Thunderbird Club

[ectoflanger]

See, to me an explorer has that cool but just “too much” look. At least as a bass. I know it’s a ‘50’s design (right?), but it’s so firmly ‘80’s hair metal in my mind. I think they are alright when they are guitars but I’d never own an explorer bass.

My guitarist in Bad Lemon just bought one, ‘2000’s in a dark wood, like walnut, color.

Are there even vintage explorer basses? Seems like they only made the bass version in the ‘80’s-‘90’s. I’d also have to guess they weren’t very awesome sounding?

I love ‘em!!! Though not a true explorer due to difference in the headstock my 1985 Aria Ii ZZB’s are close enough-

Upgraded the stock vanilla reverse -P soapbars with custom-wound MJS pickups which sound phenomenal. With their fast 33 inch scale necks they are comfortable to play-

Regarding my 1985 Gibson Explorer- a purchase from Reverb- sent it straight to the luthier to have it leveled and refinished to its original Alpine White. Taking a while because whoever stripped the finish, gouged it with a power sander-

Fun fact- the 80’s Explorers came with a 32 inch scale, unlike the later Gibson and Epiphone reissues which are long scale-

Regarding the pickups- the 80’s Gibson Explorers came with Grabber pickups fix mounted into pickup rings- in mine the one at the bridge was replaced by a Bartolini Rickenbacker style. But I will replace both with custom-wound MJS fat singles-

Here she’s on the right awaiting more leveling and clear costs -

 

[PhR75]

I'm not sure when I first saw a non-reverse but it was intriquing and now I think I might prefer it to the reverse. I also recall that it was referred as somehow cheaper and inferior to the reverse which is of course not true.

I realized that it's one of the three basses of 15 I have that has a black pickguard. One guitar too but it's my only one so it doesn't count.

 

[ThaCoast]

I am a heretic. I am not a fan of the Ampeg sound.

To each their own & that's all right by me x) I enjoy the Ampeg tone, but not enough to own one myself. Besides, i get relatively close with my FX board & Peavey Century heads, those things kick better & Transistor - no tube dealings xD

To my eyes the NR looks more mainstream, almost Fenderish, kinda Jaguar looking (but better with the less pointed upper bout). Whereas the standard reverse looks uniquely Gibson in my eyes.
View attachment 7363180
View attachment 7363177

I love the looks of both.
The ergos are a bit different between the two with the NR feeling like a slightly longer reach to the tuning pegs and a smooth top, vs the relatively normal feeling reach of the Reverse and the handy raised center section/thumbrest. It would be interesting to hear the sound difference between a vintage NR II and a vintage reverse II. The better sounding one would probably be the tie breaking vote for me, I like deep lows and a low mid punch with clear but not harsh highs - @Chucky Stiletti , which one delivers my tone goals best?

Damn I love the NR with Fender config! That's an NR i'd 100% play as a main bass.

I'm not sure when I first saw a non-reverse but it was intriquing and now I think I might prefer it to the reverse. I also recall that it was referred as somehow cheaper and inferior to the reverse which is of course not true.

I realized that it's one of the three basses of 15 I have that has a black pickguard. One guitar too but it's my only one so it doesn't count.
View attachment 7363441

Dig the SG bass, what pickups are in it?

 

[MCF]

Are they different that the ones in your SS?

I don’t know. But the two Thunderbirds sound different. The short scale is a mud thumper. I love it for reggae and some darker Clash stuff. It growls as a humbucker bass should. But it is darker than the ‘06 Studio which is more mid forward and clearer sounding with the appropriate growl.

I’m still looking for the right strings for the shortie. I went back to the Gibson nickels to see if I liked them better than the Hi-Beams I tried. It is a little brighter with Hi-Beams, but still on the darker side. I may try something else stainless with a hex core next. The variety is a bit limited for short scale strings.

I’m due to go see George and I’ll take them both. He is good at telling the difference between magnet strength with his strips that he has and can measure output to see if they are the same. The ‘06 versus the ‘11.

A pair of Studio cousins. Set necks, skinny headstocks, and Tbird+ pickups. God I love Thunderbirds!

 

[MCF]

That would be good!

V you will appreciate this. Note the little sign between the two cabs. It's not readable but says "Ask me about my cats." Almost always there. He has a custom bass case made wood for tours that sits to the side with what he's using. On the ends it has a funky/cool looking cat (or two?) carved into/onto (don't recall) as part of the case. Very cool looking.

View attachment 7363082

I’m very confused. Is that you? And why “ahem” are you posting a shot of your crotch?

 

[MCF]

I can't believe the '68 is still around. It's waiting for someone here to bring it home.

Andy!!!!!!!!!

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

To my eyes the NR looks more mainstream, almost Fenderish, kinda Jaguar looking (but better with the less pointed upper bout). Whereas the standard reverse looks uniquely Gibson in my eyes.
View attachment 7363180
View attachment 7363177

I love the looks of both.
The ergos are a bit different between the two with the NR feeling like a slightly longer reach to the tuning pegs and a smooth top, vs the relatively normal feeling reach of the Reverse and the handy raised center section/thumbrest. It would be interesting to hear the sound difference between a vintage NR II and a vintage reverse II. The better sounding one would probably be the tie breaking vote for me, I like deep lows and a low mid punch with clear but not harsh highs - @Chucky Stiletti , which one delivers my tone goals best?

Both factually, if you stay within the linear region of the pluck if you know what ai mean.....the NR seems to feature more dynamic range iow, a bigger linear region....

