Gibson Byrdland

[Bach5G]

I had a fellow do some work on my Strat. I’d never used him before and we got to talking about some of the guitars he had for sale.

One he said, was a Gibson Byrdland from 1976 or so. A reissue he said.

I thought $7k, but he said the price was $3600. That’s CDN. $2400 US.

[ptchristopher3]

Gibson Byrdland from 1976 or so. A reissue he said.

In what sense is this a “reissue”?

One or both parties have no idea about this guitar from the sound of it.

A Norlin Byrdland can be a perfectly fine guitar, but you both might want to get someone who knows quite a bit about them to take a look. (This assumes that the offer is being made in good faith, which is in question with the “reissue” silliness and the “or so” regarding the date or manufacture.)

If you know your Byrdlands VERY well, then sure buy it. If you do not, then this smells in three different ways so far.

[ptchristopher3]

Byrdlands are the least prone to headstock breakaways amongst Gibboid archtops.

But for laughs and to indulge the active imagination of some:

If it is a dark (not iced tea) burst from 1976, it can be easy to completely hide a headstock repair from the exterior.

If you really really really know your lacquer finishes, you can look for tell-tale shading of the dark overspray over the original clearcoat.

But a good way to also check is under the truss rod cover. It would take a true mastermind of deceit to bother to completely touch up the truss rod nut rout.

Also look for odd ripples on the headstock “veneer”, as well as separation of the veneer along the sides of the truss rod nut rout.

But seriously, this is just to indulge the whimsical notion of a headstock break having anything to do with this offer that has more than enough ass-hat aspects already.

[ptchristopher3]

Oh, and I am not a Gibson historian, but was a warranty repair person in the late 70’s for them. As I recall, 1976 (“or so”) would be right around when you would want a[n] historian to tell you if the back should be maple ply or a carved-two piece back.

Not that it matters for sound.

It is quite possible that a historian would tell you that it could be either carved or ply.

[Bach5G]

Tough crowd!

No one has seen the instrument, but we already know it’s a Norlin POS with a broken neck of doubtful provenance. And the seller (who, by the way, in reply to my inquiry about the neck joint, tells me it is in excellent condition - if course that’s exactly what you’d expect him to say, isn’t it!) apparently knows nothing about what he’s selling.

Relax. Let’s not jump to too many conclusions too quickly.

[ptchristopher3]

Tough crowd!

No one has seen the instrument, but we already know it’s a Norlin POS with a broken neck of doubtful provenance. And the seller (who, by the way, in reply to my inquiry about the neck joint, tells me it is in excellent condition - if course that’s exactly what you’d expect him to say, isn’t it!) apparently knows nothing about what he’s selling.

Relax. Let’s not jump to too many conclusions too quickly.

We did not know that you knew there was a broken neck. This might be considered a rather notable omission from the original post.

Actually, “broken neck” is an un usual description for guitars. Do you mean the headstock is broken and repaired? Do you mean it “did the double”, which is more likely on a mahogany neck, where the headstock and down by the dovetail break?

Do you mean somehting else entirely? Maybe this is just a vague quote from the seller?

Anyway...

There is nothing particularly POS at all about many Norlin archtops. About par for the Gibson course really.

[bananafist]

Well, if you're not interested in it, and he wants to sell it, a couple of photos front and back might spark him a buyer on here. Byrdlands rarely go that cheap - hence the 'beware' comments.
I live in the UK, but even with the tax, shipping and duties on this guitar it'd still be a viable buy this side of the pond.

[BigMikeinNJ]

Well you get a lot of varying answers here, except... If you go back and thoroughly examine the guitar and it has no breaks or repairs or cracks in the body then that is a good deal.

I'm quoting you here because there's one BLIP on my radar screen - Gibson was making Byrdland since late '56 early '57 and there were NO reissues in the 70s, they were just Byrdland. It's a nit pick but that doesn't ring true.

Like I said if you go back, play the pants off of it, that skinny neck feels ok then you got a great very versatile rock/jazz guitar. There was a 50s Byrdland on eBay for a long time with P90s in it that looked jake and it had a really great price (for a '57) of around 4k... I looked at her hard and long many times but passed. I have a later Byrdland, a 2004 Custom Shop (Hutch signed) that I love. I had an 80s Birdie (a wine red one) and I didn't bond with that one. But my 2004 has a slightly more normal width neck and is a joy to play.

You really won't know if it is for you until you go back, play it a lot and ask a ton of questions. I'm sure the shop owner would be open to mature dialog if you're seriously considering buying. Birdies are great guitars. I think what sealed the deal for me wanting one was watching Diana Krall Live In Paris with Anthony Wilson on guitar. What he did with his Byrdland was amazing.

I know, Wilson could make the stale box of granola I have in my kitchen sound like Heaven.

