# Rare Gibson I had never heard of.



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Regardless of what people think of Scott groove, he gets his hands on some cool guitars


[video=youtube_share;yya9YzbiQ7I]http://youtu.be/yya9YzbiQ7I[/video]


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

I have an '83 Challenger one and it's a real nice guitar, a good player, exactly the same as that one but with a single humbucker.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

Except it's not red anymore...




















...about a year ago I stripped it and refinished it in tv yellow, it's still in pieces right now but it's going back together one day soon and I'll post a thread at that point, btw the pick up really sucks, it's a harsh tinny pos, soon to be cured with a pair of gibby dirty fingers.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Is that not a bit of the Epi Nighthawk shape?


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

Might just be the camera angle, I think if you compared it to a regular LP from the same year the would be pretty much identical, not as tight a waist as a nighthawk, gibby or epi.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Jimmy_D said:


> Might just be the camera angle, I think if you compared it to a regular LP from the same year the would be pretty much identical, not as tight a waist as a nighthawk, gibby or epi.


Just looks like an LPJ with different pick guards/pups to me.


----------



## EchoWD40 (Mar 16, 2007)

the guitar was crap when it came out, still crap today. No offense.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Googling around, I see that the bodies on the Challenger series are actual wood, as opposed to the composite bodies found on the Sonex.

Is the blue, visible under the red finish, a previous finish on the same body? Or is it some preparatory undercoat?


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

TDeneka said:


> the guitar was crap when it came out, still crap today. No offense.


As noted the electrics are crap, you may think it looks like schitt or whatever but aside from that I can only assume you've never handled or played one, or have no idea how to set up a guitar yourself or in general have no clue as the guitar itself is a good quality well playing instrument.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Googling around, I see that the bodies on the Challenger series are actual wood, as opposed to the composite bodies found on the Sonex.
> 
> Is the blue, visible under the red finish, a previous finish on the same body? Or is it some preparatory undercoat?


It's a 3 piece body but the mahogany is tropical south american for sure, looks like the primer was blue, then a clear coat, then the red, then a clear topcoat. The neck is a work of art, it's maple with an ebony board and the fretwork is excellent.

I don't think it was a refinish as they were sold in this colour and the original factory scribbling is present under the blue primer in some of the cavities, I found no trace of any other paint.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Interesting, regarding the blue undercoat. Anybody ever seen that colour of primer before?

As an aside, between the Challenger, the Marauder, S-1, L-6S, and the Sonex, you have to wonder how Gibson had the unmitigated gall to go after PRS for infringing on the LP trademark with the Single-cut. For decades, Gibson had strayed far from the LP, and been a party to fostering the notion that "regardless, of all else, solid-body guitars generally have a single cutaway".


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

TDeneka said:


> the guitar was crap when it came out, still crap today. No offense.


I think it'd be interesting listening to you and Jack White talk about guitars...............


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

I just bought an Ibanez GAX 70 yesterday at a pawn shop. Talked him down from 100.00 to 65 bucks. 
I also have some GFS Alnico single coils waiting for a guitar. 
Maybe a copy cat project is in order


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Jimmy_D said:


> Might just be the camera angle, I think if you compared it to a regular LP from the same year the would be pretty much identical, not as tight a waist as a nighthawk, gibby or epi.


Okay, thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

I think i have the Gibson Sales Brochure, with this guitar in it..


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Jimmy_D said:


> I have an '83 Challenger one and it's a real nice guitar, a good player, exactly the same as that one but with a single humbucker.


To my knowledge, no USA Gibson ever had a headstock like that. There were some Gibson by Baldwin that did. The Gibson by Baldwin would normally be on the back of the headstock near the neck.

Another anomaly is the Gibson logo is too close to the top of the headstock...so that would lead me to believe that it is Gibson by Baldwin as well.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

smorgdonkey said:


> To my knowledge, no USA Gibson ever had a headstock like that. There were some Gibson by Baldwin that did. The Gibson by Baldwin would normally be on the back of the headstock near the neck.
> 
> Another anomaly is the Gibson logo is too close to the top of the headstock...so that would lead me to believe that it is Gibson by Baldwin as well.


awww dude... so close but today, no cigar my friend;


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2014)

Rick31797 said:


> I think i have the Gibson Sales Brochure, with this guitar in it..


the left page is a corvus. another rarity (I've never seen one).


