Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

1961 Gibson Hummingbird


Lukec88

Recommended Posts

Nice guitar! I wouldn't be playing it wearing a leather jacket with all sorts of metal zippers and pulls hanging off it, however.

 

That one's no longer listed, but I bet it fetched a pretty good price.

 

Norman's gets some nice guitars, and the prices are generally fair for what the guitars are. They've also done some interesting projects. They had G&G do a special run of repro Cali Girl cases for slope-J's a few years ago. I have one of those, and they're about as close to the originals as you can get, down to the patterned Tolex, pink velour, and massive weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice guitar! I wouldn't be playing it wearing a leather jacket with all sorts of metal zippers and pulls hanging off it, however.

 

That one's no longer listed, but I bet it fetched a pretty good price.

 

Norman's gets some nice guitars, and the prices are generally fair for what the guitars are. They've also done some interesting projects. They had G&G do a special run of repro Cali Girl cases for slope-J's a few years ago. I have one of those, and they're about as close to the originals as you can get, down to the patterned Tolex, pink velour, and massive weight.

 

I was thinking the same when I saw the guy in leather jacket. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a gem - sounds splendid, but I would have liked the guy to play slightly softer too. It would have called the nectar forward in this flier, which seems to still be half-asleep after a longer (or shorter) hiatus. Neck looks a bit narrow for a 61'er from here (judged by the third fret parallelograms to the bindings), but it could be optical fake.

 

This Bird is ready to begin a new life, no doubt.

 

Price - hmmm, , , between 4.9 and 5.5. . .

 

 

Good find ^ the video was set up yesterday

 

 

 

 

Here's another test from that same shop-scene

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_OirsnqIk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have essentially the same guitar -- ours is a 62. There were a few maple birds early -- rare, but laminated and we don't find maple near as useful as mahogany (or rosewood, but that is a different story).''

 

You know, the guitars which people generally judge as the best acoustically are generally harder to record. That is the story on ours -- nice sound and records well, but not powerful. We have been using ours lately quite a lot to capture jams in our basement -- we bypassed the older more powerful Gibsons (and Martins) which tended to overpower the situation. For anyone who cares, here are some of those recording.

 

It would be cool to see what it went for. They are not traditionally a high dollar instrument, but they are cool and they seem to be on the rise.

'

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. 5K is quite alot of money but sure is worth it.

 

In this price range I would consider new hummingbird with torrified top lik BirdMans with 1k left in wallet. Soundwise maybe the same, but thats just me. 😛

 

I never owned vintage instrument but ppl say that they are more sensitive, more afected by weather, moisture etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. 5K is quite alot of money but sure is worth it.

 

In this price range I would consider new hummingbird with torrified top lik BirdMans with 1k left in wallet. Soundwise maybe the same, but thats just me.

 

I never owned vintage instrument but ppl say that they are more sensitive, more afected by weather, moisture etc.

 

1/ Just guessing -

 

2/ Remember the True/New vintage Birds and the real oldies are 2 totally different sides of the same theme.

 

3/ Not an expert here, but don't the vintage guitars react lazier or different to moisture, , , and yes, in a way they are more sensitive, like in more fragile and porous, potential loose braces and very light/dry wood. But they can and shall be played. And if your ear's'n'soul are tuned for it, they - tho sometimes mixed with certain weaknesses - give away something invaluable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go for a '63 or '64. Slightly beefier necks than found on '60 to '62 Gibsons and before the nut width was narrowed. Used to be you could get the Epiphone Frontier which was Gibson's first stab at the Hummingbird on the cheap. Not so these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would go for a '63 or '64.

 

Zomb and Tpbiii - Do you remember actually running into Birds, square SJ's and CW's back then.

 

If yes, did they impress, disappoint, produce awe, maybe a smile, , , were they in any way 'talk of town' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice ! However, I think one must be into vintage/collector. I lived in those years as a kid. I compare those times with today's technology. I personnally prefer the newer technology as Birdman's.

I have the 2013 modern classic heritage I bought new.

If there was a choice between the '61 for the same price as mine, I would still choose mine! If I were offered a new vintage model, I would still choose mine! I guess the mindset and the knowing of the history to come will be so written by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you explain this, Tom?

 

OK. I has to do with overtones and the audibility of flat top guitar in string jams and string bands.

 

For years we have most only been attracted to small acoustic band and small jams -- we play with people. I also use a flat top guitar for both rhythm and lead -- often in the small song -- using both flat picks and finger picks. The problem is that all the flat top maple guitars we have -- and a number of others maple flat tops I have tried and tested over the years -- are much harder to hear in a complex string band mix.

