Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Clapton's Guitar "A Concert for Bangladesh"


DPhillips
 Share

Recommended Posts

By "gap" I meant to the actual pickup. Sorry for the confusion.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but the only way the actual pickup (humbucker) could be against the end of the fingerboard is if the mounting ring had been cut through, so in that sense there's almost always going to be the type of gap you're referring to.

 

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.....

I tend to agree with you, although as I say, I've never really studied or researched this. If you find a pattern or some official and reliable explanation, please let us know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, I see what you're saying, but the only way the actual pickup (humbucker) could be against the end of the fingerboard is if the mounting ring had been cut through, so in that sense there's almost always going to be the type of gap you're referring to.

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only close-up shots I have of Byrdlands are Nugent's and mine. .....

 

Here's the link for that info on that pic so you can verify the date for your nice collection of pics = http://www.guitarcenter.com/In-Store-Vintage-VINT-1969-GIBSON-BYRDLAND-NAT-104061098-i1721711.gc

 

BTW, that's a beautifully subtle burst on your Byrdland.

 

104061098_el.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The location of the pickups varies.

 

Here's my 1959 (photo taken in 1970):

 

8dfd6592.jpg

 

Here's my 1966:

 

f756857e.jpg

 

 

Here's a 1968--not mine:

 

02c45f0d.jpg

 

Please note that the front of the mounting ring easily fits under the curved edge of the raised fretboard extension.

 

The guitar in question seems to have all the features of a Byrdland with either a replacement fretboard or a custom ordered one and the wrong pickguard. That seems easier to believe than a 350T with different headstock, binding and top.

 

Danny W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim If its a Byrdland it would be very nice to find that out I can't say that it is especially important to me but as you are having the discussion I am happy to join in with a Socratic sprit of investigation of the facts.

 

Your points on the Super 400 were well made I am grateful to your having taken the time, I'm not sure I feel any straightening out was or is required in the sense that you make the comment.

All of this guitar sleuthing requires both knowledge and attention to detail. In situations like this, one shouldn't be too quick to make assumptions without employing a considerable amount of both.

 

I will as Khune suggests take a look at the video in HD. My comment regarding the Wood was not very detailed I thought is was obvious that a Laminated top still presents the samme grain as a solid carved top and whichlst spruce and maple have different grains I am

not convinced that one could tell if a guitar is laminate or solid from a video even in HD especially one with qualtiy bindings.

I don't think I follow you completely. I detected the appearance of the grain of spruce, and as I already said, I detected that from looking at photos, not videos.

 

The Head stock logo is an interesting point quite honestly I am not really persuaded that it is terribly significant

That makes absolutely no sense. Virtually all Byrdlands have flowerpot inlay on the head. ES350's do not. This is a relatively permanent feature, not easily changed like a pickguard or tailpiece. This is very significant to this discussion.

 

serial number schems and Pickup components

toggle swithces pots ets are famously pretty much dependant on what was in stock at the time during this period of gibson production, switching out a trapeze is obviously even more easily accomplished.

If Clapton's guitar had all the appointments of an ES350T except for its Byrdland tailpiece, then you would have a point. But clearly that isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the HD video Full screen and the tail piece does look looped but I am still not convinced from any photographs or that video that it is a Byrdland Tail Piece there is not a definitive shot where it is clearly so in my own opinion.

 

On the head stock again I have not seen a clear shot that shows the inlay to be a flower pot perhaps someone could get a screen capture at a resolution to show what is being said I can not do that on my machine as there is simply no conclusive frame of the video which is clearly a flower pot and in different shots it could be either.

In both cases, I've seen the evidence clearly. I'm not sure why you're unable to see it, unless you're not looking closely enough at the details. As I said, you can clearly see the four "loops" at the bottom of the Byrdland tailpiece when the stage lighting reflects off of the metal. I think I gave you the elapsed time when this occurs (if you can pause the video at just the right moment, that is the ideal way to see it). If I could capture a screen shot and post it, I would, but I would have to work on that. The head inlay is far easier to recognize, and again I'm not sure why you're unable to recognize it. It's far larger than the crown inlay of an ES350T.

