I have never ever handled a Gibson Thunderbird, in fact the only Thunderbird I have ever played is my PC...
There are reverse and NR; through, fixed and bolt-on; "stealth" 'birds - those with a T'Bird pup in another body; the copys - my PC will only ever be a "tribute" to the original article.
There are those that play them for the look and those that play them for the sound...
I know there are envious comments about the white TBII that migrated from George to Uwe; I have heard comments about specific eras of production and variants, about attempts to recreate that "vintage" sound, but what makes perfect for you...? My interest here is from a players point of view, not a collectors point of view... to me, the sound and feel of an instrument are what count so I'm going to be fin-ist here
Conversely, what about the failures, the variants that just don't work, the issues (neck weakness, low output pups, that sort of stuff), etc
My PC could be considered a "stealth" EB3L with an alternate bridge pup to give a more "modern" sound mix but to me it has those magical qualities - mahogany and a through-neck...
I'd like to hear what you think...
Kenny back in '78 when I started playing NRs you couldn't give the things away. I clearly remember the first time I plugged one in at the House of Guitars, the sound just blew me away. It was ungainly long, the neck was thick and hard for me to get around on but I just had to have just because of the sound. I think NRs sound the way they do for several reasons. First is the thin but one piece mahogany body it is very resonant, notes sing on these basses. Second is the one piece set neck, more solid wood vibrating freely, no neck laminations. Third is the pickup, hotter than early '63-'65 Thunderbirds it really turns the bass into a F****r slayer. More later.
Interesting that you mention the laminations...
Most of the through-necks have 7...?
That one-off "TBVI" that Uwe has has 13...?
The PC has a 3-piece neck (excluding the board of course) but has a section glued on the back to match up the body profile
More interesting is what I suspect to be the key to this - the sound - the heart of the equation is the sound...?
We both have a preference for a specific valve amp too... ;)
I really like Reverses and for me '76s are best, why? I love tone! the look and I can afford them :)
I must be lucky, because while I've read many comments about QC and pups my 3 are certainly great players and thru my rig produce tone I really like.
But I'm lucky enough to have some clones and Ho's too, and they each have a charm, my Greco TB II is the loudest, raunchiest bass I've ever played, the pup on that thing just rawrs. The Lull is a bit better mannered and plays with a sweetness no other has - I don't like NR's quite as much, but still thru Rob's good effort's I have 2 BaCH's, (and Joe's glorious 8 string) wonderful basses and as Scott says almost as good as the original issue.
Epiphone's "Standard" is likely my least fave, I've owned 2, one that got flipped in adeal for my first '76 and the other is my beater "Fenderbird"
Not sure if there really is a "perfect" 'Bird for me
My only two 4 strings I own are both 1965 Thunderbird II's. One is an original Sunburst and the other a Pelham Blue refin. Both unbroken. I have had No Reverse T birds as well. They are kick ass....But for me...the Reverse is the one. I've owned Iv's as well. I think one pickup is all you need...especially if you play it through a 200 watt Hiwatt!!! The 76's are cool...but I have outgrown them. The tuneomatic bridge, Pickups and BIG headstock do it for me.
The first time I understood the raw charm of a T-bird was in a rehearsal space my band shared with an American/Swedish band called Wedge. The year was -74. For reasons I do not remember, my Epiphone Rivoli and Acoustic amp was not in the place. So I borrowed what I needed from Wedge. Which was a reversed T-bird through a Fender Dual Showman, and 2x15" cabinet.
Wow!
That sound, like thunder with barbed wire on top! I was blown away! In a couple of months I went to Dual Showman, and started looking for a T-bird. When one passed my way, several years later, it was a -76 with only pieces of what I had heard in that first T-bird. Sold it, went for the closest thing to the 63-65 Bird - Epiphone Embassy. As late as my latest gig, Saturday last week, I still heard that roar. Never got that out of my old P-bass.
