cdntac

My Byrdland does does the same thing --- though just a tiny bit. I took a small piece of black wet/dry 1500 grit sandpaper, folded it over a few times and forced it between the pickup ring and the pickup. You can't see it, it fits snug and the vibrations stopped. Granted, the vibrations were only heard acoustically --- not through an amp.

I too was thinking the same thing about body depth. But then I have to wonder if the guitar just looks larger since Clapton is somewhat small.

At one point in the vid I thought it almost looked like a two-piece top. I thought I could quite clearly see a line running through the two pickups and into the tailpiece. It certainly looks like a spruce top to me.

I don't know if it would have to be cut or not since the fingerboard does overhang a bit at its end (therefore the binding could quite possibly touch the binding) but nonetheless that's a moot point. For some reason there is a difference in spacing between the binding at the pointy end of the fingerboard and the neck pickup on some Byrds. I know that the newer Byrds have a different length neck tenon but that's not going to cause this discrepancy. From the large pics I have on my Mac it appears that the '61 and '64 of Ted's are closer than the '66, '67, '03 and my '68.

One more thing possibly of interest in regards to the neck/pickup placement --- listing the years of each Byrd in the pics. Not including Clapton's and the other Byrd at the top of my post. 1966 1961 1967 1964 2003 (the next pic is the same '67) Mine is a '68.

By "gap" I meant to the actual pickup. Sorry for the confusion. One would think that all Byrds would be the same. I doubt that Les Paul pickup/neck distances vary. Even though all the Byrds in the above pics (except the white one) are from the '60s, there's no way that there would be mistakes (and I'm hesitant to use the word "mistakes") would be made in regards to the pickup positioning. It's very strange..... The white 2003 Byrd is a normal Byrdland --- just painted white. It's starting to get some major lacquer checking.

The only close-up shots I have of Byrdlands are Nugent's and mine. In that Clapton pic and in the image that BigKahuna posted of the blonde Byrd it can be seen how the pointy end of the neck binding is overtop of the neck pickup ring and almost touching the pickup. But there does appear to be a slight variance in the distance on different Byrds. A few of Ted's: Mine:

I'm in the Byrdland camp for sure now. But of course now I'm wondering why some Byrdlands have the neck right up against the pickup....

Where did I malign Clapton? The only thing I have to ask is what's up with the spacing from the end of the neck to the neck pickup? That's what a 350 has yet the Byrdland does not. But everything else says Byrdland.

I'm going to post in this thread what I did in the Byrdland thread.... I'm inclined to think ES-350 as well --- but due to another reason not stated: The lack of space between the neck pickup and the beginning of the neck. Here's a pic of a '59 ES-350 (note it has the fancier Byrdland-style trim at the last fret): http://www.300guitars.com/2011/09/1959-gibson-es-350-update/ Note how the neck goes right up to the neck pickup? That doesn't occur on Byrdlands.

I still say it's a Byrd. Byrd's are currently made with the Venetian or Florentine cutaway. I've seen wine coloured Byrd's exactly like the one she is using (for sale online, not in person). The tailpiece and thickness of the body (seen on a few angles) tells me it's a Byrd.

A Byrdland. And yes, they are rare. Fortunately I have one and have only ever played one other.

If it had heavier gauge strings on it before...you may have to adjust the neck as well as the bridge height in order to achieve the desired action height you're looking for.