 

On Wood Grain from the photographs I do not think any amount of sleuthing will devine the guitar has a laminated or carved top.

Roger, don't think about laminated vs carved. Think about spruce vs maple. They have different grain patterns. It appears to have the vertical striated pattern of spruce, although I'm less certain on this point than the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you pause the video between 3:55 and 3:59 elapsed time; or at 4:15 to 4:17 elapsed time, you can clearly see that the head inlay is a flowerpot. It's really got more to do with recognizing the size of the inlay (relative to the size of the headstock and its other features) than about seeing the detail of the flowerpot itself (but you can see the basic shape of the flowerpot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Roger, don't think about laminated vs carved. Think about spruce vs maple. They have different grain patterns. It appears to have the vertical striated pattern of spruce, although I'm less certain on this point than the others.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... On the head stock again I have not seen a clear shot that shows the inlay to be a flower pot perhaps someone could get a screen capture at a resolution to show what is being said I can not do that on my machine as there is simply no conclusive frame of the video which is clearly a flower pot and in different shots it could be either. ....

 

Here you go. The inlay is clearly NOT a crown, so what are you claiming it is? I see a flower pot. And as I have examined the video more closely for that screen cap - on a computer with good video capability, white printing on the TRC can be made out running from top to bottom, and binding on the F-holes. What I'm seeing is - Clapton has said it was a Byrdland, there's a flower pot inlay, white printing on the TRC that runs from top to bottom, binding on the F-holes, and a tail piece that NOT from a 350 but looking like a Byrdland tailpiece. On top of that, another member has reported a Byrdland with split parallelogram markers - This guitar is a Byrdland.

 

Byrdland Clapton.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 might have forgotten to mention this, and I think you're absolutely right. I noticed it first in this photo:

 

clapton-harrisonBAngladeshByrdland.jpg

 

Spruce. Byrdland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go. The inlay is clearly NOT a crown, so what are you claiming it is? I see a flower pot. And as I have examined the video more closely for that screen cap - on a computer with good video capability, white printing on the TRC can be made out running from top to bottom, and binding on the F-holes. What I'm seeing is - Clapton has said it was a Byrdland, there's a flower pot inlay, white printing on the TRC that runs from top to bottom, binding on the F-holes, and a tail piece that NOT from a 350 but looking like a Byrdland tailpiece. On top of that, another member has reported a Byrdland with split parallelogram markers - This guitar is a Byrdland.

 

Byrdland Clapton.jpg

Nicely done, BigKahune. The image you posted leaves no doubt about the head inlay (not that I had any doubt).

 

If you could work the same magic regarding the tailpiece (at 4:04 to 4:06 elapsed is optimal, I believe, for seeing the four loops at the bottom, as the stage lights reflect off of the tailpiece), maybe there's even a slight hope of convincing Roger. [rolleyes] :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....regarding the tailpiece (at 4:04 to 4:06 elapsed is optimal, I believe, for seeing the four loops at the bottom, as the stage lights reflect off of the tailpiece), maybe there's even a slight hope of convincing Roger. [rolleyes] :)

 

Okay - one on the loops, and one on the engraving - yep you can see engraving right where the word Byrdland should be on the tailpiece - case closed.

 

Regarding Craig's comment above - yes, it looks quite like the photo of the 1969 Byrd I posted earlier on the thread.

 

And, apologies to Roger, "malign" was perhaps a bit rough in regards to his comments on Clapton's memory/sobriety.

 

Byrdland Clapton2.jpg

 

Byrdland Clapton3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - one on the loops, and one on the engraving - yep you can see engraving right where the word Byrdland should be on the tailpiece - case closed.

