few ways. First, the balsa center block makes for a darker tone. It's more like a full hollowbody in a lot of ways - soundwise.

Second, the TOM bridges used on many were cheap and rattled. I was told the TOMs were the same hardware used on all Gibson USAs, but I have a Les Paul Junior Lite from the same year that clearly has a different TOM - I bought both new. I put in a Bigsby, because I mistakenly thought it was the trapeze.

My switch also keeps popping back to the middle spot. I've pulled it out and bent it with pliers, but it keeps doing it. I'll be replacing the switch with a more heavy duty one.

As far as the pickups, my LP Junior Lite had P-100s. Not as horrible as everyone said, but I was using the guitar in a metal project at the time. I've since swapped to a real P-90 and a minihumbucker in the neck, so perhaps that says something about the P-100s

It's hard to descibe, but out of my three Gibsons, this one feels a little lighter and cheaper. Slightly. In any case, the first rehearsal I brought it to, the worn strap I used gave way and the ES-135 landed on it's headstock on a monitor. Barely a nick.

I've since swapped the bridge humbucker with a humbucker sized P-90 and put in a push/pull switch for pickup phasing. The thing is tough and sounds great. It plays just as nicely as my '57 RI Custom or my LPJR.

gigs · April 29th, 2009, 12:17 PM

I got an ES-135 when they first came out. Hated the p-100's so i swapped in p-90's and love the sound. Gotta control the feedback when playing live at certain volumes, but that's easily done. Has a nice thick tone with plenty of bite to it. Put a Bigsy on it too. The middle switch position has a very interesting and likeable tone to it, that's what I originally liked about it even with the p-100's in it and it got better with the p-90s. Also its not a full hollow body, but it sure sounds like one a times. Also, it's the guitar I primarily practice with when practicing unplugged.

eblues2 · May 4th, 2009, 06:48 PM

Just to put yet another twist on the centerblock saga, my 2002 ES 135 with 57 classic pickups and trap tp has a maple block. Turns out they did a trial run of 50 or so and I just got lucky. Then they apparently sold them all without mentioning the centerblock material change. I love it, but it IS a bit heavier than most. I also understand that the ones with mahogany blocks like the 137's were meant for Japanese consumption, except for the satin ones with no F holes. Basically, if it had a stoptail it had to have a mahogany block.

mightysween · July 3rd, 2009, 12:51 PM

I realize we're milking a 5 year old thread here, but I would like to add my two cents as a person who plays an ES-135 as my primary guitar in 250+ shows a year...and as someone who would choose a balsa centerblock over a hardwood any day.

See...the centerblock issue seems very confusing for most folks. We are taught to believe that hardwood is always better than soft in a guitar. This is, of course, true of the structural parts of the guitar. But remember this: a centerblock is not part of the hollowbody guitar. The centerblock is added to intentionally remove tone from the guitar. The purpose of this is to prevent feedback due to body resonation.

So contrary to what many believe, the less dense the wood in a semi-hollowbody's centerblock, the more natural and full the tone. To put it in more general terms, a hollowbody guitar has no centerblock for a reason. Same with an acoustic...you wouldn't slap a centerblock in a Dove or Hummingbird to make its tone better, after all.

The simple fact is that adding a wood block of any kind disrupts the hollowbody guitar's natural resonation. The balsa/chromyte block has the least impact on natural tone.

So why did they change to maple/mahogany? Somewhere in the 90's, Gibson realized that they were not selling the 135's the way they should be, and decided to transition and market them to the Les Paul market. In order to do this, they needed to get rid of the trapeze tailpiece. In order to do that, they needed to put in a denser wood block to support that tailpiece. Hence the change. This further diminished the natural resonation of the guitar, but made it more semi-solidbody than semi-hollowbody...and eventually became the ES-137 which is really just a gimmick to sell another guitar to Les Paul owners. The 137 has only minimal characteristics of a hollowbody...and in my experience should not even be in the same category as the ES-135.

In short (too late!), if you are looking for a semi-hollowbody guitar that retains most of the characteristics of a hollowbody while somewhat limiting feedback due to resonation, then go with the lightest centerblock. If you are looking for a Les Paul type of performance in a guitar that looks like a hollowbody, then go with the 137.

Gibson's only mistake was giving the original ES-135 a name that would make people associate it with the 335...which was more semi-solid than semi-hollow.

indianation66 · July 3rd, 2009, 10:38 PM

Mr. Sween,
Very informative...good stuff! Scroll up to see my 135 collection!

...wisdom

gibson guy · July 22nd, 2009, 02:15 PM

There was a version (short-lived) that came from the factory with P90's and a bigsby, if my gibson bible is correct. Has anyone ever seen one? I haven't. Don't have the book in front of me, so I can't recall the name they gave it...but it was some sort of rockabilly-type name, as i recall.