Gibson Byrdland

[wintermoon]

Looks like some binding coming lose at the nut n the treble side. certainly looks swollen in the pic. High E seems dangerously close the the fret nibs too although lines up, I guess just a design flaw with the model.

rosewood on Gibson bridges from the 30s to the mid 70s [except for Johnny Smiths]
just noticed that it appears to have been refretted.
other than that and the strap button, all stock, including the guard.

[Phil in London]

Looks very nice to me. I didn't know that we had to pay VAT and import tax from the EU.

Within the EU there are no customs and taxes on movement of goods - Art 30 TFEU. However, if one compares an EU price with US prices in the retail segment, where there is no VAT recovery, then one needs to add VAT and customs to the US price or deduct the same from the EU price, in order to speak of apples and apples.

[Phil in London]

Below a 'bent' pickguard from 1966, and the knobs with the golden plates from 1960. The latter is from an ES175 which is so far beyond doubt all original, based on a complete track of (2) pre-owners...

[nopedals]

Well, obviously if you are buying a humbucker equipped 1957-1961Gibson, the price is hugely impacted by the originality of the pickups. And since the "PAF" silliness is pretty meaningless if the guitar is not an LP, you are paying a premium for market, not intrinsic, value (not necessarily a bad thing; there are worse investments). You definitely want to be 100% certain about originality in buying that guitar.

To reply briefly about the nut width, it is all about your style of play. Lots of modern guitars bunch the strings in the middle of the board; vintage Gibsons use the whole fingerboard, so string spacing is not a big issue on these. The scale difference tends to be overplayed as well; it is just like playing a fret or so higher. Professionally set up, it will play terrific. If you like to play really fast and use stretchy voicings, these things are ferraris. For other styles of play, it would not be a first choice.

[Minte]

And I am surprised about that. They are exceptional guitars. Sitting or standing it's more comfortable to play than my WesMo L5. And it sounds great.

[Greentone]

I almost bought a Byrdland...twice. They are _exceptional_ guitars. The tone they get is extraordinary. There is simply no "but" to go along with that assessment. I loved the two Byrdlands I came close to owning. I backed out ultimately because high up the neck the fret spacing is more dense than it is even on the two, old Gretsch Nashvilles I used to own...and I found things a little busy up high on those necks. IIRC, the scale on the Nashville is/was 24-1/2". The scale on the Byrdland is 23-1/2". On the lower frets this is an advantage. It is possible to make chords like Johnny Smith without having Smith's dexterity. Above the 12th fret, however, things get a little mandolin-like.

In retrospect, I never should have let this bother me because I _really_ liked the overall sound of the Byrdland--great jazz and country/jazz guitar. As Ted Nugent has demonstrated, it is a rocker, too.

[Jim Soloway]

I've always thought that the Byrdland was a very specialized guitar and was really designed as such. Short scale lengths can be a lot of fun but they also have an inherent downside that can make them very frustrating. They may well be much more comfortable than a guitar with a longer scale length but they will also be both less accurate and less stable.

[Bluedawg]

Finally played one a few weeks ago


I'm still thinking about that great tone coming from a thin comfortable body .....


tempting, but the neck was a little wonky for my big fingers with that short scale length

Maybe a Byrdland with an L5 neck or a thin body L5 would be better for me

[Mark M.]

According to Kirk Sand (who obviously knows), the scale length on Lenny Breau's 7 string nylon was 22 3/4. Makes a Byrdland scale seem long.


I have not spent much time playing Byrdland scale guitars and initially thought I wouldn't like them. But, I spent some time playing a short scale ES 350 and liked it a lot. I agree with Jim that it's a specialty type instrument.

[Minte]

I was concerned about the short scale when I was in the market for the Byrdland, but honestly after just a few practices with it I was more than used to it. It grew on me very fast.

[Danny W.]

I have very small hands for a man, while age, tendinitis, arthritis, and Depuytren's have reduced my fret span to four at the first fret. Despite that, I'd rather struggle for reach at the first than have hand cramps at the tenth. Being small overall, I'm also more comfortable with a Byrdland-size body than a full-size L-5 box, so I have these:



All 25.5" necks on Byrdland-size bodies.

Danny W.

[Greentone]

DannyW,

That's the ticket! A full-scale neck on a Byrdland body. Over time, I have gravitated to using the 25-1/2" scale on all of my guitars--except for my old Gibson L-50. I don't have big hands, but the longer scale length doesn't bother me.

Funny, in my younger days it used to bother me to use the longer scale. I once stuck with SGs, Les Pauls, 335s, and 175s because of that. It was Fender solid bodies that got me used to the longer scale.

Some of the shorter-scale guitars do have nice tone. The Byrdland through a Twin Reverb is a particularly nice sounding rig. Better, still, if you live in the land of unicorns, is the Byrdland through a Standel 25L15--like Hank Garland. His rig sounded magnificent on his many recordings.