----------



## EchoWD40 (Mar 16, 2007)

Jimmy_D said:


> As noted the electrics are crap, you may think it looks like schitt or whatever but aside from that I can only assume you've never handled or played one, or have no idea how to set up a guitar yourself or in general have no clue as the guitar itself is a good quality well playing instrument.


to assume is to make an ass of you and me. 
I've handled 3 of these guitars. I've also been playing guitar for over 20 years, so to think I wouldn't know how to set up a guitar is pretty funny! 
These guitars were made on the cheap, even using some identical parts from the sonex. It's fine that you want to think your guitar is great quality, but when you look at the 3 piece body, bolt on neck, re-used parts, anyone who is unbiased would see that its a typical norlin era guitar, especially a student model. It was cheap when it was new for a reason. 
sorry dude. 




High/Deaf said:


> I think it'd be interesting listening to you and Jack White talk about guitars...............


LOL!


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

TDeneka said:


> to assume is to make an ass of you and me.
> I've handled 3 of these guitars. I've also been playing guitar for over 20 years, so to think I wouldn't know how to set up a guitar is pretty funny!
> These guitars were made on the cheap, even using some identical parts from the sonex. It's fine that you want to think your guitar is great quality, but when you look at the 3 piece body, bolt on neck, re-used parts, anyone who is unbiased would see that its a typical norlin era guitar, especially a student model. It was cheap when it was new for a reason.
> sorry dude.
> ...


Okay so you selected my third option, I thank you for confirming my suspicions.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Reminds me of the Gibson S1 from the mid 70's


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Or the Maurader from the same era. Gibson had a bunch of "flops" in there.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i know alot of people like to believe that set necks have the best sustain, but i wonder if that's true in all cases. just because something is a bolt on neck doesn't automatically make it bad. leo originally was doing it for ease of manufacture, and service, afaik. i don't know, but i'd be willing to bet that most of us are capable of swapping a new neck off and onto a strat. by the same turn, i'd also bet the amount of guys here who are capable of doing that to a les paul is a fraction of a percent. 
yet there are tons of examples that readily spring to mind, of bolt on neck guitars producing sweet tones that made music history. these days cnc and other tech have made a bolt neck the hallmark of a starter guitar. however, there's too much evidence to suggest that it's a desirable method of construction because it produces good tone and sustain. the benefits to building and service are just icing on the cake. at least, that's my take on it.


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

And now starts the great tone debate. Haha.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

"Did you pay for the 5 minute argument or the full half-hour?"


----------



## EchoWD40 (Mar 16, 2007)

Jimmy_D said:


> Okay so you selected my third option, I thank you for confirming my suspicions.


It's cute when little boys want to justify what they own


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Lincoln said:


> Reminds me of the Gibson S1 from the mid 70's
> View attachment 10594


That one reminds me of Brian May a little.


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

TDeneka said:


> It's cute when little boys want to justify what they own


Just an FYI, most people will ignore your jokes until you have a positive feedback score.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Lincoln said:


> Reminds me of the Gibson S1 from the mid 70's
> View attachment 10594



Thats actually better looking headstock than the open book. 
They had 7 position switching in those for Tele sounds and all three on at once.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

TDeneka said:


> It's cute when little boys want to justify what they own


Excellent troll bait but not for me, I was simply trying to point out you don't have a clue and you've proceeded to prove me right, over and over... thank you.


----------



## EchoWD40 (Mar 16, 2007)

Jimmy_D said:


> Excellent troll bait but not for me, I was simply trying to point out you don't have a clue and you've proceeded to prove me right, over and over... thank you.


yeah, I figured as much. you're a joke.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

TDeneka said:


> yeah, I figured as much. you're a joke.


You could always go 7uck yourself


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

Jimmy_D said:


> You could always go 7uck yourself


And you could learn some manners.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Jimmy_D said:


> awww dude... so close but today, no cigar my friend;
> 
> View attachment 10593


Heavy duty - I am surprised. I remember lots of ads from back then but not that one.


Oh, and Jimmy...be careful messing with Tatanka, he's 6'5 and 210 Lbs, boxes and has a 10 pound bag of fat hanging off of his shoulder blade.


----------



## EchoWD40 (Mar 16, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> Heavy duty - I am surprised. I remember lots of ads from back then but not that one.
> 
> 
> Oh, and Jimmy...be careful messing with Tatanka, he's 6'5 and 210 Lbs, boxes and has a 10 pound bag of fat hanging off of his shoulder blade.