Now from the other end of the spectrum. I have been a Fender guy for 39 years so my opinion is very different from those above. I have about 25+ gibson basses including some birds. In general i have the Gibbies because i can ( or used to be able before the economy shit the bed) but i always go to a fender or clone first. For me the fenders just feel and play better all around. More versatile sound that will fit with any type of music. Better balance, tougher neck, less reach. Maybe a tbird would feel better if i was pick player or over 6 foot tall but i am neither. That being said i have seen the light the last few years on the pickup side. The 60's tbird pup IMHO is the best sounding passive pup ever made for rock. I love my 60 pbass pup and 75 jbass pups and they are clearly more versatile and cleaner sounding but the tbird pups just sound great in rock. Think Who's next/quadrophenia sound. I have put a Lull in my bach bird and it rocks great too. I also like my 76 bird pups, very clean almost piano like e string sound but not the same roar of the 60's pups. IMHO the perfect bass would be a pbass or even better a clone ( smaller body ,more frets, better access, neck thru or set neck - kind of like one of my fodera monarchs with mahog body) with a set of 60's tbird pups. 63 or 66 depending on level of roar you want.
As a followup the new jaebird Carlo is buildig may be the answer to my dreams. thunderbucker (Gib) pups, mahog body , better access, balance?? neck pulled in more like a fender - only thing missing is the extra few frets which is probably more in my head as i very seldom get past a high E.
(http://i890.photobucket.com/albums/ac102/desantisjn/Fodera%20basses/foderabrazilwal5.jpg)
A perfect Tbird, for me, is a 60s one that hasn't been broken, is original (moving the G string bridge saddle north is fine), and doesn't way a ton. The best one I ever played was a 67, and I should have bought it. $750 in 1990. I have been kicking myself since, although I have made worse mistakes.
The best playing rev birds have all been broken and repaired, and I never wanted to pay a lot for a repaired instrument back a couple of decades ago. The best balance of weight and tone and feel I have ever played were Epi Embassy basses, which I consider to be Tbirds the way I consider a Ravioli to be an EB-2. After the Bicentennial birds, which have the horrid flaws of three point bridge and speed knobs, I have little to no interest. The more recent ones are fine, but I think you can do better for the money.
So, I never did buy one, but I will one of these days.
For me the perfect Thunderbird is one that is an Epiphone Embassy.
But I think you expected that from me. :thumbsup:
The Embassy gets a second vote...!
I'm starting to get the impression I've suspected for a long time - the secret is the sound...
Jumbo mentioned JAE and his answer was to have his preferred D profile P neck with a body styled on the 60's T'bird body and the key part - the Gibbie T'bird pups...
Does anyone know the heritage of the pup/s fitted to the Embassy's?
Quote from: Kenny's 51st State on June 02, 2011, 02:34:26 PM
Does anyone know the heritage of the pup/s fitted to the Embassy's?
Exactly the same as an NR TBird, ditto the bridge, tuners and tailpiece.
I love the way the '63-'65 Reverse Thunderbirds look, but you can't get to the upper register, deal breaker for me. I had a '76 new when they came out. The bass itself was well executed the bridge and pickups sucked ( imho of course, I know there are those who like the pickups). Now I have a Black '76 with repro Thunderbird pups under NOS covers, it scratches the reverse itch but I still can't get to the upper register :( As for Epiphone Thunderbirds I don't like to muddy the waters and include them, fine for what they are but they are Thunderbirds in name only..........................again imho.
So how can a JAE Bird/PC Fender Bird be so right and the original article (in a bolt-on style aka the basic Epi) be so wrong...?
Are the 60's pups starting to show up as a fave here...? Carlo has gone a long way in assisting in their recreation...
Quote from: Kenny's 51st State on June 02, 2011, 03:11:40 PM
So how can a JAE Bird/PC Fender Bird be so right and the original article (in a bolt-on style aka the basic Epi) be so wrong...?
Are the 60's pups starting to show up as a fave here...? Carlo has gone a long way in assisting in their recreation...
There is no question the pickups are a huge part of the equation. The Epi has questionable mahogany content, heavy poly finish, and no more than serviceable pickups and is made by Epiphone, don't get me wrong I like Epiphone stuff but Thunderbirds are Gibson made in USA, again no intent to flame just my opinion. The Fenderbird has the pickups, bridge and mahogany of the original.............................I can forgive the bolt on neck. Part of the magic of the Fenderbird is the mahogany body/maple neck combo.