 

[MCF]

Some don’t like a Jazz bass. That’s my second favorite looking bass, better than a P-bass (to me) for sure, but my P-basses get more playing time because mine (with the two P-bass pickup config) sound better than my Jazzes.

A Ric is a strangely cool yet kinda ugly looking bass to me, I have always found it kinda odd how the fretboard stops at the body, and I have come to prefer the less elaborate “S” model over the 4001/4003. I do love how a good one sounds and at this time I do not own one. I had a 2019 matte black 4003 that I recently let go for pretty cheap, mostly because I didn’t care for the matte finish, and even more, the neck was too chunky. I hope to find a newer single truss rod one for a good price, and if I like the neck profile better, will have one back in the collection someday. I have a MapleGlo 4003s/5 and it is the only five string I have ever liked, but it isn’t really a “Ric” sound. Close, but not exactly that growl.

I have been back and forth trying to find a Ric I would play. Hasn’t happened yet.

 

[MCF]

Both factually, if you stay within the linear region of the pluck if you know what ai mean.....the NR seems to feature more dynamic range iow, a bigger linear region....

What are the corresponding colors within the range?

 

[MCF]

I am a heretic. I am not a fan of the Ampeg sound.

Oh man. You hate the Dodgers. You don’t like Ampeg. Yet we’re still good friends. Funny how this club works.

 

[MCF]

I am guessing this one is early 90s? I didn't try to decode the serial number. It has a custom shop logo in it, which is on the three pickup Thunderbird, but which I have never seen otherwise. It must have been a special order finish. It looks great to my eyes.

Tea burst Thunderbird on ebay

That is gorgeous. And it isn’t even blue.

 

[MCF]

I love this!

I love them both, we have a show at the end of the month and as I'm putting the setlist together it's going to feel like we go from the '60s to the '80s, so I'll take my usual two basses to a show - A Non Reverse to start the night and a Reverse to finish, can't wait!

It sounds SO GOOD through my Ashdown!

Please stop. Just stop. The jealousy in me is getting really bad. A skinny blue BaCH with an unobtanium pickup.

 

[MCF]

@TBird1958
Is that the BaCH you dropped a Gibson reissue pickup in?

Uh no. It has a freaking Lull pickup!

 

[MCF]

To my eyes the NR looks more mainstream, almost Fenderish, kinda Jaguar looking (but better with the less pointed upper bout). Whereas the standard reverse looks uniquely Gibson in my eyes.
View attachment 7363180
View attachment 7363177

I love the looks of both.
The ergos are a bit different between the two with the NR feeling like a slightly longer reach to the tuning pegs and a smooth top, vs the relatively normal feeling reach of the Reverse and the handy raised center section/thumbrest. It would be interesting to hear the sound difference between a vintage NR II and a vintage reverse II. The better sounding one would probably be the tie breaking vote for me, I like deep lows and a low mid punch with clear but not harsh highs - @Chucky Stiletti , which one delivers my tone goals best?

A Jaguar with Humbuckers is a bass I would play.

 

[MCF]

I have not- tp be honest, I’ve never been to Italy although my parents spent some time there. I believe it would be a fun place to go though-

My daughter did two Uni years abroad. Florence and Madrid. No wonder I can’t afford a vintage Thunderbird. But frankly, that was more important.

 

[Engle]

I love ‘em!!! Though not a true explorer due to difference in the headstock my 1985 Aria Ii ZZB’s are close enough-

Upgraded the stock vanilla reverse -P soapbars with custom-wound MJS pickups which sound phenomenal. With their fast 33 inch scale necks they are comfortable to play-
View attachment 7363370

View attachment 7363371

Regarding my 1985 Gibson Explorer- a purchase from Reverb- sent it straight to the luthier to have it leveled and refinished to its original Alpine White. Taking a while because whoever stripped the finish, gouged it with a power sander-

Fun fact- the 80’s Explorers came with a 32 inch scale, unlike the later Gibson and Epiphone reissues which are long scale-

View attachment 7363386

Regarding the pickups- the 80’s Gibson Explorers came with Grabber pickups fix mounted into pickup rings- in mine the one at the bridge was replaced by a Bartolini Rickenbacker style. But I will replace both with custom-wound MJS fat singles-


View attachment 7363387

Here she’s on the right awaiting more leveling and clear costs -

View attachment 7363388

Let me know if you want to sell that Grabber pickup.

 

[Engle]

I have been back and forth trying to find a Ric I would play. Hasn’t happened yet.

My copy has a skinny shaved neck. Kind of what I always imagined a Ric should have, but none that I've played ever do.

 

[Nocturnal]

See, to me an explorer has that cool but just “too much” look. At least as a bass. I know it’s a ‘50’s design (right?), but it’s so firmly ‘80’s hair metal in my mind. I think they are alright when they are guitars but I’d never own an explorer bass.

My guitarist in Bad Lemon just bought one, ‘2000’s in a dark wood, like walnut, color.

Are there even vintage explorer basses? Seems like they only made the bass version in the ‘80’s-‘90’s. I’d also have to guess they weren’t very awesome sounding?

I didn't care much for the look of the 80s Gibson Explorer basses, but this Hamer Blitz is amazing to me. I thought it would feel much larger than a Bird, but it really doesn't. With the vintage Dimarzio's, this is one of my best sounding basses.

 

[ectoflanger]

I didn't care much for the look of the 80s Gibson Explorer basses, but this Hamer Blitz is amazing to me. I thought it would feel much larger than a Bird, but it really doesn't. With the vintage Dimarzio's, this is one of my best sounding basses.

I looked at those too- can’t blame you-

 

[PhR75]

Dig the SG bass, what pickups are in it?

Artec Hot Rails.