Not everyone can afford a 58-64 ES-335. $15000-$45000 is an awful lot of money for a guitar (even if you’ll probably get it back when you sell it). When I get asked for advice from buyers with $5000-$7000 to spend, I usually steer them toward 345’s and 355’s with issues from the same era. But if a 335 is the only choice for you, then 65 to 69 models are worth considering. Most of you already know why the values drop precipitously from 64 to 65 but I’ll give you the short version in case you missed that day.
In 65, the stop tailpiece was discontinued and replaced with a trapeze. But that isn’t the big reason. By mid ’65 the nut width has shrunk from 1 11/16″ to 1 5/8″ to 1 9/16″. It doesn’t seem like much but wrap your hand around that narrow neck and you will definitely notice the difference. There were other changes, like nickel hardware being switched for chrome and changes to the pickups (from enamel coat windings to poly coat) that took place in 65. But the neck size is the main reason you can pay $15000 or more for a 64 and $5000 for a late 65. We’ll toss out the big neck 65’s from the discussion because they generally are priced at around $8000-$9000. Less than a 64 but beyond that $5000-$7000 range that is such a popular range.
So, we have late 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 to look at. I would toss out late 69 because the “Norlin” changes (neck volute, short neck tenon) should cost even less. They aren’t terrible guitars but 65-early 69 are generally better. Nobody likes the volute and the shorter tenon can have stability issues (although most don’t). One of the common assumptions is that all of these guitars have t-tops except maybe a few early 65’s. That’s simply not true. I’ve seen pre T-tops as late as 69 and I’ve never, repeat, never, seen a t-top in 65 and rarely in 66. In fact most 67’s don’t have t-tops either. 68 is a toss up but plenty of them have pre t-tops. T-tops can be great pickups as well, so, stop worrying about the pickups.
There are vast differences in the neck profiles during this period and that might help you decide. The problem is that they are kind of all over the place. I find most 65’s to have fairly large necks but 66’s generally have really, really thin necks. They go from a bit larger to way larger in 67 but some are still pretty thin. By 68 and into 69, they can get very large. I have a 69 (OK, it’s a 340) that has a huge (but narrow) neck profile. It rivals many 59’s. It’s not just the profile that merits a look-65’s and some 66’s get you a Brazilian board while 67 and later gets you Indian rosewood. One the point to make-a very popular vintage guitar information site states that 68’s have a wide nut. They don’t. Period.
Don’t ignore the small stuff either. 65 and 66 have the wide bevel pick guard which I think is a lot more attractive. 68 and 69 have big f-holes which look a bit cartoonish to my eye. 65 and most 66’s have reflector knobs while late 66 to 69 have witch hat knobs which I really don’t like but knobs are easy to change. They certainly don’t affect tone or playability nor do other little details like the position of the headstock “Crown” inlay. It’s higher in 65-66 and lower in 67-69. They also changed the inlay material at some point in 67 (I think). The inlays are whiter and don’t have the same tendency to dry out and curl up at the edges.
For my $5000-$7000, I’d go with a 65. Narrow but medium chunky neck profile, Brazilian rosewood for sure, big bevel guard and maybe some nickel hardware. A big problem is that so many sellers describe their 66-69 335’s as 65’s. The reason for this is because the serial numbers were re-used as many as four times over these years. It never surprises me that these sellers simply look at the serial number charts and pick the earliest possible year. Do your homework. Look at the features. It’s pretty easy to tell a wide bevel guard from a narrow bevel. It’s easy to tell a low “crown” inlay from a high one. It’s not that hard to tell the big f-holes from the small ones. Read my old posts-I’ve covered all of this before and then go out there and find the “one”.