Anyone with a brain would know with those dimensions, having a 10 lb bag of fat isn't possible. 10/10


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

DrHook said:


> And you could learn some manners.


OMG I'm sorry your sensibilities have been offended, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually read the thread and the troll's history and then you may revise your comments, let me know because if not I do have some advice for you also...


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

I think he meant your head is the 10 lb bag of fat...lol




TDeneka said:


> Anyone with a brain would know with those dimensions, having a 10 lb bag of fat isn't possible. 10/10


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Rick31797 said:


> I think he meant your head is the 10 lb bag of fat...lol


Careful...he's also psychic.


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

Jimmy_D said:


> OMG I'm sorry your sensibilities have been offended, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually read the thread and the troll's history and then you may revise your comments, let me know because if not I do have some advice for you also...


There are many kinds of trolls, I'm sure you fit in there somewhere. You have advice for me, and I have some for you, whenever you resort to spewing insults....no matter how right you think you are....you just lost. Whether he was a troll or you were doesn't matter...it's a forum and we all love a good debate...but NO ONE appreciates the vitriol you seem to be filled with and eager to share.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

DrHook said:


> There are many kinds of trolls, I'm sure you fit in there somewhere. You have advice for me, and I have some for you, whenever you resort to spewing insults....no matter how right you think you are....you just lost. Whether he was a troll or you were doesn't matter...it's a forum and we all love a good debate...but NO ONE appreciates the vitriol you seem to be filled with and eager to share.


Okay then... go ahead and take my advice.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Jeez Louise! Do I have to send you guys to your rooms without supper...again!!?

1) MANNERS AND PATIENCE, FOLKS!

2) Gibson clearly went through a period during the late 70's and early-to-mid 80's, where they were "wandering in the desert", in search of possibly a new identity. The products generated during that "experimental" period, elicited a variety of opinions, good and bad. A work buddy had a Marauder and loved it. Santana endorsed the L6-S, and Ron Wood endorsed the S-1. A big chunk of the reputation of the late Bill Lawrence came from the opportunities for pickup experimentation that Gibson provided him during that period.

But at the same time, it seemed to lead to a temporary neglect of what they had traditionally been best at doing. That's not their unique sin. Consider the Martin solid-bodies, or the Fender semi-acoustics like the Starcaster or Coronado, or the (cough cough) Katana. Gibson weren't the only ones caught up in trying to be different.

Ironically, the pendulum has swung back the other way, and any attempts by Gibson to introduce the new and different (e.g., the Dusk Tiger, or Firebird X) tends to be met by serious resistance among many. Granted, some of those new products, like the Zoot Suit SG, probably have more in common with the Corvus than with a 59 Burst or ES-175.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

good post. certainly that's a factor. i remember those days. the LP was a fogey's guitar. if it wasn't pointy, it wasn't shit. that was the attitude of alot of new players of the time. except for the SG, explorer, and vee. those were pointy enough, and the SG had angus. and maybe even that might explain their current branding which relies so heavily on misty nostalgia. like the harley crowd, their (is that the right one? i'm not sure) core customer likes things the old fashioned way. these days, they are especially vociferous, and they have deep pockets. 

imo, they seem to have the approach of let's throw mud on the wall and see what sticks. i can't suggest a better way, but my instinct insists there must be one. i like that they are trying to move guitars into the future. i think it's necessary for it's survival, and maybe even for the survival of rock and roll as we know it. i hope they continue to attempt to mdernize the instrument. and i hope they continue to push those developments into the public's hands. sooner or later, an artist will come along who knows how to make use of one of these changes in a way we didn't expect. i hope i get to see it.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Throw mud on the wall is right.

Can't remember the name of it right now but Fender came out with a very fugly guitar (about the same time as those Gibson single coils) aimed squarly at the LP,
funny body shape, 2 buckers, wrap-around bridge, 3-way switch placed where it would be on an LP, etc.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Lincoln said:


> Throw mud on the wall is right.
> 
> Can't remember the name of it right now but Fender came out with a very fugly guitar (about the same time as those Gibson single coils) aimed squarly at the LP,
> funny body shape, 2 buckers, wrap-around bridge, 3-way switch placed where it would be on an LP, etc.



it was called the Esprit. Robben Ford endorsed them for about 5-8 years. 
Those were high quality guitars and quite nice to play.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

These were the Master series guitars,they were made in Japan, i have one, its a 1984...




djmarcelca said:


> it was called the Esprit. Robben Ford endorsed them for about 5-8 years.
> Those were high quality guitars and quite nice to play.


