Thunderbird Club

[Gaolee]

Well, I only have the one Bird. I always wanted one ever since I saw Nikki pounding on one during the Dr. Feelgood era, but I never could afford one back then. Honestly, I still can't really afford one of those super nice burst ones. But I managed to snag my Goth Bird with a few nicks here and there and no case for pretty damn cheap, so I took it.

I will say though, I really dislike the bridge. I just can't get the action down where I'd like it to be with this 3-point bridge. I'm considering swapping it for something else, but again, money.

Ah, give it time, grasshopper!

 

[Gaolee]

This looks good...

Gibson Thunderbird Non-Reverse Bass 1966 Black

The neck repair doesn't look so great, but if it's stable and it intonates, then I guess it's OK. I'm amazed at how expensive '60s Thunderbirds are now.

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

I won't be buying it, either, for a lot of reasons. But the pickup spacing is interesting. Putting a split P in mudbucker position sounds like what?

plasticky with hints of black as opposed to metallic with hints of chrome?

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

That bridge is odd. It looks like the tilt-o-matic special two point on my EB-2, only with a stop claw. I don't see why that wouldn't work. There's plenty of intonation adjustment on it.

looks like a Badbird kinda setup..

 

[TerribleTim68]

This looks good...

Gibson Thunderbird Non-Reverse Bass 1966 Black

I know they say it's "non-reverse", but it just looks odd to me.

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

I know they say it's "non-reverse", but it just looks odd to me.

not just to you...

 

[TerribleTim68]

I'm sure that was the original design, and some dude took a lefty and flipped it over and started a whole new craze, right?

 

[JIO]

I'm sure that was the original design, and some dude took a lefty and flipped it over and started a whole new craze, right?

You do know that there were 2 very different T-bird designs in the 60's correct? This is an example of gen2.

If you do know this - you may not know the original was designed by an industrial designer (not a musician) and did his best to create a very deliberately different looking instrument. (reversed of a Fender style body) It was changed due to a Fender law suite resulting in the later 60's non-reversed design.

(note: see post #129915 for clarification)

 

[GBassNorth]

It's against the rules to be content with the Birds you already have. For my part, I'd only be tempted by a Gibson at a stupidly low price and one of the others would have to go. I'm very attached to all three of my Birds, therefore I am happy to flout the club rules.

You Floutist!

Well, I only have the one Bird. I always wanted one ever since I saw Nikki pounding on one during the Dr. Feelgood era, but I never could afford one back then. Honestly, I still can't really afford one of those super nice burst ones. But I managed to snag my Goth Bird with a few nicks here and there and no case for pretty damn cheap, so I took it.

I will say though, I really dislike the bridge. I just can't get the action down where I'd like it to be with this 3-point bridge. I'm considering swapping it for something else, but again, money.

One advantage the Goth has over many other TBirds is that you can also shim the neck to fine tune the action.

I won't be buying it, either, for a lot of reasons. But the pickup spacing is interesting. Putting a split P in mudbucker position sounds like what?

That would probably make for a very dark P.
Which is something you might want to see your urologist about.

 

[JIO]

The neck repair doesn't look so great, but if it's stable and it intonates, then I guess it's OK. I'm amazed at how expensive '60s Thunderbirds are now.

I agree. If I were interested, I'd be factoring in much work ($$) on it to address that neck/fb. The asking price (as is) is actually reasonable* in todays market but considering another grand may be needed to correct it - it then becomes less reasonable. *(reasonable to someone who wants and can justify the current asking price of a '66 T-bird)

 

[TerribleTim68]

You do know that there were 2 very different T-bird designs in the 60's correct? This is an example of gen2...

Nope, I don't know the history of the design.

 

[BklynKen]

This looks good...

Gibson Thunderbird Non-Reverse Bass 1966 Black

Was that really originally black? Looks like someone did a sloppy paint job and got it up the sides of the neck.

 

[Klondike]

He's a musician. Know any musicians who own stocks?

I do, probably not in the true meaning of the term musician as I spend far more than I make in the music industry.

 

[JIO]

Was that really originally black? Looks like someone did a sloppy paint job and got it up the sides of the neck.