 

You would not instantly think this would be true, but once you know the effect, it is easy to observe. We have a few maple flat tops -- 34 HG-C, 37 L-C, 44 J-45, 64 Dove. They are fine on rhythm and are about as "loud" as our mahogany brothers with similar specs (HG-00, L-00, 44 J-45, and 62 Hummingbird), but they disappear on lead in jams. They sound good (to me) on rhythm and solo, but they are not useful for us because we don't do much like that doesn't need some lead.

 

I have found this to be a consistent and obvious effect. You should try it yourself with appropriate instruments and settings should the chance occur.

 

All the best,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I has to do with overtones and the audibility of flat top guitar in string jams and string bands.

 

For years we have most only been attracted to small acoustic band and small jams -- we play with people. I also use a flat top guitar for both rhythm and lead -- often in the small song -- using both flat picks and finger picks. The problem is that all the flat top maple guitars we have -- and a number of others maple flat tops I have tried and tested over the years -- are much harder to hear in a complex string band mix.

 

You would not instantly think this would be true, but once you know the effect, it is easy to observe. We have a few maple flat tops -- 34 HG-C, 37 L-C, 44 J-45, 64 Dove. They are fine on rhythm and are about as "loud" as our mahogany brothers with similar specs (HG-00, L-00, 44 J-45, and 62 Hummingbird), but they disappear on lead in jams. They sound good (to me) on rhythm and solo, but they are not useful for us because we don't do much like that doesn't need some lead.

 

-Tom

 

 

Very interesting observations. I played a maple banner J-45 a few years ago. It had a sweet, clear sound, but seemed thin both tonally and volume-wise when flat-picked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that all the flat top maple guitars we have -- and a number of others maple flat tops I have tried and tested over the years -- are much harder to hear in a complex string band mix.

 

 

Regarding maple it's generally agreed that it's a bright back'n'sides wood. Perhaps yes, won't argue with that, but only add that it's also a mellow wood after the strings fade to normal. Sympathetic and classy - but a bit harmless or gentle.

 

By coincidence I happen to listen to the tune below these days and if I'm not too far off this should be Harrisons double-tracked 1968 J-200. You'll clearly hear what is meant - and why Tpbiii notice what's he does.

 

Definitely one of the genuine Gibson-flavours (especially strummed), but as said very rounded and nice. We know it from Cat Stevens too - same smooth thing.

 

 

 

 

 

1970 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSu3xGmB-i0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding maple it's generally agreed that it's a bright back'n'sides wood. Perhaps yes, won't argue with that, but only add that it's also a mellow wood after the strings fade to normal. Sympathetic and classy - but a bit harmless or gentle.

 

By coincidence I happen to listen to the tune below these days and if I'm not too far off this should be Harrisons double-tracked 1968 J-200. You'll clearly hear what is meant - and why Tpbiii notice what's he does.

 

Definitely one of the genuine Gibson-flavours (especially strummed), but as said very rounded and nice. We know it from Cat Stevens too - same smooth thing.

 

 

and for comparison, here is the same thing with single-tracked acoustic:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA-9jDww4nI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

and for comparison, here is the same thing with single-tracked acoustic:

 

Ouh yea, and without the extra copy-pasted chorus.

 

Should we for good orders sake mention the tune-O-matic bridge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of perceptive and thoughtful perspectives in this thread, some allowing room for further consideration, but not in an especially adversarial way. More like food for thought I suppose. The Hummingbird is definitely coming - if not having actually arrived - into its heyday, if one trusts what they see immediately happening. It wasn't always thus; matter of fact, the 'bird wasn't always highly regarded outside of a circle of us who'd actually managed to acquire a good'n, and there were some very mediocre Hummingbirds produced. I'm pleased to see the sound quality more consistent in the current crop, and glad to see the model achieving some wide-spread respect. For a long time, it was a lot like picking a good Martin D-35 - there were some out there, but you wanted to take your time and play a variety before making a purchase. By the same token, it was hard to find a bad square-shoulder SJ or C&W before the 1970s. Doves are actually worthy on their own thread, but I'm not sure the time is right for that.

 

Some things never seem to change. Personal inclinations toward new instruments as opposed to older ones (and the reverse) appears to be one of those, according to preferences abundantly stated in the forum. Not everyone has always been as articulate about the matter as members of our forum, but the preference for one or the other has always been strongly present among acoustic guitar addicts. I suspect it's just how we're wired in a lot of instances. Certainly not in all cases - many here are sufficiently erudite to deserve credit and respect for their viewpoints and it's refreshing to see that kind of depth coming through.

