A 2000 Gibson Byrdland (Brydland)

[Archie]

Hey all.


I recently got my hands on a Byrdland for R&D purposes.


It’s my assumption that the Byrdland plates are the same as the L5 ones (one of the main reasons why I got it).
The only issue could be is that an L5 has 20 frets and the Byrdland 22. This means the fingerboard on the Byrdland comes further into the body (top plate) and so they might have had to re-carve it, to avoid the top touching the underside of the extended fingerboard.
I doubt this was an issue but could have been.

The outline of this Byrdland also looks a touch different to that of an L5. The body contour around the selector switch looks less ‘rounded’ than on an L5. I understand though that both the Byrd and L5 have had subtle outline changes over the years.

Those in the know, please let me know.

Quality:

The quality of the guitar is what I refer to as typically Gibson. Looks great, just don't look too closely and keep your fingers crossed when you do. It has some QC issues. Some wood that has obviously been selected for a burst finish due to imperfections that I think should have been refused; but I appreciate it's hard for guitar makers working in a corporate environment.

In particular, the carving of the plates is shoddy. I will have to rebuild the plates in CAD to make them proper. I don't quite know how this has happened. An eager apprentice? That guy on the belt sander who does final arch contouring, feeling a little drowsy?



If you’re not fully understanding what I’m saying, I’ll explain using the top of a 2012 ES-165 and an Ibanez JP-20.
Arched plates should consist of smooth, ever decreasing rings, not random deformations of the former.

On the screen grabs below, you’ll see a scanned mesh. The brown rings (like growth rings in a tree) show the shape of the top plate and each line is roughly 2mm higher than the last.
You’ll notice that on the Ibanez, the top is smooth and the rings are even, with each one following from the last in a way we would expect. The Gibsons however, does not.




What this means in the end is debatable. Does it effect the sound? Maybe. Does it effect the structural integrity? Maybe (likely not). What it does show however, is the lack of consistency. The Gibson is a laminate plate so there is no apprentice with a plane, stabbing away here. The former should be perfectly shaped and the pressing of the veneers over it, done correctly. This shows that somewhere in this process, something is going wrong.
It could be the finish., perhaps thicker in some areas than others but I think the deviations are too large for that.

Here is an example of the same issue with the carved plate on this Byrd. In engineering you have inspection methods. One in CAD is called ‘Zebra’. This is a series of lines that you can move over a shape, showing its consistency. If the line is of even thickness and follows a consistent curve, the plate has been carved correctly. Using the strip lights above my bench, you can see what you would see in CAD.



In the above pictures, the encircled reflections show broken lines. They should be smooth, thin, slightly curved lines following the contour of the top (as shown in pic 1 on the left hand side of the back). In the first picture, on the right hand side, you can see the reflection is totally chaotic and you can actually feel that, when running your fingers over the surface. The is somewhat of a depression in that area.
The second pic shows an area (by the left hand f-hole), that is actually approaching flat. Of course this is a domed structure, there should be no flat or flat'ish areas.

On a better note, the spray job on this is really nice. It's very even with a nice dark red hue to the outer area. I'd give it a 9/10 for Gibson there. The finish however has issues. There seems to be some debate from Cedar Creek as to who's at fault here. CC claim that Gibson's of this era suffer bleed through due to Gibson's Nitro and not their case lining. There is also a few areas where the finish is dull and seems to be behaving somewhat unexpectedly, when polished. I've actually opted to leave those areas be.

Sound:

It sounds surprisingly good. The amount of metal on this is way over the top and the wiring harness must weight a ton in itself. The twin pickups and over bracing mean the carved plates are more a happenstance of history but I think they still add a nutty tone, that you cannot replicate with laminate.
The top plate is carved quite thin and is around 6mm between pickups. This area is usually much thicker on L5CES’s & 400’s.
To do this they've used more bracing around the pickups and small offshoot braces around the neck pup but I think keeping the top thinner, works well given the body depth and helps retrieve some of that sweeter spruce tone.

In all I'd say, given the amount of metal, heavy wiring, body depth and bracing, it sounds good unplugged (except for the metallic ringing from all the metal).
I’m pleasantly surprised.

Playability:

I love the neck on this. My two fav necks are my 61' Guild Johnny Smith my Heritage Jonny Smith. I can now put this one amongst them.
The neck is also straight and the action can be set low. The frets are medium thin and work well with the scale length.
I like the body size and I’m not too put off by the scale length and I have relatively big hands.

Final Thoughts:

This is my second Byrdland, the first being a 90's Jim Triggs example. For all the slightly annoying faults of this 2000 example, it sounds much better than the Triggs one. It has a better acoustic tone, nicer pickups and a nicer neck.

Which one would you take?

If I turn off my OCD mind, I like the guitar and am happy to have it. This about sums up Gibson for me (and likely others). All sins are forgiven if in the end, it sounds good, plays well and looks good. I suppose that's all we need from any guitar?