Good luck deciding...

Big

I had a fellow do some work on my Strat. I’d never used him before and we got to talking about some of the guitars he had for sale.

One he said, was a Gibson Byrdland from 1976 or so. A reissue he said.

I thought $7k, but he said the price was $3600. That’s CDN. $2400 US.

[sgosnell]

Jeff Hamilton usually seems to be enjoying himself, but John Clayton just always seem to be having entirely too much fun. It's rare to see him without a big grin on his face.

[Tal_175]

I got myself a Gibson Byrdland recently. The price was very good 3000USD (4000CAD). It's a 1974-75 model, in a very good shape. There was also a 1968 model in the store with Florentine cutaway. It was almost double the price. The 68 one sounded noticeably brighter, acoustically and amplified. I was happy the cheaper one had a warm and deeper sound and snatched it.
The body depth was reported as "maximum 2 1/4". At the rims it measures 2 1/8. I thought the depth is always measured at the rims. It seems like the "official" depth is 2 1/4 (Gibson marketing blurbs, Wikipedia etc) but many sources also say 2 1/8. Some report both:

So am I measuring the depth in correctly, is it not measured at the rims? What is the depth of your Byrdlands?

[Tal_175]

Amazing guitar by the way. Everything about it is perfect except it's association with Ted Nugent.

[ptchristopher3]

My crazy-modern 2015 is 2 3/32 at the rim.

Yes body depth is considered and measured at the rim.

I have owned three at various times, and worked on dozens of Byrds - but can not remember ever measuring the rim depth before now.

Amazing how many sound great but a little too bright - which makes sense. I wish they had stayed with an L5 fret count. I do not need the extra 2 frets, and moving the neck PU up a little would have been nice.

Except...

There are always Byrdland that sound huge. I have no objective ideas as to why. My subjective ideas are as dull as others’.

I hate buying new, but ended up with one of the huge sounding ones, so I drained the wallet.

Actually I suppose it was a bargain compared to what a new one likely costs now.

Glad to hear your’s is great. And to many players a brighter one would be great as well.

1974 was a few years before I began luthiating, so I only saw factory new ones from about 1978 onward. They were plain-grained but often remarkably good guitars - albeit with the traditional Gibson QA/QC issues.

[Tal_175]

My crazy-modern 2015 is 2 3/32 at the rim.

Yes body depth is considered and measured at the rim.

I have owned three at various times, and worked on dozens of Byrds - but can not remember ever measuring the rim depth before now.

Amazing how many sound great but a little too bright - which makes sense. I wish they had stayed with an L5 fret count. I do not need the extra 2 frets, and moving the neck PU up a little would have been nice.

Except...

There are always Byrdland that sound huge. I have no objective ideas as to why. My subjective ideas are as dull as others’.

I hate buying new, but ended up with one of the huge sounding ones, so I drained the wallet.

Actually I suppose it was a bargain compared to what a new one likely costs now.

Glad to hear your’s is great. And to many players a brighter one would be great as well.

1974 was a few years before I began luthiating, so I only saw factory new ones from about 1978 onward. They were plain-grained but often remarkably good guitars - albeit with the traditional Gibson QA/QC issues.

Yeah, 2 3/32 is pretty much 2 1/8 (almost within the variance of depth around the rim I think). I'm now even more convinced that 2 1/8 is the actual depth of Byrdland's not 2 1/4.
As I said above, mine sounded quite noticeably warmer than the other one in the store both acoustically and through the amp. Although I like the big warm sound (for the size) as it get's more of an L5 vibe, I'm worried that it might be too warm to cut in the mix. It's warm enough that even the bridge pickup sounds good to me and I normally never use bridge pickup by itself. I'll take it to the next band practice and find out. I figure worse come to worse I'll end up using the middle position (or even bridge) for solos.

I also find short scale very comfortable. I didn't have hard time adjusting. I have guitars with 25.5 scale, 25 scale and Gibson scale. It's never a problem switching for me and I have big hands.
The nut width and string spacing on my Byrdland measure exactly the same as my ES 175. That also helped the transition I suppose.

[ptchristopher3]

Well I would not worry about cutting through with the Byrdland. If this is a problem, look to the strings not the axe itself. In my useless opinion.

And yes 2 3/32 is surely within a normal drift from nominal both on a given guitar vs. the rest, and around the rim on a single guitar.

I run TI JS-112 on mine but for a little more cut you could certainly use GHS Nickel Rockers (do not let the name fool you - these are serious money-maker strings).

I am the same as you and do not understand all the fuss about scale length.

If you suddenly had to modulate up 1/2 or a whole step for a song would you wet yourself?

