Smurfbird Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-GIBSON-HUMMINGBIRD-with-PERIOD-CORRECT-HARD-CASE-896705-/321048037553?pt=Guitar&hash=item4abff448b1 Is this really a Gibson? The Gibson logo looks different than any I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby b Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-GIBSON-HUMMINGBIRD-with-PERIOD-CORRECT-HARD-CASE-896705-/321048037553?pt=Guitar&hash=item4abff448b1 Is this really a Gibson? The Gibson logo looks different than any I've ever seen. The crown/thistle looks way wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Some of the details look wrong to me... but I'm no Norlin era expert... feels whiffy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 . I'm not up on the H'bird details, but the headstock logos and bridge look suspect to me. AFAIK the 1968 "Gibson" logo should have an open "b" & "o" - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I always find judging a guitar from photos to be tough. Camera angles, the flash and whatever can make stuff look inky. But yeah, the logo and doodad do not look righteous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Some of the details look wrong to me... but I'm no Norlin era expert... feels whiffy though. This ain't a Norlin-era guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwalktheline Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 It's a shame if its not real, she's a beauty. <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 This ain't a Norlin-era guitar. 68 is not the Norlin era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 68 is not the Norlin era? No. Norlin bought Gibson from Chicago Musical Instuments in December, 1969, so It's reasonable to think of the Norlin era as beginning with guitars built in 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 No. Norlin bought Gibson from Chicago Musical Instuments in December, 1969, so It's reasonable to think of the Norlin era as beginning with guitars built in 1970. Ah, I'm subject to misinformation then, I'd always believed that Norlin era was effective from the last quarter of 66 cusp of 67, but models from 70 onwards baring the brunt of the negative connotations that usually brings up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 No. Norlin bought Gibson from Chicago Musical Instuments in December, 1969, so It's reasonable to think of the Norlin era as beginning with guitars built in 1970. ECL took over Gibson in 1969 and I believe the name Norlin came about in 1970. To my mind though the Norlin-era actually begins in 1965 when Arnie Berlin (the "in" in Norlin) took over CMI from his father. One of the first things Arnie did was to force Ted McCarty out. I guess he found things like McCarty's elaborate inspection system too burdensome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 ECL took over Gibson in 1969 and I believe the name Norlin came about in 1970. To my mind though the Norlin-era actually begins in 1965 when Arnie Berlin (the "in" in Norlin) took over CMI from his father. One of the first things Arnie did was to force Ted McCarty out. I guess he found things like McCarty's elaborate inspection system too burdensome. This is what I was talking about, cheers, as early as 65 then? I was sure I'd seen the same info somewhere claiming it to be late 66 into 67, hence my confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayyj Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 The logo and crown look off for me but, as far as I understand, from the end of 1968 into the early 70s the logo on many models is created by inlaying an oversize pearl block into the headstock and then silkscreening over the top. So, as the rest of the guitar looks ok to me for a late '60s example, my guess would be that the headstock has been refinished with an imperfect reproduction of the logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 This is what I was talking about, cheers, as early as 65 then? I was sure I'd seen the same info somewhere claiming it to be late 66 into 67, hence my confusion. To me it is based more on the philosophy of how to build a guitar than the actual year Norlin took the reigns. In 1965 Gibson for the first time in its history came under the control of college educated bean counters rather than guys who built guitars for a living. It is the year we got those skinny nuts and a reduced headstock angle as well as high speed conveyor belt finishing. There was a growing emphasis on quantity, cost cutting and avoiding warranty issues rather than build quality. The Norlin acquisition was just the final nail in the coffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 ECL took over Gibson in 1969 and I believe the name Norlin came about in 1970. To my mind though the Norlin-era actually begins in 1965 when Arnie Berlin (the "in" in Norlin) took over CMI from his father. One of the first things Arnie did was to force Ted McCarty out. I guess he found things like McCarty's elaborate inspection system too burdensome. ECL (Ecuadorian Company Limited) finally bought out CMI in late '69, but as I understand it, old Maurice Berlin (CMI) stayed until he retired, at which point young Arnie and his business school pals really began to drive the company into the ground in the search for profits. It's not clear to me whether ECL bought out CMI completely, or just bought controlling interest in late 1969. ECL was a Panamanian-registered holding company whose primary asset was a large Ecuadorian brewery. They also had large holdings in the cement industry, as I understand it. So Norlin's business was cement, beer, and guitars: not a particulary great combination. I like to say that Gibsons from that era played and sounded like they were made out of cement, and were so bad that you had to drown your sorrows with Norlin's Ecuadorian beer...... Certainly Gibson was in decline prior to 1969, but Norlin itself didn't come into being as a company until 1970. If you want to get really tough, you might