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

I have one of those illegitimate bastards that was sent to live with relatives  The Gibson Spirit was meant as a variation of the Les Paul Special and due to poor promotion was deemed unfit to continue....but alas...a lot of guitars were already in construction...and were quickly rebranded as Epiphone Spirit. Basically it's all gibson parts and manufacture including Tim Shaw pickups...omg these are sweet sounding, and the Gibson headstock with the Epiphone U.S.A. logo really throws people off  Mine is a 1982.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

That's a lovely-looking guitar. Also looks like it must have been a real bear to re-string, though.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

No hammer, he's just top wrapping the strings through the tail piece.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Ahhhh! Gotcha. Thanks.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

Rick and DJ were talking about a Fender Esprit though, this one...









That's a nice Epi though with a Schaller bridge that's made in two pieces, the bar that hold the strings slides out so it actually is very easy to string, just pull it out and drop in all six strings and then go.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

On the other hand I'd absolutely love to get my hands on the Gibson Spirit XPL. 
Kaheler locking tremolo
Explorer headstock
splittable humbuckers.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Jimmy_D said:


> DrHook said:
> 
> 
> > And you could learn some manners.
> ...


Jimmy D you're just as much a troll as anyone else here.

Did you know it's possible to defend yourself without resorting to name calling?

FWIW I happen to like Norlin era Gibsons.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

hardasmum said:


> Jimmy D you're just as much a troll as anyone else here.
> 
> Did you know it's possible to defend yourself without resorting to name calling?
> 
> FWIW I happen to like Norlin era Gibsons.


You can also take my advice...


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Jimmy_D said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy D you're just as much a troll as anyone else here.
> ...


And thanks for proving my point.

Good night folks.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

A guy calls a guitar that someone's working on crap without explanation and Jimmys the troll. I would've done the same thing.

I don't know Jimmy's history on the forum, but just looking at this thread, he was fine until prodded. Maybe we like to get him angry? 

...and none of us resort to name calling?

And to stay relevant - I thought the op video sounded really good.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

adcandour said:


> I don't know Jimmy's history on the forum,


Amen brother.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

adcandour said:


> A guy calls a guitar that someone's working on crap without explanation and Jimmys the troll. I would've done the same thing.
> 
> I don't know Jimmy's history on the forum, but just looking at this thread, he was fine until prodded. Maybe we like to get him angry?
> 
> ...


Im with you on this.
Jimmy was no worse than TDeneka in this thread.

Still not sure why this became such a heated topic though.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

You guys need to stop and keep on topic or else someone is gonna get a spanking...........


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

My history is I build plenty of guitars and have done so for longer than some members have been alive, where I know what I'm talking about, I post, where I don't know what I'm talking about (recording, amps and other places on this forum), I don't post, I keep my mouth shut and read.

Nothing I've written in any section_ outside the political forum_ can in any way be construed as trolling unless you're a troll yourself, there is no "vitriol" or "name calling" (other than "clueless") or any of the other schitt posted by some of the guys here, which is why they haven't quoted any.

If someone wants to call me whatever they like, that's fine with me go right ahead, unless they're wrong, in which case I'm the first to say "take my advice". 

On topic is these are all nice guitars posted here and I wish I had one of the Fenders I posted above...


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Personally I would not object if Gibson brought back some of these pickup configurations in a LP double cut body (Spirit)
and with the Explorer Headstock.
A Strat single coil setup, HSS, and HSH with splitters would be a welcome change from the barely distinguishable differences in Les Paul models that cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

djmarcelca said:


> Personally I would not object if Gibson brought back some of these pickup configurations in a LP double cut body (Spirit)
> and with the Explorer Headstock.
> A Strat single coil setup, HSS, and HSH with splitters would be a welcome change from the barely distinguishable differences in Les Paul models that cost an arm and a leg.


Good point.
Its almost as though at some point, an armistice was created where Gibson agreed to give fender the single coil segment of the market, and Fender agreed to only dabble with humbuckers.