Gotta get back to the Epi Embassy. Never thought of it, but as I read these lines above, a question grows on me: The T-birds changed their pickups when the turn came to the nonrev. But, did anything happen with the pups at the same time in the Epi camp?
The Embassy basses are great but I'll put a vote in for the 60s reverse birds. I had both at the same time and just preferred the neck carve, general feel and tone on the t-bird - oddly, the reverse birds are really comfortable for me - I had more dive/balance issues with the Embassy - though I think that issue is exaggerated all the way around. Upper register access (at least above the 17th fret) is a legit gripe on the reverse birds though not much of an issue for me personally - though I will say the upper register sounds better on that bass than any other I've had :-\
Quote from: gweimer on June 02, 2011, 02:16:12 PM
For me the perfect Thunderbird is one that is an Epiphone Embassy.
But I think you expected that from me. :thumbsup:
Wave your Epi freak flag! :mrgreen:
Very poor spelling on that Epi endearing post I must say ...
Epi E(I)mba(lanc)ssy.
Are you saying he's an Embassissy? ;D
For me, it's a 2000 Gibson Blackbird that has been modded with a V/V/T/T set up and three way toggle as opposed to the standard on/off switch. The pickups sound completely different than any other T-bird I've ever played, and have more output and cleaner and deeper lows. Unlike the regular Thunderbird IV's - the Blackbird features a slightly thinner nut (on mine at least), has an ebony fretboard, and has a three piece all mahogany neck as opposed to the multiple walnut/mahogany laminations on the IV. I recently set my IV up with a V/V/T/T and three way, and hope to someday come across a set of Blackbird pups to drop in it so I can switch between the two basses during a show without having to make drastic level and EQ changes. I really don't care that the Blackbird is technically a "Nikki Sixx Signature" bass- for me I dig it because of the way it plays and sounds.
Nobody who's got any info or ideas concerning any changes in the pups of the original T-bird, the Embassy? ;)
Come on, you guys! There's gotta be more than hind legs in our crowd? :rolleyes:
Only applies to 60s pups.
GENERALLY, Epi used whatever Gibson gave them. I could give you the exact specs of various Gibson/Epi Thunderbird/Embassy pups by year but I'd have to kill someone, probably myself.
...Gibson used to determine how many winds were on a coil by using a timer, notoriously inaccurate. When Seymour Duncan bought the Gibson (EPI) winders they put rev counters on them, like Fender had been using since the beginning and why there's no huge discrepancy between Fender pups of different years. Unlike Gibsons which vary from pup to pup and coil to coil. What is readily apparent is that the chrome cover (late) are hotter than the nickel (early) pups and bridge pups are hotter than neck.
With the replicas Steve is making he winds ThunderBuckers with a rev counter, there's about 2 miles of wire in each one. He also calibrates the magnets to the early and late models. Those hot Epi Orville by Gibson pups? Powerful ceramic mags and less wire.
I can understand why a bridge pup would be hotter, but did they actually sort them as they were made? There are no markings to distinguish them, are there?
Bridge pups generally have plastic covered cable, neck braided. Ditto with 76 RI even though pups have nothing else in common with '60s. Other than that it's an ongoing mystery as to how and why Gibson did most things...oh yeah, 1960s Melody Maker pups use the same magnets as Thunderbird pups but different bobbins, or so I'm told.
And concerning the perfect Thunderbird, for me it is a non-reverse. I bought mine in 1968 or '69 from Farmers Music in Marseilles Illinois for $90.00 and still have it today. Even though it has been broken several times, refinished, and modified, it is still perfect and I love it.
(http://www.mojohobo.com/images/tb-ng.jpg)
Quote from: dadagoboi on June 03, 2011, 05:39:17 PM
Bridge pups generally have plastic covered cable, neck braided. Ditto with 76 RI even though pups have nothing else in common with '60s. Other than that it's an ongoing mystery as to how and why Gibson did most things...oh yeah, 1960s Melody Maker pups use the same magnets as Thunderbird pups but different bobbins, or so I'm told.
Now there is an interesting fact. I didn't know because I've only ever had non-reverse Thunderbird IIs, but in the Embassy I had both pups had braided leads.
