From a purely visual point of view, I'm admittedly not digging a bunch about what the FirebirdX production model looks like, from most angles. I will also admit that Henry's bold "This is Revolution" would have been more palatable if the thing came in traditional colors, namely Black, Ivory, 2TS.
Such may not look the part of an extreme teh revolushunz, but I'd have a harder time disliking the overdone gaudy aesthetics on a classic Gibson shape.
Their heeeerrreeee: Firebird X at Alto Music only $4000!
Moderated By: mods
This.plaidbeer wrote:A friend who used to be part-owner in a retail shop told me Gibson force-ships guitars like this (super-expensive or hard-to-sell) to Gibson dealers. Once the guitar sells (no matter how much the price is slashed to get rid of it), Gibson then says, "See, these guitars sell!". And then another overpriced, hard-to-sell guitar is released and the cycle continues.
Gibson's biggest (and only) non-GC dealer in Milwaukee is still trying to move the 2006 special edition Les Pauls. And those looked NORMAL. It's just the color and the price - practically everyone who wants a Paul wants it in white, black, or Page-burst. Meanwhile, half their new stock has to be Gibsons, so they can't display as many guitars that would sell.
Gibson's only other dealer in the area had to drop them because they were literally being driven out of business.
I just can't believe they put the Firebird name on a guitar that isn't even shaped like a Firebird.damienblair17 wrote:As you guys may or may not know, I love the firebird/thunderbird shape. I think it's great (in theory) that gibson is giving it some love. Of course, this is really dumb looking, and is not worthy of the firebird name.
Real non reverse Firebird(damn I love these; will own at some point).
Real reverse Firebird.
This piece of shit is not even close.
Fuck this guitar. I agree with jcyphe about the finish being interesting, but it's not suited for a high dollar guitar imo. To me it would work on an old cheesy 60s Japanese guitar or an Italia or something.
skip wrote:satan rules
agreed. the finish and switching features are actually kind of cool. not $4000 cool, mind, but cool nonetheless. the body shape and maple neck is what makes it look godawful. it's like some kind of pitiful mutant dwarf firebird.jcyphe wrote:That looks like a proper finish, not tort that was used for the top.
I've seen that paint effect recently on many things, i think it's actually interesting. Better than the same old boring Fender/Gibson colors. I think for a new model it's good to try new finishes.
The only thing really bad about this, is the body shape, it looks oafish.
to me the finish is reminiscent of this guitar:
For how much shit I talk about Gibson, I love the LP, SG, 335, Flying V, Explorer, most of the archtops, and almost all the acoustics.
My complaint comes because, when adjusted for inflation or CPI, Gibsons cost 2-3 times what they did in the 20s-60s. Except back then they were almost entirely hand made.
And they introduce idiotic ideas like the Firebird X and drive shops out of business.
My complaint comes because, when adjusted for inflation or CPI, Gibsons cost 2-3 times what they did in the 20s-60s. Except back then they were almost entirely hand made.
And they introduce idiotic ideas like the Firebird X and drive shops out of business.
