Oringo

Kyle W, Don't get me wrong, I love Firebirds, but you just hit the 2 worst features...the banjo tuners don't tune well, they are high-geared and get notchy with age. In my humble opinion reverse Firebirds don't balance as well as Explorers, the headstock is bigger and heavier, especially with the original machines, and the neck/body relationship throws the neck farther out to the left. You can live with it, and a good wide leather strap can make up for it, but I know a lot of gigging guitarists who've given up on Firebirds for those reasons. By the way, there were a few transitional reverse Firebirds in the 60's that were made with p-90's and the non-reverse headstock. They come up for sale from time to time, but there's an extra zero on the price compared to more recent models...

Explorer, what you wrote about reverse 'birds is spot on, but some of the things you wrote about non-reverse 'birds could use some clarifying: Non reverse 'birds came with 2 or 3 p-90's for the Firebird I and III, 2 or 3 mini-humbuckers (same as on the reverse) for the Firebird V and VII. The 12-string Firebird v-12 came with two mini-humbuckers. All bodies were routed the same and all came with the same neck, dot-inlay unbound (except the 12 string which had the same neck as the es 335 12 string) All were available with custom colors and there seem to be quite a few out there. The slide switch caused lots of trouble and Gibson started putting the toggle back on non-reverse Firebirds during the 1968 production year. My 12 string came with a toggle from the factory. What's certain is that the non-reverse was cheaper to build for Gibson, set neck and one body for all, while the reverse needed long pieces of wood carefully laminated to make the 9 piece neck and there were three different body routs and four different neck layouts! After that, it's obvious the collector market is willing to pay more for the reverse 'birds, but in the end they are quite different guitars that share a model name and a logo and a few parts. If you haven't seen it, check out this link to a great site: http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/Firebird.php

Why are non-reverse Firebirds less valuable than reverse? This is a tricky one to answer. I own both and have owned and played alot of Firebirds over the years and I know other guitarists who've also had or played both. The Reverse Firebird was a very radical departure from other solid-bodies, and the through neck and huge body shape make them pretty unique from a design standpoint. The Non-reverse is much more traditional, having a slab body and glued in neck, so from a construction point of view, it's not that different from an SG. In terms of numbers, there may have been fewer non-reverse made than reverse! 60s reverse-body models (63-65) - 5151 mid 60s non-reverse models (66-69) - 3868 I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt, though, because of the 2283 Firebirds made in '65, there were some of each. In terms of playability, both are uncomfortable, unbalanced guitars, but I think most people who've played both find the non-reverse lighter and a little easier to handle. In terms of sound, that's a very personal call, but I agree with XTC guitarist Dave Gregory who writes on his web-site that he finds the non-reverse better for sound. Over the years I found my non-reverse Firebirds to be usually more "resonant" than the reverse ones, but no two pieces of wood ever do sound exactly the same... So why the difference in price? I'd say it comes down to a couple of factors, the unusual design, and the fact that you can associate the Reverse to a couple of legendary artists like Johnny Winter and Eric Clapton. I love the playing of "Gatemouth" Brown, but let's face it, you have to be a real guitar "nerd" to know who played a non-reverse Firebird!

The first reverse firebirds seem to have had one or two piece all mahagony necks (that went all the way through the body, of course). At some point in late 1963 or early 1964, Gibson changed the necks to a 9 ply mahagony/walnut laminate. Some experts say this was because the original necks twisted or warped, while others say it was actually to save money, as building the neck up from strips meant less wasted wood. I've see early 70's Medallion Firebirds with simple 2-piece necks, but I can't remember about Bicentennials. The non-reverse went to the simple glue-in set neck, like SG's and ES' of the time, and mine as well as those I've seen were always 1 piece mahagony necks. Since production stopped before the Norlin era, I don't imagine any were made with 3 piece necks. All non reverse Firebirds had rosewood fingerboards with dot-inlay and no binding. Apparently the rosewood changed from Brazilian to Indian at some point, and that helps to distinguish '66s from '68s which have the same first 3 digits in the serial number.

Beautiful!

Over the years there've been a few custom shop runs, the most recent ones in TV white with 3 p-90's (III) or three mini-humbuckers (VII). I've tried a few and I think they're seriously under-rated guitars.

"the new guitars (non-reverse) were lighter, comfortably balanced, easier to play and - contrary to collectors' folklore - had a better sound than their doomed predecessors. " That's a quote from Dave Gregory (XTC) comparing the non-reverse Firebirds favorably to reverse ones. Over the years I've owned a few of each, and allowing for differences in individual guitars, going head to head I have to say my non-reverse 'birds have usually sounded better. What do you all think?

http://www.wdmusic.com/shop_by_category_tuning_machines_kluson_3_per_side.html Check out this link for Kluson replacement tuners. I bought a set of 6 on a side for one of my Firebirds and it was a perfect match for the original marks.