Byrdland from China

**CarlKarstadt** · 08-11-2015, 10:55 PM

Hello everyone,

I have a lot to learn about jazz and guitars, but thought I would share my latest and hopefully last acquisition.

The guitar actually arrived yesterday, but it needed radical bridge surgery to lower the action. And some other, more typical minor tweaks. It plays very nicely now.

But its not a real Gibson, let alone a real Byrdland. Anyone care to spot the details that aren't right?

The essentials are there: 17" body, a little over 2" deep, 23.5" scale, fully hollow (well, OK there is a wooden block under the bridge area and a 1" square post between that and the back), it only weighs about 6 pounds, gorgeous sunburst.

As for the differences... they don't detract from my enjoyment!

(In fact, one of the differences is so fundamental, that I wouldn't even want a real Byrdland.)

If anyone would like to hear about how I came to buy this beast, please let me know.

**Bluedawg** · 08-12-2015, 12:12 AM

Sweet ..

May it serve you well

**steves3972** · 08-12-2015, 12:21 AM

first thing that comes to mind is that it looks to be laminated maple top and not carved spruce. I guess a byrdland/es-175 hybrid perhaps?

I'm sure it sounds fine, enjoy!

**Hammertone** · 08-12-2015, 12:50 AM

Reminds me of this, that I put together a dozen years ago for Mike Hawker, Toronto jazz guitarist:

**Alder Statesman** · 08-12-2015, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by CarlKarstadt

Hello everyone,

I have a lot to learn about jazz and guitars, but thought I would share my latest and hopefully last acquisition.

The guitar actually arrived yesterday, but it needed radical bridge surgery to lower the action. And some other, more typical minor tweaks. It plays very nicely now.

But its not a real Gibson, let alone a real Byrdland. Anyone care to spot the details that aren't right?

The essentials are there: 17" body, a little over 2" deep, 23.5" scale, fully hollow (well, OK there is a wooden block under the bridge area and a 1" square post between that and the back), it only weighs about 6 pounds, gorgeous sunburst.

As for the differences... they don't detract from my enjoyment!

(In fact, one of the differences is so fundamental, that I wouldn't even want a real Byrdland.)

If anyone would like to hear about how I came to buy this beast, please let me know.

I am curious: how and if I could be so crude, how much?

**pingu** · 08-12-2015, 02:22 AM

does that headstock say "gibson" ?

**Hammertone** · 08-12-2015, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by pingu

does that headstock say "gibson" ?

It's a Chibson.

**edh** · 08-12-2015, 02:50 AM

uh-oh.

**Archie** · 08-12-2015, 04:20 AM

Why people buy guitars blind from china from unknown sources instead of buying a perfectly good guitar here that actually comes with things like a warranty etc I will never know.

Arch Top Guitar | eBay

**Nils** · 08-12-2015, 04:52 AM

"Anyone care to spot the details that aren't right?"

OK, let's play along here. To start with, it looks like a maple top rather than spruce. Then the tailpiece is not quite like the original one, but more significantly, the nutwidth looks to be considerably wider, at least than my '69 Byrdland (which doesn't have the narrowest of widths but still is fairly narrow). I guess this is what makes you prefer this one?

**Archie** · 08-12-2015, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by Nils

"Anyone care to spot the details that aren't right?"

OK, let's play along here. To start with, it looks like a maple top rather than spruce. Then the tailpiece is not quite like the original one, but more significantly, the nutwidth looks to be considerably wider, at least than my '69 Byrdland (which doesn't have the narrowest of widths but still is fairly narrow). I guess this is what makes you prefer this one?

Actually Nils your last point is not correct. Since the late 70's the byrdland nut width has been 43 mm?

**Nils** · 08-12-2015, 05:13 AM

"Since the late 70's the byrdland nut width has been 43 mm"

And so is mine. I may be mistaken AH, but I thought that some of the Byrdies in the late 60's had even narrower nuts. Anyway, I thought this looked wider than 43 mm, but maybe it's taken with a wide angle lens or maybe it's my eyes...

**Jabberwocky** · 08-12-2015, 06:02 AM

Thank you for posting your Gribson Birdgland. I'm sure Mr. Wuss had a hand in it.

**CarlKarstadt** · 08-12-2015, 06:54 AM

Nils, indeed the most important difference for me was the size of the neck. Its 1 11/16" wide at the nut and has a nice round C-profile. Very much like my 1958 ES-225T.

In my early years I played a lot on a 1980 SG standard with a narrow thin neck. Eventually I found larger necks more comfortable. On the other hand I have a Harmony Monterey and its neck is too much on the baseball bat side of things for my liking.

The tailpiece is not what it came with - I had this lying around for years for a stalled project.

The top is 5-ply, probably the back and sides too. I can't say it sounds worse - or better - than the ES-225T or any other laminated top guitars I've tried.

Yes, it says Gibson but there are several pretty obvious differences from a real Byrdland that I'm not fooling anyone - I hope.

Archtop Bill, it cost me $440 US including shipping. Its from the Musoo folks on Aliexpress but I believe the guitar originally came from the Yunzhi factory. Yunzhi (also on Aliexpress) offers a 'half handmade' guitar that is remarkably similar. It has the bridge posts going directly into the body like an ES-330. The bridge surgery I did involved making the wooden base of the bridge much thinner so that the action was not too high.

Archtop Heaven, I've never felt the need to make a warranty repair on any of the (too many) new and used guitars that have passed through my hands. Part of that might be luck, partly maybe the climate here which is not too dry, not too humid, not too hot. So the deciding factor was that I could get the features I wanted at a fraction of the made-in-USA-or-Canada price.

**grahambop** · 08-12-2015, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Hammertone

It's a Chibson.

Hey, don't cho around knocking Chibsons. For the money, they are chood chuitars.