 

So many choices - so little money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you explain this, Tom?

 

Most of maple back/side guitars that I tried, were more on treble side of tone, not bad tone just trebly, which is not my preference. The best sounding maple guitar for me is at the moment new Taylor 600 series range (revamped 2015). Guy named Andy Powers changed some bracings, finish thickness etc.. and the guitar sound really amazing. Low end is alot better, almost like hog or rosewood sounding.. Few links:

;
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of perceptive and thoughtful perspectives in this thread, some allowing room for further consideration, but not in an especially adversarial way. More like food for thought I suppose. The Hummingbird is definitely coming - if not having actually arrived - into its heyday, if one trusts what they see immediately happening. It wasn't always thus; matter of fact, the 'bird wasn't always highly regarded outside of a circle of us who'd actually managed to acquire a good'n, and there were some very mediocre Hummingbirds produced. I'm pleased to see the sound quality more consistent in the current crop, and glad to see the model achieving some wide-spread respect. For a long time, it was a lot like picking a good Martin D-35 - there were some out there, but you wanted to take your time and play a variety before making a purchase. By the same token, it was hard to find a bad square-shoulder SJ or C&W before the 1970s. Doves are actually worthy on their own thread, but I'm not sure the time is right for that.

 

Some things never seem to change. Personal inclinations toward new instruments as opposed to older ones (and the reverse) appears to be one of those, according to preferences abundantly stated in the forum. Not everyone has always been as articulate about the matter as members of our forum, but the preference for one or the other has always been strongly present among acoustic guitar addicts. I suspect it's just how we're wired in a lot of instances. Certainly not in all cases - many here are sufficiently erudite to deserve credit and respect for their viewpoints and it's refreshing to see that kind of depth coming through.

 

So many choices - so little money!

 

Always intriguing to hear eyewitnesses talk about how things and circumstances actually were when myths or classics were born. Guitars (or artists for that matter). As one of the amateur historians of the Board, I can't appreciate it enough and I believe Zomb said something similar some months ago : That the Birds wasn't the huge hit some us believe they were (not least due to the tag). For that reason it's interesting they managed to take the SJ's and CW's with them into the broader shoulder-shape, but I guess it became hip to be square around 1960-62. Stones of course gave the H-bird a certain flash, but I think another (hidden) reason why they rose to what they soon became, is that they were so copied in the 70's. There seemed to be dozens and dozens of cheap red imitations with motifs on the guard and even adjustable saddles back then. They were seen in teenage rooms everywhere and it must have thrown a halo of glory back on the originals, which - though in lesser quality - still came from Kalamazoo. I'm totally aware that not many famous artists or serious singersongwriters played them - but never the less the appeal glowed on. Someone here - can't recall who - once stated that the Hummingbird is close to a holy item. Big words indeed, but there's something to it. Maybe because they - when it comes down to it - in all their beauty'n'glaze are pretty vulnerable creatures.

 

Ouh, and then the Doves. A Dove thread ? , , , perhaps a good idea though I predict it won't fly far. Doves have tremendous respect, but seem to prefer low altitude. They are the real rare birds. Tpbiii should be the only person for miles and miles who owns a vintage ex.

 

Here's a guy who really takes off. I remember setting this picture up some years ago, , , and a voice out of nowhere suddenly ringing - "That's me !!!. . . "

 

 

 

Year unknown ~ somedudemakinlovetohisdove%202.jpg

 

 

 

What do/did you play yourself, OldC ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a cool thread that has wandered into a lot of interesting sub-threads.

 

I can offer one narrow perspective of the acoustic guitar world of the late 50s and early 60s. My wife and I were war babies -- a small generation soon eclipsed numerically by the baby boom.

 

Country (and Western) music took off big time in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. A hallmark of country performers of the time was visual flash -- hats, boots, fancy shirts and flashy guitars. The older archtop craze was waning, but they were still around. The big flat tops offered a whole new big broad sound -- a great tool for coming out of the parlor and playing the kerosene circuit. The SJ was a move to build a flashy guitar for that southern craze -- its original name was "Southerner" Jumbo.

 

The 50s was the big split in country music because of electric sound reinforcement -- bluegrass stayed acoustic and "country" increasingly used mics and plugged in. Both of those were ambushed by Elvis -- as well Buddy and Chuck -- who took all the oxygen out of the room, and took everyone's audience. Now electric was well established.

