Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Hummingbird Video


Fullmental Alpinist

Recommended Posts

One of my favourite squares on the Tube. I have even talked to one of the guys who plays it there (they are 2).

 

Without looking, I think it's been called a 63'er by themselves - but have to double-check.

 

In these ears it sounds 'best' in the Running on Faith video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go - and they both say 1963. Listen closely and you'll probably hear what I mean.

 

Now I respect and dig the slopes a lot, but that expanded room in the squares adds something extra -

a freer, almost sexy quality that ooozes rock'n'roll where the slopes in their basic nature are more purist-folky.

 

Let's called it lusciousness, , , (to use an excellent word once learned from Duluth on these pages).

 

Put on the cans - this ex has it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq8Yc_RHkWQ

 

Still there's another video where he says 1964. I'll go with that due to the slightly narrower shoulders, which are extremely rare.

 

I actually have one and it is a 64'er. Have to say, I don't know if they came in fx 3 and 5 also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks either natural top (introduced in '63) or one of the faded cherryburst (which was sorted out by '66). So my guess '63-66'. It looks to have the very large pickguard which may put it pre '63. This stuff gets tricky!:)

 

The very large pick guard threw me for a loop. It looked like flubber so I wondered if this was a repro version. Either way I'd take it if someone wanted to give it to me for Christmas....

 

EM-7 I was hoping you'd comment on this. Thanks for the additional video. I'm out the door but I'll check it out with cans when I get home.

 

FMA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flubber is a new addition to Gibson and has only been used for the last two or three years. Kalamazoo would have never degraded their guitars with this stuff.

 

No - Instead, Kalamazoo gave us those mega-thick batwing guards found on B-25s & J-50s.

 

Not to mention one of Kalamazoo's finest hours: The genius of plastic adjustable bridges!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a reread I noticed you said "plastic" adjustable bridge. As you were.

Yes, and specifically, the adjustable version added even more metal & weight than the non-adjustable version of the plastic bridge. All that said, I've owned three guitars with that set-up (still have one), and love the tone, but structurally, over the years a lot of bad things have happened to these poor beasts.

 

As for the current flubbery pickguards, I saw the recent issue stuff in-person for the first time about a month ago, and at least to my eye, it is quite unattractive in it's bulbous presentation. The same material appears to have been used on my early issue J-15 (1/2/14), but if indeed the same, in this case it was cut significantly thinner & with a gentle bevel to the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned that an adjustable plastic bridge is overall longer-lasting than the adjustable rosewood bridges or at least they sound better than the rosewood over time.

 

Are you talking about the saddle, or the bridge itself? Not sure I've heard anything great about the plastic bridges, even from those who like the non-wood adjustable saddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned that an adjustable plastic bridge is overall longer-lasting than the adjustable rosewood bridges or at least they sound better than the rosewood over time.

Seems like you're describing the saddles instead of the bridges.

 

The original ceramic saddles are preferred by many over the rosewood.

 

The plastic bridges themselves were structurally problematic, as holes drilled for the holding screws could become weak points from which the spruce top could crack under constant string pressure. Amazingly, the one example I still own has remained completely intact after almost 50 years, but plenty of them have not survived unscathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned that an adjustable plastic bridge is overall longer-lasting than the adjustable rosewood bridges or at least they sound better than the rosewood over time.

 

Yes, the line above is a bit confusing and won't cover the majority of 'knowers' opinion on the topic.

 

I for one will defend the adjustable concept w. a wooden bridge, but have never played a slope or square featuring original plastic ditto.

 

However I met an expert some years ago, who said the plast/ceramic combo in some cases works very good.

Hmmm, I believed him, but unfortunately no examples within reach.

 

This said, I would never categorize an adjustable saddle over a normal sized (fixed) saddle in a regular slot. The two bring different nuances forward in the instrument - and I know some people here would chime in positive, others negative about the adj's.

 

That's how it is - and I confess finding the theme one of the most intriguing regarding 50's-60's Gibsons.

Simply because a lucky ceramic saddle in the right guitar can create one of the absolutely genuine G-flavours.

An acoustic voice unparalleled in this world.

And because the dilemma between keeping or exchanging it to the point of no return, but perhaps even better, represents nothing short of a high-suspense-drama.

 

 

P.S. - The rosewood saddles can sound mighty fine, but always mellow and kind of harmlessly rounded. I'm sure they'll do miracles on certain recordings.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...