**Archie** · 08-12-2015, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by CarlKarstadt

Archtop Heaven, I've never felt the need to make a warranty repair on any of the (too many) new and used guitars that have passed through my hands. Part of that might be luck, partly maybe the climate here which is not too dry, not too humid, not too hot. So the deciding factor was that I could get the features I wanted at a fraction of the made-in-USA-or-Canada price.

I get that you want something that suits you etc but hell of a risk. Comparing second hand guitars that have been 'through your hands' is not the same as going on alibaba and buying an unknown chinese copy, with woods that you cant qualify for quality.

But its cool, if you're willing to take the risk that the truss rod works or the neck will stay good, then who is anyone to stop you?

**vinlander** · 08-12-2015, 08:27 AM

Problem with Chibson is not so much how the original buyer can fool himself with instant gratification, but more when it ends up on the used market and could pretend to be what it is not.

**pingu** · 08-12-2015, 08:55 AM

nice looking guitar ...
(doesn't look like a birdland to me)

[elephant in room]
is it just who thinks its
wrong (and should be illegal)
for them to put the gibson brand name on there ?

**Archie** · 08-12-2015, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by pingu

nice looking guitar ...
(doesn't look like a birdland to me)

[elephant in room]
is it just who thinks its
wrong (and should be illegal)
for them to put the gibson brand name on there ?

Personally I see no ethical issues. The person that designed the guitar is dead and receives no money for it. The company Gibson is so far removed from the original people that all they did was bought rights using money.

If Gibson was a first generation company and the guys designing and building the guitars at their own risk were what Gibson is today, I would say yes, there is a serious ethical issue.

However Gibson is nothing more than a corporation with money that can buy patents and names, which you could argue isn't totally ethical in the first place. Look at music, after x amount of years the copyright expires. I think guitars should be the same.

we've had this discussion before ad it can get really out of hand.

**pingu** · 08-12-2015, 10:10 AM

I promise i wont get out of hand !

but
Gibson is a brand identity

would it be ok for someone to put
Tag on a watch or
Samsonite on a bag
Boeing on a plane
or whatever other branded goods ?

**CarlKarstadt** · 08-12-2015, 10:14 AM

The Gibson name on the front of the headstock is not a big deal for me. What I do have some problem with is some other Chinese guitars that have a made in USA stamp and serial number on the back of the headstock. (Or maybe they are using photos of the real thing in their ad, not the guitar they have for sale. That wouldn't be right either.)

This particular guitar shouldn't cause any confusion when its resold. Because there's no serial number, no made-in-USA markings, the hardware is all no-name and import-sized... More obviously, the top is thin laminated maple, not carved spruce, and has basically no bracing. The inlays are large but not typical Gibson quality, and the wood figure is not AAAA or whatever a $8,000 guitar should be made of.

All that said, it's certainly functional as something to pick up and play. It doesn't have $8,000 worth of tone, materials and workmanship, but its functional.

**Hammertone** · 08-12-2015, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by pingu

[elephant in room] is it just who thinks its wrong (and should be illegal)...

Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven

Personally I see no ethical issues. …[ ]...we've had this discussion before ad it can get really out of hand.

Originally Posted by pingu

...would it be ok ...

Originally Posted by CarlKarstadt

The Gibson name on the front of the headstock is not a big deal for me. What I do have some problem with is... That wouldn't be right either.)...

There is no elephant in the room. It's illegal and has been illegal for well over a hundred years. The idea of identifying goods was addressed in the 1200s in England and the 1300s in Europe. Trademark laws were formalized in Europe, the UK and the USA in the second half of the 19th century. Trademarks (not patents, not copyrights) are a foundational concept of the flow of goods and services in the industrialized world. There are no ethical considerations to them. The people who break trademark law in this way do it on purpose, know they are doing it and know that it is illegal. It falls well within the long-established criteria used to determine if trademark law has been infringed by those "passing off" fraudulently identified goods. Trademark law, unlike copyright or patent law, is refreshingly simple. Very little grey area, no ideological discourse, no wiggle room, no nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Carry on.

**Spook410** · 08-12-2015, 02:07 PM

They are illegal. Buying these is unethical. I don't care if it's cheap. It should not say 'Gibson' and 'Byrdland'. It is good that Alibaba is getting hammered for this sort of thing now that they are a publicly traded company.

**Archie** · 08-12-2015, 02:11 PM

So why is there a difference between music and guitars? Its a double standard.

Im not saying you should claim its made in a country its not, I'm not saying you should sell it as a guitar from the current corporation that bought the Gibson logo (words chosen on purpose there). But to try to own rights over a headstock shape is getting imo unethical. Not only because there is only a limited number of headstock shapes that people find attractive.

I'm also not saying my point doesn't have flaws to it but I'm hoping you guys can get my point.

Basically whoever has the most money can own it. Where is the ethics in that?

The same could be argued for D'aquisto and D'angelico guitars.

**Greentone** · 08-12-2015, 02:21 PM

I have the same angst about Fender copies with Fender waterslide decals. I have seen quite a few Bill Nash and Elliot Mechanic Tele and Strat copies that the buyers have subsequently placed Fender decals on.

Now, I think that the 90s-era Mechanic Tele and Strat instruments by Canadian dentist, Elliot Mechanic are fantastic...better, on average, than any Fender that I have ever owned or played. Most, not all, of the Bill Nash instruments I have played are also commendably good versions of the Tele or Strat. To me, however, they stand on their own merits. I would never be interested in owning one that actually had a Fender waterslide decal on the headstock. At that point, it becomes a forgery. I would know the guitar's origin, but what about the next guy?

In general, I would pay _more_ for a Mechanicland neck than I would be willing to pay for virtually any Fender neck...but not if it said "Fender" on it.