[mr. beaumont]

I played a Byrd once...sounded great, felt really weird. And scale usually does not bother me.

[jaco]

I love Byrdlands. Ted Nugent was the first guy I saw who played one. (that's another topic I won't touch). But the guitar was just beautiful. Then I finally played one...and it was impossible. The neck reminded me of a twelve string Rickenbacker. My big hands couldn't do anything on it. I felt bad until I played an '68 L-5 sunburst.

[fumblefingers]

I thought Clapton played one at the Concert for Bangladesh...

[Nils]

Just love my 69 Byrdland, which I've owned since I was 18. Funny thing, when I got it I sold my first archtop soon after - an Ibanez Joe Pass - because their necks were so different, both in terms of width and length. Wish I hadn't, as it doesn't really bother me anymore. I can easily switch from the Byrdland to fat, 25 inch necks and back again. The main reason why I'll never get rid of the Byrdie - apart from the sentimental reasons - is its tone (oh, and its smell!). It is unique...

[BigMikeinNJ]

Sorry but I don't recognize what all those lovely thin bodies are.
Myself I always, always loved the way the Byrdland looked, Gibson has that knack for really classic designs but those necks are for the Byrds. LOL. Over the years I've owned 3 Byrdlands, a correct scale '77 Ibanez nt, a '78 with a normal scale length neck and an early '80s Gibson in wine red. Like most of you would I bonded real well with the '78 Ibby because of that normal scale neck.



But the Byrdlands never got that much playing time, the one guitar I consistently gigged with was my '81 GB10.



These days the closest thing (aside from an Epiphone Elitist Byrdland) that gets that vibe is the Eastman T146smd, I'll see if I can find a pic of that. Look up one on eBay, they're lovely. 16 inch width body, 1 3/4 depth and normal scale. Understated, carved spruce top (S), carved maple back (M), double pickups (D).

this one isn't mine but you get the idea, mine had been worked on by J Hale Music and it had Seth Lover 4 wires with push pull pots. WTH was I thinking when I sold that, oh yeah, we needed fuel for the furnace.

[Jim Soloway]

According to Kirk Sand (who obviously knows), the scale length on Lenny Breau's 7 string nylon was 22 3/4. Makes a Byrdland scale seem long.


I have not spent much time playing Byrdland scale guitars and initially thought I wouldn't like them. But, I spent some time playing a short scale ES 350 and liked it a lot. I agree with Jim that it's a specialty type instrument.

The reason why the scale length on Lenny's 7 string was so short was that he was adding a high A. Even with that short scale length he ended up using monofilament fishing line for the string because no actual nylon guitar string was thin enough to tune that high.

[Bluedawg]

According to the Gibson website ... the Byrdland is 2.25 inches deep and the L5CT is 2.5 inches deep

And the standard L5 is 3 3/8 inches deep ... about an inch thicker

I really liked the Byrdland body ... so I'm guessing I would like an L5CT as well

I"m sure I could get used to the Byrdland scale ... but I already know and love the L5 scale

So who's played both and what were your thoughts?



So many choices ... so little money

[Greentone]

I hadn't thought about it, but with the high A string on Breau's guitar, if the instrument had been regular scale the string tension would have been very, very high--hence, the monofilament and short scale.

[nopedals]

I found that my Byrdland excelled at playing fast passages and stretchy voicings. I have big hands, and the scale was never an issue. Think of it this way; having big hands is a plus, not a negative for a musician, whether you are Tal Farlow or Rachmaninoff (to name two guys with freakish hand size); having a smaller fingerboard is just a way to same advantage folks with big hands have.

[Archie]

I enjoyed playing my Byrdland but then it had a 45mm nut :-))

Surprisingly that did not feel big at all n the scale length, it actually made the neck feel very normal. You only noticed when you got past the 13th, that it was getting tricky. That was ok though because most Gibson archtops dont sound that good past the 12-15th anyway.

I also didn't think the acoustic response was as good as it could be. The design acoustically just doesn't make sense. Theres almost no point imo of it having a carved back, just a total waste of time and money. Lets not go into the bridge fiasco too. No wonder they have them pinned.

[ESCC]

It's curious to me that Heritage, Eastman, Peerless, etc have never offered a similarly designed 23-1/2" scale guitar.

[Marty Grass]

That was ok though because most Gibson archtops dont sound that good past the 12-15th anyway.

Okay, I'll bite. What do you hear happen at the higher frets? Do you believe it is related to the pitch frequency, neck position, or both?

I do hear the strings tend to slap the frets and consequently a more rapid decay. I don't find that unique to Gibson though and is technique related.

[Bluedawg]

I'm still trying to figure out my away around the first 12 frets anyways ....