[skiboyny]

Would this help you?
Gibson L5 Archtop Guitar Plan

[Archie]

Would this help you?
Gibson L5 Archtop Guitar Plan

I appreciate the help but without meaning to sound silly, how do you know that's the plans for a real L5?

The bracing on those plans is not how Gibson have been doing it for some time and how do you know from those plans, how thick the top, sides and back are?
When you want to really understand how a guitar is made, you need to have it in front of you. How many braces do they use on the sides for support etc..?

I actually bought a set of CAD made digital designs of an L5 last year for £500 but on machining, I found the CAD work to be of poor quality. £500 in the bin.

[raylinds]

That is really a stunning guitar, despite the flaws that you point out. There is just something about the Gibson mystique when it comes to archtops- we know they are flawed (at least the more modern examples) yet there is still something about them that is just so compelling

[skiboyny]

I appreciate the help but without meaning to sound silly, how do you know that's the plans for a real L5?

The bracing on those plans is not how Gibson have been doing it for some time and how do you know from those plans, how thick the top, sides and back are?
When you want to really understand how a guitar is made, you need to have it in front of you. How many braces do they use on the sides for support etc..?

I actually bought a set of CAD made digital designs of an L5 last year for £500 but on machining, I found the CAD work to be of poor quality. £500 in the bin.

I wouldn’t know if it was “real”. So by your definition of understanding a guitar, seems to me if a l5 is what your after, a byrdland, wouldn’t be the guitar you would model after. Just a thought… Best of luck to you!

[telephonic]

I'm new around here so please excuse my ignorance. Why does this guitar get referred to as "Byrdland (Brydland)". Was there a typo on the label at some stage?

[raylinds]

I'm new around here so please excuse my ignorance. Why does this guitar get referred to as "Byrdland (Brydland)". Was there a typo on the label at some stage?

The name Byrdland came from a combination of the names Billy Byrd and Hank Garland who wanted a thinner guitar than the wide bodied archtops at the time. Gibson built this for them and named it after them. As to why the OP referred to (Brydland), I'll have to let him answer.

[icr]

How does a symmetric carve equate to a good sounding carve? How or why duplicate something without having the exact same piece of wood to carve? What guitar builder does that? Or, are you setting up a CNC machine to carve tops?

[Archie]

That is really a stunning guitar, despite the flaws that you point out. There is just something about the Gibson mystique when it comes to archtops- we know they are flawed (at least the more modern examples) yet there is still something about them that is just so compelling

I think you've summed it up perfectly.

[Archie]

I wouldn’t know if it was “real”. So by your definition of understanding a guitar, seems to me if a l5 is what your after, a byrdland, wouldn’t be the guitar you would model after. Just a thought… Best of luck to you!

I appreciate you trying to help so I apologise if my response came off otherwise. I wasn't trying to harangue, more talk with you about the concerns I have with those plans. Reading it back it comes across as being more combative, which genuinely wasn't my intention.
I'm hoping that the plates on the Byrdland are the same as the L5. The bracing should be the same too. The only real difference being the height of the sides, unless there are other differences I can't yet detect or know about.

[Archie]

I'm new around here so please excuse my ignorance. Why does this guitar get referred to as "Byrdland (Brydland)". Was there a typo on the label at some stage?

It was a Typo on the label inside. A Friend who had a LeGrand had the same issue. His label said 'LaGrande'. I assume the person responsible for writing the labels during that period was very dyslexic and somewhat nonchalant about checking lol

[Archie]

How does a symmetric carve equate to a good sounding carve? How or why duplicate something without having the exact same piece of wood to carve? What guitar builder does that? Or, are you setting up a CNC machine to carve tops?

I think if you start from first principles. If your arched plates are all over the place, you're not in control of the process. If you're making electric/acoustic archtops, like a Byrdland, ES-175 and L5CES, it's not that important regarding sound. It's just more indicative of a less than ideal work ethos, less skilled or meticulous craftsmen, environment and or restrictions based on the former by the accounts department. Gibson is a brand, some of the businessmen that buy it, will do a better job than others of putting teams and process's in place, to achieve their goals.

None of the stuff here is super drastic and the guitar has held together well. It's not structural issues but we are talking about a flagship model based on a company that started out making archtops. I'm sure their R9 Les Paul's are spot on.
If you've also spent two years studying arched plates under a microscope, small things become very noticeable.

The Archtops you're thinking of (I suspect) are finely carved acoustic archtops. These guitars are not the same. If you want to copy the sound of a Gibson L5CES or Byrdland, you only need to know some basic things.
1) How do they shape the top and back
2) How thick do they carve it across the top (and back)
3) How thick do they make the sides?
4) How do they brace it?
5) What's the size of the neck block etc..

Gibson don't tune tops (as far as I know) so any spruce, that is quarter sawn, shaped and braced in the right way, will be well within the ball park of what you need tonally. It's there to give what I call a nutty note to the sound, which as yet, I've not heard reproduced in laminates.

