50th Anniversay Thunderbird sighting!

[clankenstein]

really, how hard would it have been to have put on the bridge and tailpiece and chrome(or gold) tb plus pickups?  even if the 3 point is the epitome of bridge design. i think  at least a token nod to its heritage would have been a nice idea on a 50th anniversary thunderbird.pity.probably still a nice bass though.

[uwe]

I think they could have done gold hardware and pups.

[exiledarchangel]

Gibson should offer two necks (a normal and a wider/fatter) and some pickup variation IMHO on TBs, instead of going the fender way and just offer the same thing in different colors.

[Dave W]

After all the other modern Thunderbird variations, no one should be surprised that this one is mostly the same. In all fairness to Gibson, they're calling it an anniversary model, not a reissue.

Of course, they could do a real vintage reissue, just like they could have done a vintage NR reissue. They just choose not to.

[Highlander]

... Of course, they could do a real vintage reissue...

Pre-snapped and reset head option...?

[clankenstein]

how about 50 years worth of sweat and beer pre applied?could be worth a premium price...

[Denis]

how about 50 years worth of sweat and beer pre applied?could be worth a premium price...

It works for Fender!

[drbassman]

Well, I saw the picture too and I think it is kinda nice looking.  I do agree the black pups look out of place with the gold everywhere else.  But hey, it's Gibson.  Why spend a few hundred bucks tooling up for some metal covers when you can put same old plastic crap on and dopes will buy them?

[the mojo hobo]

It's not like they haven't done it before:



Posted here last year: http://bassoutpost.com/index.php?topic=6922.45


Myself, I think the gold finish would look great with black hardware.

[mc2NY]

"but the smaller headstock is a design improvement that isn't going away"

Amen - no one here has yet explained to me what acoustic benefit the larger headstock brought. I know that it broke more easily though. Anything to stay original, right?  

"Mostly, I think the complaints that they do nothing for bassists REALLY should be translated as "they do nothing for old T-bird users who want old, but new, T-birds"."

I guess you might like to argue with Jeff Ament regarding "bigger is better," regarding headstock size and body size. All his custom Hamers and his Lulls have oversized bodies or headstocks....supposedly more mass = more sustain/tone.

As far as all the other specs....if it is a "50th Anniversary" TBird, IMO it should spec like an original 1964 TBird and maybe add some bling like gold plating or custom color.

Or else it is just another typical Gibson pseudo "special/limited edition" with an upcharge for a color change with an added decal.

Hell...it's not like they can't just go on EBAY and BUY 100 gold TBird covers fi they don't want to pay to have them tooled/made.  Come to think of it....Henry might consider just contracting out 100 "50th Anniversary TBirds" to any one of the small builders who would do it better than Gibson...and just slap a "Gibson Custom Shop" label on them and double the price.

[uwe]

I like large headstocks too (not that the current TBs feature a small one), for looks, but that they affect sound in a positive way is a myth. I've played basses with tiny or no headstocks at all with endless sustain.

[Blackbird]

Steinbergers....Kubickis...I don't think the headstock weight does anything for tone.

[exiledarchangel]

I've read somewhere that some extra weight on the headstock helps eliminate dead spots, thats why some people like Sheehan put this weight thingie on their headstocks.

[uwe]

   "neckdives like Stuka over Poland"

That dead spot elimination thing always struck me as vodoo acoustics. Any scientific defenders?

[4stringer77]

I've seen threads on other forums where guys talked about adding weights to the headstock to eliminate dead spots. They claimed it was successful. Here's a couple weighty ones that I'm sure don't have dead spots