 

Byrdland Clapton2.jpg

Also, you can easily see the "points' on either side of the upper crosspiece, which the 350T tailpiece did not have (see my 'visual aids", posted earlier today).

 

Larry, sometimes camera angles can fool you. It's happened to me, too, so I don't blame you. But when you look at it from the various angles, the depth is correct for a Byrdland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love a good mystery.

 

Personally, I agree there is a flowerpot inlay, and the tailpiece is IS either a byrdland tailpiece or one that is exactly like it that might say something else (although I would say that is so out there it is not likely).

 

Also, while I can't be sure the top is spruce, it sure looks like spruce more than maple (laminated or not). For one, I see what I think is a slightly different color than the sides. And also, the biggest clue is the changes it shows to different angles to the lighting. At different angles, more or less of the straight grain shows, as well as contrast between the left and right sides. Spruce looks like this. Maple usually shows more or less flame and color perpendicular at different angles.

 

I am with L5LARRY that the body is deeper than the standard Byrdland or 350T. It does not look like a 350/L5 full depth, but it does look like the in between 125/135 depth.

 

So, if that is correct, we have TWO major differences: the body depth and the fret markers. SO, THAT is the biggest clues, right?

 

In my opinion, if we look at what Gibson has done in the past as far as variations and different models, it is not unbelievable that Gibson would make something with different specs while not introducing a new model. When Gibson has introduced new models, especially with arch-top electrics, they usually define them with different tailpieces and headstock inlays.

 

IMO, and my best guess from what I can see, is that this guitar is a VARIATION and a rare version of a Byrdland, and Gibson has made it to be a Byrdland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until I saw Danny's '59, I was going to cut-away through the jungle, and suggest that the difference in pick-up position might have something to do with the difference between Florence and Venice - with pick-ups in the Florentine format separated from the neck by plenty of dry land, while in the Venetian format the sea has washed away the gap. At least all of the Nugent guitars pictured have Florentine cutaways and a gap between neck and pup, while the Clapton guitar and the other blonde with no such gap are both Venetians. But now that '59 is muddying the waters. It may be that Danny's Venetian with more space is an exception, or it may be that these rare Byrds are all unique. Still perhaps a useful hypothesis?

 

The location of the pickups varies.

 

Here's my 1959 (photo taken in 1970):

 

8dfd6592.jpg

 

Here's my 1966:

 

f756857e.jpg

 

 

Here's a 1968--not mine:

 

02c45f0d.jpg

 

Please note that the front of the mounting ring easily fits under the curved edge of the raised fretboard extension.

 

The guitar in question seems to have all the features of a Byrdland with either a replacement fretboard or a custom ordered one and the wrong pickguard. That seems easier to believe than a 350T with different headstock, binding and top.

 

Danny W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I just ran across this in the Lounge - A rehearsal vid which includes HD playback up to 1080p. Among other things, it contains an good look at the headstock very near the start (0:14), as well a a good look at the real depth of the guitar from the side near the end (2:35). Check it out. . . . <edit> . Click to YouTube to watch it full screen HD 1080p

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brsldsSLO-o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, BK. You continue to provide good views.

 

At 00:14 elapsed, you can see ALL the features of a Byrdland headstock (flowerpot inlay; gold-plated tuning keys; multi-ply binding; Custom truss rod cover).

 

EH5924h.jpg

 

But I suppose somebody could have taken an ES350T and changed all of those things, along with the tailpiece, and the fingerboard binding, AND put a spruce top on it...

 

](*,)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned earlier, this debate has taken place on numerous internet discussion forums. I was browsing a few of them again yesterday, and saw the following statement at a site called "Totally Guitars": "Hank Byrdlands biography states EC owned a custom Byrdland"

 

I don't know who "Hank Byrdland" is, [rolleyes] but maybe this could be a lead for more info about the origin of this guitar. I don't own the Hank Garland bio, but if anybody does, perhaps there's something to be gleaned there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...