The new Gene Bird is out!

[ilan]

I like it.
Except the pickguard and price tag.

Me too.

[uwe]

It's plain boring und uncreative, that's what it is. Going bind, alright.

If it's actually only set neck, then it is a real rip-off. A set neck Rev? Welcome to Orville- or Greco-land! In that case they should have  better made a 1.000 bucks affordable Epi out of it.

[Granny Gremlin]

Yeah you can see the neck joint in the rear pic in the link in the OP.  Also no raised middle - another dead giveaway. 

[uwe]

You're right, there is no center block. I first thought there was one in the larger pics, but it is just the shadow of the G-string.

That's laughable then. It's a TBird Studio (a fine bass, but neither soundwise nor feelwise a true TBird) with binding and SG-Z inlays, costing almost three times as much.

I can't believe he gave up on the neck-thru-construction - all his Punishers through the ages had that. He used to boast about their neck-thru construction and how worthy it made them.

A TBird that isn't a TBird with nothing to it that Gene generally considers vital with a bass. It can't even spit fire or drool blood, no bat wings either. Back to the drawing board, Gene!

[Basvarken]

The fact that it doesn't have a raised middle section is no proof of it not being a neck through...

[Granny Gremlin]

Technically true (I mean it can be done) but Gibson has never done that, and I don't think they ever will (on a TBird.... though for someone of Gene's stature, they might consider it).  At the very least it is a good reason to be skeptical and look further, a 'tell' if you will. 

Anyway, that's not the proof -  did you look at the rear pic where you can see the neck joint?



Gene's name will sell a few, but for everyone else 3k is too much without the neck through.

[uwe]

The fact that it doesn't have a raised middle section is no proof of it not being a neck through...

The whole charm of the Reverse centerblock construction is the wedged in wings. Ray Dietrich invented the Steinberger bass, but thought it too ugly and gave it wings! 

A set neck Reverse is like a bolt-on Ric 4001/4003 shape. Self-defeating.

[Basvarken]

Anyway, that's not the proof -  did you look at the rear pic where you can see the neck joint?

That makes it very likely it is indeed a set neck.

Not 100% certain though.
I built a bass which is nine ply neck through. And I gave it a step heel just for aesthetetic reasons ;-)

[godofthunder]

   I think a Overend Watts signature would be warmly received.

[morrow]

That is one interesting little rig , Rob !  34 in scale ? Could you post a pic of the front ?
The only neck through basses I was familiar with were Rics , and then a set necked 4000 came my way and I decided they were nice too . Maybe a set necked bird will still have some charm . I'm not likely to see one .
I never "got" Kiss , and when I think of Gene the term "arsehole" comes to mind .

[Basvarken]

Yes, it's 34" scale. A hybrid between a Thunderbird and an EB-0. Mahogany neck through with walnut strips. Mahogany wings. EY guitars sixties repro humbucker.

[Stjofön Big]

That T-bird/Eb0 of yours, is soooo fantastic beautiful! A piece I would buy if I was 20 years younger. For now I'm satisfied with my red Lotus with neck-through body, that for the un-trained eye looks a lot like an Eb0. I changed pickup to a T-bird pup, bridge to a Badass, and tuners to... I don't know for sure whether it's Grover or Schaller. The sound is what it should be, when T-bird pup's around.

[morrow]

I'm more of a short scale fan now ,but that's gorgeous !

[Granny Gremlin]

That makes it very likely it is indeed a set neck.

Not 100% certain though.
I built a bass which is nine ply neck through. And I gave it a step heel just for aesthetetic reasons ;-)

So just because you did a silly thing that Gibson has (and IMHO never would have) done this is an uncertainty?

Additionally, I think you would be in the minority re the neck heel step being aesthetically better.  Il ove your bass - it is beautiful, but I never understood why you did that one thing - the only thing that occurs to me is being accurate with the doublecut EB) shape, while adding the TBVird neck thru (which to me seemed like flawed logic/not a good reason - we can disagree on this), but you realise that totally does not apply to the G2 bass situation right?  Why would they do that?  The answer is that they wouldn't.  They never have and there is no reason for them to even think of that like ythere is in your case - a false comparison, but yes, a proof of concept that it can be done.

Anyway, you have to separate what is possible, from the facts of Gibson modus operandi.  They have never done these things, and for a company so steeped in and always marketing themselves based on "tradition" that cannot be easily rationalised away or disregarded.

Another thing that would imply set neck is the neck being just mahogany, (sure I'm not certain we can trust the dubious-looking specs list 100% but assuming they got that right at least, because it would be a selling point - the 9 ply costs more).

Basically at this point, you need to show us where it says it IS a neck thrrough, because all indicators suggest otherwise and despite your not-wrong claims of it being technically possible, the probability is not in your favour by a wide margin.  It is a shame the product specs are completely silent on this point.  I suspect that might be intentional (also "[Neck] Profile: Rounded" is ROFL).

[Basvarken]

Like I said, it probably is set neck. And the step heel makes that indeed the most likely.
Nobody ever said it has to be nine ply by the way. So full mahogany (three piece) is the most likely.
But with Gibson you never know 

About the step heel on my EB-TB build; I prefer to see the curve from horn to horn in one continuous line. If it didn't have the step, the heel would look like a big wart (to me at least it would).