Something like that - I can imagine there was a black '66 T-bird but what makes that bass look so badass is that it's all black with a black pg. I doubt that pg is original, and possibly the black was a bad re-fin. If I purchased it - it would be entirely stripped, repaired and refinished.

 

[Dadagoboi]

You do know that there were 2 very different T-bird designs in the 60's correct? This is an example of gen2.

If you do know this - you may not know the original was designed by an industrial designer (not a musician) and did his best to create a very deliberately different looking instrument. (reversed of a Fender style body) It was changed due to a Fender law suite resulting in the later 60's non-reversed design.

Fender NEVER threatened a suit, much less filed one. At most they were amused by the Thunderbird. This was 1963, a very different time. Companies rarely filed design patents or took other steps to protect designs. Fender's patents were all mechanical.

In fact, the NR looks more like a Fender (Jag/Jazzmaster) than the original Reverse does (reversed mutated Jag?).

Gibson changed the design because, A: The Reverse was not selling and required very intensive labor due to the neck through design and B: they had a bunch of left over metal parts as well as 1-1/4" thick mahogany used for SG bodies that could be cut, shaped, and routed for a neck pocket with simple rounded over edges. Control cavity was also SG. Necks were basically lengthened guitar necks with a simplified headstock compared to the carved Reverse.

 

[Engle]

It's not a pedal board. Nothing plugs into it. It's it's own instrument that makes little to no sense to normal people. I think it's incomprehensible, but it's great. I'm resisting going down that rabbit hole.

I figured it is a whole lot of signal generators, filters and other sound shaping gizmos

 

[Engle]

Do you have video of her playing trumpet and singing at the same time?

If it was physically possible she would.

 

[JIO]

Fender NEVER threatened a suit, much less filed one. At most they were amused by the Thunderbird. This was 1963, a very different time. Companies rarely filed design patents or took other steps to protect designs. Fender's patents were all mechanical.

In fact, the NR looks more like a Fender (Jag/Jazzmaster) than the original Reverse does (reversed mutated Jag?).

Gibson changed the design because, A: The Reverse was not selling and required very intensive labor due to the neck through design and B: they had a bunch of left over metal parts as well as 1-1/4" thick mahogany used for SG bodies that could be cut, shaped, and routed for a neck pocket with simple rounded over edges. Control cavity was also SG. Necks were basically lengthened guitar necks with a simplified headstock compared to the silly carved Reverse.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the NR looks nearly like a Jag/Jazzmasater. That design was the most copied/referenced guitar design in the 60's, especially reflected in the inexpensive guitars and short-scale basses from Japan. Most of those guitars/bass bodies were also 1-1/4".

 

[Engle]

Fender NEVER threatened a suit, much less filed one. At most they were amused by the Thunderbird. This was 1963, a very different time. Companies rarely filed design patents or took other steps to protect designs. Fender's patents were all mechanical.

In fact, the NR looks more like a Fender (Jag/Jazzmaster) than the original Reverse does (reversed mutated Jag?).

Gibson changed the design because, A: The Reverse was not selling and required very intensive labor due to the neck through design and B: they had a bunch of left over metal parts as well as 1-1/4" thick mahogany used for SG bodies that could be cut, shaped, and routed for a neck pocket with simple rounded over edges. Control cavity was also SG. Necks were basically lengthened guitar necks with a simplified headstock compared to the silly carved Reverse.

I’ve read the “Fender threatened a lawsuit” story many times, but it never made sense to me.

 

[dagrev]

Just wrapped up week six with the cast on. Had a Dr visit today and they removed the cast to check for mending. Much to my relief, the bone is healing and better than expected progress has been made. Looks like I'll avoid the surgery and titanium rod treatment! Now I have a removable "ski" boot I get to wear during the day for the next month with instructions to gently start trying to walk and put pressure on the foot, backing off if there's any pain.

Feels so nice to finally have that cast off. I plan on strapping on my 2015 THUNDERBIRD tomorrow to see if I can stand and make it through at least a few songs. Doc says she'll know for sure in a few weeks if any PT will be needed. Needless to say, I'm so stoked with the good news I can't get to sleep, hence 4:00am posting on TB.

Very glad to hear you received good news. Fantastic!