start dating Gibson's decline to 1957, when CMI purchased Gibson. I think that's a bit harsh, however, as some of Gibson greatest electric guitars were built between 1958 and 1965, and some of those late 50's/ early 60's acoustics are really good guitars as well. It's probably fair to say that the slide began in 1965, and the company went over the cliff completely when it comes to quality in 1970. It has been a long, hard climb back, and you have to give Henry (and really Ren, when it comes to Gibson's acoustic guitar revival) a lot of credit for that, no matter what you think of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 CMI took over Gibson in 1944. They, of course, acquired Epiphone in 1957. If you look though at something like the changes Gibson made to their guitars in 1955 they were well thought out. The bracing they replaced the scallop version with provided more support to the top but added virtually no more mass. Because they knew how to build guitars they understood how important this was to getting sound out of an instrument. I do agree that the fate of Gibson acoustics was sealed in the late 1950s when they started to place so much emphasis on building electrics. And yeah, they were great electrics. By 1960 though, Gibson seemed intent on making their acoustics more like the electrics with the fast playing, low action necks (or whatever they called them), adjustable bridges, and the like. But despite all of the rather unwise design changes the build quality remained very high. Every guitar and part was inspected something like 170 times. Departments were run by foremen who had come up through the ranks and the workers were all cross trained. But this all started to fall apart in 1965. And I also agree it has been a long hard climb back. If it had not been for Henry J., Gibson might have gone the way of Kay and Harmony - a name slapped on some offshore built instruments that have no connection to those that came before or at the least another acquisition for the Fender stable. I am guessing the only way to get the acoustics up and running was to hire a Master Builder - somebody who knew how to heck to build an acoustic guitar the right way. It ain't what they used to call the Gibson System but it sure does seem to have worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I would say this is a 1968/69 Hummingbird with the so called pantographic logo a block of mop dropped in a carved hole in the head stock then spray-painted so the logo stands forward. These came with and without dots and a theory could be that someone might have tried to repaint/scrape away parts of the paint in order to refinish the logo thus bring it closer to what he/she thought was right. This goes for the crown too. Another semi-strange idea from Kalamazoo, but never the less how it was for a period. Check this 15 months old thread - http://forum.gibson....eadstock-logos/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I would say this is a 1969 Hummingbird with the so called pantographic logo – a block of mop dropped in a carved hole in the head stock then spray-painted so the logo stands forward. These came with and without dots and a theory could be that someone might have tried to repaint/scrape away parts of the paint in order to refinish the logo thus bring it closer to what he/she thought was right. This goes for the crown too. Another semi-strange idea from Kalamazoo, but never the less how it was for a period. Check this 15 months old thread - http://forum.gibson....eadstock-logos/ Maybe..... maybe not. That "S" looks like it fell on its face. Look at the way all the bottoms of the lower-case letters line up on the "real" '68 logo shown earlier in this thread, and how they are all over the place on this "bird". Here's the same logo on my '68 ES 335-12: What about that back centerline marquetry inlay? Did Gibson ever do that? (I don't know much about Gibson acoustics in the period this claims to be from.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 No matter what, the logo has lost its way. The rest of the guitar however, may be better off, , , , , for a (probably long-scaled) late'60's square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponty Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Yes I think this is real. The crown is actually the same outline shape as all the Gibson crowns. The four cuts have not been made. May be by error ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I'm not sure they made cuts for the pantographic method, ponty - as said, it's rather paint. But the case the ok also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Man_Curtis Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 http://www.ebay.com/itm/1968-GIBSON-HUMMINGBIRD-with-PERIOD-CORRECT-HARD-CASE-896705-/321048037553?pt=Guitar&hash=item4abff448b1 Is this really a Gibson? The Gibson logo looks different than any I've ever seen. I'm not an expert by no measure, but I would not touch this instrument with anyone's money. The logo looks like it was free-handed by a kid and several other notable non-quality issues are apparent on close inspection. The seller has 57 items sold and a 100% Feedback, but even sellers can be fooled. I vote to move on and find another Hummingbird to dream about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurfbird Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share Posted December 31, 2012 To be clear, I wasn't going near it. I bring up these questionable instruments to better learn for myself for future reference and to give our experts a chance to teach us. This has been fascinating thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Yes, the tag is too high - especially due to the logo and tuners. The small blisters on the body is nothing, but the neck-scars might hurt. That saddle insert is kinda spooky too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Its very pretty, but that logo looks AWFULLY dodgy to me .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.