But on the other hand I am a total princess regarding nut width, and could not deal with the 1 5/8 narrow nuts on MANY Byrdlands. I needs me some 1 11/16 at an absolute minimum.

Sounds like you have a total winner of a Byrdland.

[Tal_175]

I am the same as you and do not understand all the fuss about scale length.

If you suddenly had to modulate up 1/2 or a whole step for a song would you wet yourself?

Exactly! It amounts to going up a 1/2 step. It's designed to facilitate bebop shredding and more pianistic chording, I don't see why some find it harder than longer scale length.

I actually have a GHS Nickel rockers set at home. I installed D'addario nickels (not the pure nickels) for brightness. GHS will be next. Normally I'd put chromes or TI flats on things but I'm going through a round wound phase.

[GNAPPI]

Amazing guitar by the way. Everything about it is perfect except it's association with Ted Nugent.

Oh, that's not cool :-)

Players like Ted Nugent, and Steve Howe illustrate nicely that a git has more uses than what the mainstream players of ANY genre will allow for.

[Tal_175]

I was also told that with the short scale guitar I was gonna play like Tal Farlow with his huge hands. I'm afraid that turned out to be false advertising. I heard though there is a new pedal that does just that.

[Gitfiddler]

This is a very tempting '68 Byrdland...but its in Canada, eh. Is this the one mentioned by the OP, Tal_175, that sounded bright?

Gibson Byrdland Florentine Cutaway Sunburst, 1968 | www.12fret.com

[Danny W.]

I've owned a 1960, 1966, and my 2003 long-scale Byrdland--all of them measured 2 & 1/4". During the Norlin years, Gibson shaved the depth of many of their archtops, so in the 1978 catalog they show the L-5 measuring 3 & 1/4", the JS at 2 & 7/8" and the Byrdland at 2 & 1/8". They restored the correct depth in the post-Norlin period.

Danny W.

[Tal_175]

I've owned a 1960, 1966, and my 2003 long-scale Byrdland--all of them measured 2 & 1/4". During the Norlin years, Gibson shaved the depth of many of their archtops, so in the 1978 catalog they show the L-5 measuring 3 & 1/4", the JS at 2 & 7/8" and the Byrdland at 2 & 1/8". They restored the correct depth in the post-Norlin period.

Danny W.

Interesting. Although ptchristopher3's is 2015 and apparently it measures even a bit less then 2 1/8. Also the first two links in my original post with reported dimensions of 21" x 17" x 2-1/8" are all very recent models. I wonder if they changed them back to 2 1/8 in 2010's?

[Tal_175]

I've owned a 1960, 1966, and my 2003 long-scale Byrdland--all of them measured 2 & 1/4". During the Norlin years, Gibson shaved the depth of many of their archtops, so in the 1978 catalog they show the L-5 measuring 3 & 1/4", the JS at 2 & 7/8" and the Byrdland at 2 & 1/8". They restored the correct depth in the post-Norlin period.

Danny W.

Actually the other two ad's in my OP are vintage models 1957 and 1961 I think. The descriptions state they have 2 1/8 depths. I wonder if it's just normal factory variation.

[Tal_175]

Although this one has laminate back and sides (as all Byrdland's in most of 60's), it's significantly more expensive than 70's all carved models. You can tell by the picture of the back (picture in the link), it's single piece back like ES 175's. Woods for laminate maple are rotary cut like continuous roll of paper, so it can be made large enough in one piece. That means laminate (also the description says it). Carved backs are 2 piece. I don't know how it affects the electric sound, probably not at all.

[Danny W.]

Actually the other two ad's in my OP are vintage models 1957 and 1961 I think. The descriptions state they have 2 1/8 depths. I wonder if it's just normal factory variation.

I an always skeptical of measurements in ads. People often quote catalog specs instead of measuring, and often from the wrong catalogs; however, Gibson being Gibson, factory variation is always a possibility.

Although ptchristopher3's is 2015 and apparently it measures even a bit less then 2 1/8. Also the first two links in my original post with reported dimensions of 21" x 17" x 2-1/8" are all very recent models. I wonder if they changed them back to 2 1/8 in 2010's?

That's always a possibility too.

Although this one has laminate back and sides (as all Byrdland's in most of 60's), it's significantly more expensive than 70's all carved models. You can tell by the picture of the back (picture in the link), it's single piece back like ES 175's. Wood for laminate maple is sawn like continuous roll of paper, so it can be made large enough in one piece. Carved backs are 2 piece. That means laminate (also the description says it). I don't know how it affects the sound, probably not at all.

Here's the two-piece back of my 1966 Byrdland, which had solid woods:




Danny W.

[customxke]

My 57 Byrdland is 2 1/8”

[pingu]

while we’re there ....

do any Byrdlands
or shorter scale
jazz boxes have a standard
width nut ?

Es140 ?