 

The "folk revival" -- neither folk nor a revival -- was sort of new narrative engineered by Pete Seeger bought by a lot of young college students in the late 50s up until the mid 60s. I was in Boston from 1961-1970, so I lived in the middle of it. It was mild acoustic music where the bar was so low almost everyone could get over it without tripping -- but with a huge young (participatory) audience, The perfect genre for someone like me -- enthusiastic, but very short of talent and time!

 

There was no great emphasis in the folk revival only good guitars -- you played anything that happened to be around. There was a of small bodied guitars -- very different from country and bluegrass. Very little lead playing. When I used six months of "Friday food money" to by a guitar, I bought an LG-1 -- I wanted a Gibson, and money was a limit.

 

So those were the forces in the early 60s -- country, electricity, rock (we listened to folk and danced to rock), and folk. It did not have any particular impact on folk music that I remember -- just another expensive guitar -- but with hindsight it was probably a melding of two Gibson ongoing agendas -- a flashy guitar for country but with a full, mild strumming sound for folk and that was "easy to play and maintain."

 

We have always acquired guitars associated with the styles of music we love, try to play, and study. For us that is 30s tradition and folk revival -- our first love. We like to play the music on instruments that were leading the way.

 

Here are our Birds -- 62 and 64 (maybe 65). The Dove of course was another animal in terms of flash and maintainability -- maple B&S, tune-a-matic bridge and original pickup. The move to electric was in full swing.[mellow]

 

60gibsons.jpg

 

Best,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always intriguing to hear eyewitnesses talk about how things and circumstances actually were when myths or classics were born. Guitars (or artists for that matter). As one of the amateur historians of the Board, I can't appreciate it enough and I believe Zomb said something similar some months ago : That the Birds wasn't the huge hit some us believe they were (not least due to the tag). For that reason it's interesting they managed to take the SJ's and CW's with them into the broader shoulder-shape, but I guess it became hip to be square around 1960-62. Stones of course gave the H-bird a certain flash, but I think another (hidden) reason why they rose to what they sooner became, is that they were so copied in the 70's. There seemed to be dozens and dozens of cheap red imitations with motifs on the guard and even adjustable saddles back then. They were seen in teenage rooms everywhere and it must have thrown a halo of glory back on the originals, which - though in lesser quality - still came from Kalamazoo. I'm totally aware that not many famous artists or serious singersongwriters played them - but never the less the appeal glowed on. Someone here - can't recall who - once stated that the Hummingbird is close to a holy item. Big words indeed, but there's something to it. Maybe because they - when it comes down to it - in all their beauty'n'glaze are pretty vulnerable creatures.

 

Ouh, and then the Doves. A Dove thread ? , , , perhaps a good idea though I predict it won't fly far. Doves have tremendous respect, but seem to prefer low altitude. They are the real rare birds. Tpbiii should be the only person for miles and miles who owns a vintage ex.

 

Here's a guy who really takes off. I remember setting this picture up some years ago, , , and a voice out of nowhere suddenly ringing - "That's me !!!. . . "

 

 

 

Year unknown ~ somedudemakinlovetohisdove%202.jpg

 

 

 

What do/did you play yourself, OldC ?

I played the 1955 J-45 that I still own - and wanted an SJ that I could never manage to afford at the time. When time permits, I'll try to give you a little background on the music scene as I experienced it around then....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to hear some perspectives from the 70s -- we ignored "folk rock" and even the Beatles and the Stones. Followed some singer-songwriters a bit in the late 60s and early 70s but then went over to the dark side when we joined the traditional bluegrass community and left civilization. We did not follow the rise of Taylor. I bought a Gibson J-40 in 1971 -- I wanted a good guitar. I was not -- the 1960 LG-1 was not better.

 

Gibson acoustic wise, what happened in those years? Who did what too whom? Who was paying attention and has some first hand perspective?

 

Best,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played the 1955 J-45 that I still own - and wanted an SJ that I could never manage to afford at the time. When time permits, I'll try to give you a little background on the music scene as I experienced it around then....

 

It would be terrific - details (even odd ones) as big lines are welcome. They illuminate each other.

 

 

 

Thanks for drawing that map, Tpbiii. It's seen between the lines that some degree of tension regarding the acoustic scene opposed to the new electrification was inevitable. Not hard to understand, , , and frictions more or less like that continued from phase to phase up through the decades (and naturally existed before). We of course know the infamous 1965 'axe-story' involving Pete Seeger and Bob D. Other developments were less dramatic. It's incredible to think how fresh and unexplored everything was - and how loud the appetite for beginning the voyage soon rumbled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...