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

Accept2 said:


> You guys need to stop and keep on topic or else someone is gonna get a spanking...........


A spanking! A spanking!

[video=youtube;7rXFhHM3x4A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXFhHM3x4A[/video]

Neil


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Diablo said:


> Good point.
> Its almost as though at some point, an armistice was created where Gibson agreed to give fender the single coil segment of the market, and Fender agreed to only dabble with humbuckers.


I don't know about dabble. 
In every model Fender makes they offer a humbucker version now.
particularly Tele's, Jaguars and Strats. 

I own a Vintage Modified Jaguar with double buckers. It's a remarkably nice player and sounding guitar.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Diablo said:


> Good point.
> Its almost as though at some point, an armistice was created where Gibson agreed to give fender the single coil segment of the market, and Fender agreed to only dabble with humbuckers.


I don't know if it was an agreement, so much as a recognition of "brand", and what needed to be done to preserve it. Fender has acquired a number of other companies. From their corporate site: "T_oday, FMIC brands include Fender®, Squier®, Gretsch®, Jackson®, Charvel®, EVH®, SWR® and Groove Tubes®, among others. FMIC also manufactures a complete line of professional audio equipment under the Fender brand, including the innovative Passport® portable sound system. Fender also offers a complete line of accessories, including strings, authorized replacement parts, cases, straps, clothing and much more. 

In January of 2008, FMIC also acquired Kaman Music Corporation (KMC), the largest independent U.S. distributor of musical instruments and accessories. KMC produces and/or distributes Ovation®, Takamine® and Hamer® guitars; Latin Percussion®, Gretsch® Drums, Gibraltar® Hardware, Toca® Percussion, Sabian® cymbals and Genz Benz® amplifiers; in addition to a full catalog of more than 36,000 wholesale music products. _"

I don't know when each of these were acquired, but I would imagine that some of the trends, and trend-reversals, we've seen in Fender's product line may have come from a need to establish clearer boundaries between the parent company (Fender), and the wholly-owned subsidiaries. So, for example, to keep the Gretsch brand alive and healthy, I suspect we will not see the release of any Fenders that resemble Gretsch guitars or Gretsch that look vaguely Fender-ish. I suspect that experiments like the Coronado were feasible when Fender was _only_ Fender and not a conglomerate of multiple guitar-making brands.

While Gibson is by no means a small company, the brands they own are somewhat more limited, including Epiphone, Baldwin, Wurlitzer, Steinberger, Valley Arts, Slingerland (drums) and Tobias (bass).

I'm sure each of them (Fender and Gibson) do what they feel they need to do in order to distinguish their brand/products from the other one, and also further distinguish the brands they own.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

djmarcelca said:


> I don't know about dabble.
> In every model Fender makes they offer a humbucker version now.
> particularly Tele's, Jaguars and Strats.
> 
> I own a Vintage Modified Jaguar with double buckers. It's a remarkably nice player and sounding guitar.


I don't know that humbuckers are large part of their marketshare though. Offering and selling are sometimes two different things


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

IF your talking about these Master series guitars i don't really see them as fugly..this one i bought about 5 yrs ago, 





















Lincoln said:


> Throw mud on the wall is right.
> 
> Can't remember the name of it right now but Fender came out with a very fugly guitar (about the same time as those Gibson single coils) aimed squarly at the LP,
> funny body shape, 2 buckers, wrap-around bridge, 3-way switch placed where it would be on an LP, etc.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

Some good info on these to be found here http://www.masterseriesguitars.com/ they look like a nice instrument.


Edit; are the trem and locking nut stock? and check it out, looks like you have the Flame model...


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

They sent some back to fender in the USA to have the trem and locking nut install, nobody knows the exact number, i have heard about 100 or so...
This one is a 1984 Fender Flame Elite...




Jimmy_D said:


> Some good info on these to be found here http://www.masterseriesguitars.com/ they look like a nice instrument.
> 
> 
> Edit; are the trem and locking nut stock? and check it out, looks like you have the Flame model...


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Option1 said:


> A spanking! A spanking!


It's too perilous ...especially for Tatanka - that sack o fat on his shoulder blade would get in the way.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

why not just tie the sack shut, then he could put it down?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Rick31797 said:


> IF your talking about these Master series guitars i don't really see them as fugly..this one i bought about 5 yrs ago,


no, other than the kahler, which I hate, that guitar is nyyyce!


----------