I thought the 70's models had braided bridge pickups. The ones I have had were that way.
As regards the "perfect" bird, I'd posit that the sound and feel is in the beholder. A good 70's will always sound great to me. They don't sound exactly like a 60's bird to me, but I like them both. My preference takes place in how the bass sounds with the rest of the band. These days my favorite Thunderbird is a 73ish EB4 with bird pickups that are most likely from a Greco. I'm playing that one more than anything else I own in my current band. I like it so much I got some late SG bass pickups to put in an EB3L I have lying around. I'm not a mudbucker fan so I figured this was a better option that routing new holes and filling the old ones to create another usable ebBird.
Still, were there any differences in the Embassy - 60's - pups, like the change in model that the T-bird pups went through in 1965? That I do not know, yet.
My '66 Embassy has the chrome (later, hotter) pups which didn't exist prior to the NR birds. Pretty sure Epi changed when Gibson did or they used the nickel (early) pups until they ran out and switched to chrome.
Quote from: dadagoboi on June 04, 2011, 04:15:38 AM
My '66 Embassy has the chrome (later, hotter) pups which didn't exist prior to the NR birds. Pretty sure Epi changed when Gibson did or they used the nickel (early) pups until they ran out and switched to chrome.
The guy that sold me my Embassy, and gave me a brief history lesson, said that back in Kalamazoo, all the assembly for both Gibson and Epiphone were done on the same assembly line, and used a lot of common parts. From what he told me, there were some guitar models that didn't get a name tag until the final stages of production. You didn't know ahead of time whether a guitar was going to end up a Gibson or Epiphone. They were virtually identical and made by the same craftsmen. He even said that the company headquarters for each were in the same building, with the front door being around the corner from each other.
Epiphone and Gibson in the 60's were like Ford and Mercury from the late '70s on. Same car mechanically made on the same assembly line from the same parts. Only cosmetically different. Ditto GMC and Chevy pickups...the trucks not the musical contraption ;D
Except that Ford always outsold Mercury. ;D
I've always heard the same thing about Gibsons and Epis of that era.
Does this mean that the reversed T-bird had nickel pup covers, while the non-revs had chrome? :-\
Quote from: Stjofön Big on June 04, 2011, 09:39:54 AM
Does this mean that the reversed T-bird had nickel pup covers, while the non-revs had chrome? :-\
Non reverse hardware is usually a mixed bag. some chrome, some nickle. My since sold of mint '66 had nickle tuners chrome pup, chrome bridge and nickle neck pickup cover. Looked like no rhyme or reason to me just what was available. the closer to '69 you get the more chrome you are likely to see.
my '66 Embassy the same, all chrome except nickle tuners. Put the tuners on my '65 Reverse which was the other way round, all nickle except for tuners. Go figure.
Quote from: gweimer on June 04, 2011, 05:40:23 AM
From what he told me, there were some guitar models that didn't get a name tag until the final stages of production. You didn't know ahead of time whether a guitar was going to end up a Gibson or Epiphone.
I can't imagine that story you heard was about the electric guitars an basses.
When you start building an electric guitar or bass, one of the first things you do is define the shape it's going to be. So Gibson/Epiphone would have to choose which templates for the body and headstock they were going to use right at the beginning.
Most Epiphones had totally different body shapes and headstock shapes than their Gibson brethren.
I guess it could be possible the body shape of some of their semi-acoustics could end up on either a Gibson or an Epiphone. But the moment the neck had to be glued in, they knew exactly if it would be a Gibson or an Epi.
There's no way they shaped the headstock after the entire instrument was completed.
Quote from: Basvarken on June 04, 2011, 01:15:52 PM
I can't imagine that story you heard was about the electric guitars an basses.
When you start building an electric guitar or bass, one of the first things you do is define the shape it's going to be. So Gibson/Epiphone would have to choose which templates for the body and headstock they were going to use right at the beginning.
Most Epiphones had totally different body shapes and headstock shapes than their Gibson brethren.
I guess it could be possible the body shape of some of their semi-acoustics could end up on either a Gibson or an Epiphone. But the moment the neck had to be glued in, they knew exactly if it would be a Gibson or an Epi.