Gibson effectively have always CNC carved their tops. They traditionally used a copy Router or Panto router. Now they mostly likely use CNC, although the panto router is probably faster and easier.

[ccroft]

Hi Archie. Nice buy! So yeah...turn off your OCD and play the hell out that thing. Your photos are excellent BTW.

As to this:

....The Gibson is a laminate plate so there is no apprentice with a plane, stabbing away here. The former should be perfectly shaped and the pressing of the veneers over it, done correctly. This shows that somewhere in this process, something is going wrong...

I would expect inconsistency in a laminated veneer structure done in the olden days. IE: before the days of vacuum presses and CNC. Making perfectly mated male and female moulds that allow for the thickness of veneer is pretty much impossible by hand. To the kind of tolerances you're after anyway. I would expect inconsistencies measured like this. And there's sure to be variations in glue line where the 2 halves don't match perfectly. Puddles.

But... could this be where the Gibson thunk comes from?

[Hammertone]

Maybe align the strings properly at the bridge before the photo shoot?

[ccroft]

Maybe align the strings properly at the bridge before the photo shoot?

Don't feel bad Archie. Hammer's persnickety about these things.You should see what he said to me when I posted a pic with a stair-step type bridge on backwards

But at least he's paying attention. Very very close attention.

[Archie]

Hi Archie. Nice buy! So yeah...turn off your OCD and play the hell out that thing. Your photos are excellent BTW.

As to this:
I would expect inconsistency in a laminated veneer structure done in the olden days. IE: before the days of vacuum presses and CNC. Making perfectly mated male and female moulds that allow for the thickness of veneer is pretty much impossible by hand. To the kind of tolerances you're after anyway. I would expect inconsistencies measured like this. And there's sure to be variations in glue line where the 2 halves don't match perfectly. Puddles.

But... could this be where the Gibson thunk comes from?

No, I doubt it. That mostly likely comes from the thick pile of Tulip wood (Poplar) in the laminate.

That ES165 plate is from 2012 but I don't disagree with your over arching points at all.

[Archie]

Maybe align the strings properly at the bridge before the photo shoot?

It's a Heritage bridge so isn't going to align properly. I play it acoustically and changed the bridge top from the metal one, to the ebony one.
It improved the tone quite a bit. I'll make a new top piece for it shortly with the correct spacing.

[raylinds]

Gibson don't tune tops (as far as I know) so any spruce, that is quarter sawn, shaped and braced in the right way, will be well within the ball park of what you need tonally. It's there to give what I call a nutty note to the sound, which as yet, I've not heard reproduced in laminates.

Gibson effectively have always CNC carved their tops. They traditionally used a copy Router or Panto router. Now they mostly likely use CNC, although the panto router is probably faster and easier.

You are correct in reference to modern carved archtops, but the original acoustic L5s in the 20s were tuned. I can find no documentation on when they actually stopped tuning them (if anybody knows, please reply). I think it would be a safe bet that they were not by the time they started installing pickups.

[Archie]

You are correct in reference to modern carved archtops, but the original acoustic L5s in the 20s were tuned. I can find no documentation on when they actually stopped tuning them (if anybody knows, please reply). I think it would be a safe bet that they were not by the time they started installing pickups.

Corners are usually cut to meet demand. It's the same in the car industry. When you're trying to make your name, everything is about quality. When you've made your name, everything is about speed.

[ccroft]

Well yes...I was joking about the thunk.

I sorta doubt G re-tooled the archtop line for CNC or vacuum? Probably still using the same ol' hand made moulds from yesteryear. Why spend the dough when you've got something that people are buying.

On the bridge: the G string jumped out it's slot. It's like my backwards bridge. I was so excited to take pics of my new axe that I hurriedly polished her up, changed strings and wasn't paying attention to the details. Even the big ones!

[Archie]

Well yes...I was joking about the thunk.

I sorta doubt G re-tooled the archtop line for CNC or vacuum? Probably still using the same ol' hand made moulds from yesteryear. Why spend the dough when you've got something that people are buying.

On the bridge: the G string jumped out it's slot. It's like my backwards bridge. I was so excited to take pics of my new axe that I hurriedly polished her up, changed strings and wasn't paying attention to the details. Even the big ones!

Ahh I see lol

I thought Hammer was talking about the string spacing in general.

It's ok CC I've currently got no working dust extraction for the bandsaw, panel saw, wide belt sander and planer/thicknesser. I've been looking for a replacement but cannot find anything suitable in my price range, so have decided to design and make my own. Plus I'm knee deep in trying to design and make a carbon fibre vacuum bed, for the wide belt sander.

A slipped G string will have to get in the queue

[Woody Sound]

As to why the OP referred to (Brydland), I'll have to let him answer.

The written letters were juxtaposed on the label, it is a typo. (or, a "write-o?")

Makes you wonder about their attention to detail in other written record keeping.