[Firebirds : reverse vs non reverse.]

On 6/21/2010 at 9:28 PM, Oringo said:

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!

New answer to an oooooooooold post: Paul McCartney did...

 

 

[Newbee here]

Hi, I'm Dhango from Argentina. Hope to get along with people who love Gibsons and have a good time...