There's no way they shaped the headstock after the entire instrument was completed.
It was the semi-acoustics that Larry (Ax-in-Hand owner, RIP) was talking about. Remember it's been over 30 years and too many brain cells ago since I heard this, but I think you are right about the bodies, and that may be what Larry was saying. The body was just a shell, and it became either a Gibson or and Epiphone.
Jules may have learned more about the processes when he made his pilgrimage to Kalamazoo and talked with some of the old guys.
DID YOU KNOW????? The Embassy bass headstock is NOT a Batwing??????? IT'S the LETTER "E" for Epiphone!!!!!!! HA!!!!
Quote from: Baz Cooper on June 04, 2011, 05:31:24 PM
DID YOU KNOW????? The Embassy bass headstock is NOT a Batwing??????? IT'S the LETTER "E" for Epiphone!!!!!!! HA!!!!
I thought it was E for "EGLY"
Isn't that a character in CSI...?
Crack Smoking Infidels?
Crazed Swamper Individuals :P
certain singular instrument.
Quote from: gweimer on June 04, 2011, 01:33:32 PM
It was the semi-acoustics that Larry (Ax-in-Hand owner, RIP) was talking about. Remember it's been over 30 years
If you are talking about the Axe-in-Hand in Dekalb Illinois, a little over 30 years ago I bought my first Rickenbacker there and the pair of Dimarzio Model 1's that went on the previously mentioned Thunderbird. Gene Liberty had a shop upstairs and fixed the headstock on the 'Bird the first three times it broke, and refinned it.
He replaced a broken headstock on a T bird II I once had a few years back. I had him make the 7 laminates-walnut mahogany. He does have accurate templates for reverse and non-reverse t birds. Trouble is...When he glued it.. the laminates didn't match up to the ones on the neck....and the top of the headstock was tapered....thick near the E tuner tapering down to the tip. And...Instead of the raised section being a slight route on the top of the headstock, (like I had asked for), He placed a piece of phenolic fiberboard like they did in the 70's. I found out he did this after I removed the tuners. He mis drilled all 4 of them and then tried to hide it with the fiber board as his excuse. Plus it took about 1 year. I personally won't use him. He's too far away. But he does have some cool machines and good at some other stuff. Fun to talk to.
That Epi headstock thing is interesting info. So is the part about a 2000 Blackbird with a three piece maho, not a nine-ply neck. Mine I recollect as nine-ply bit I'll take another look tomorrow.
Uwe
Quote from: the mojo hobo on June 05, 2011, 06:11:42 AM
If you are talking about the Axe-in-Hand in Dekalb Illinois, a little over 30 years ago I bought my first Rickenbacker there and the pair of Dimarzio Model 1's that went on the previously mentioned Thunderbird. Gene Liberty had a shop upstairs and fixed the headstock on the 'Bird the first three times it broke, and refinned it.
That's the place! I bought and traded a few basses with Larry. The one I really miss is the Guild M-85 I had. Not only was it a semi-hollowbody, it was dead mint.
My dream T-Bird would be neck-through mahagony body, possibly slightly thicker, with 60's pickups with nickel covers and hardware, a three point bridge and a Studio headstock.I'd take a shorter fretboard to fit in a Hobbit pickup right off the neck and a mudbucker midway between the bird pickups with a Musicman/Strat-style multiswitch wired to whatever I could experiment and like best, but still keep the classic three knob layout. I could even go for a maple neck with an ebony board, both for strength and less dive, but slab 'hog wouldn't break my heart. I could get all fru-fru and go for a solid rosewood neck too, but I doubt it would be easy to find a piece of good rosewood that large. If walnut could take the strain, I think that would be an interesting option as well. I also would want the big LP-standard board inlays in abalone and a laser-etched powder coated or nicked plated treadplate pickguard and a deep greenburst finish with some variation on the traditional logo. I'd also put some pretty hefty caps in there and make the buffer transformer switchable for the Hobbit as my playing tone is already pretty bright.
I just did a full column on this in my series at Premier Guitar Magazine. Just submitted yesterday too!
... and your outcome was...? ;)
Let us know when it's published...