Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Eastwood stormbird, my review

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Eastwood stormbird, my review

    Today I went to this Belgian shop that I discovered purely by accident last week when making a wrong turn on the way to a party. This shop looked like a fun little shop to visit from what I could see from my headlights shining into the darkness. In short I was bound to return there when the opportunity would present itself and today was the day.

    When I walked in i was delighted to learn that they carried Eastwood guitars, which had attracted my attention from the moment they first appeared. So I got my hands on a Sunburst specimen of their Non-reverse Firebird (Why do they call that a "Non-reverse" when it's actually the normal Firebird shaped reversed?) renamed the Stormbird.



    And here's my review.

    Overall feel
    The guitar is a big wide and fat affair, which suits me fine being a player who uses explorers as his main stage guitars so I felt at home with that. The overall weight of the Stormbird was medium, not as heavy as a good Les Paul. Bulk, however, was plentiful in the neck, this certainly is no neck for people with small hands, it feels like a good size baseball bat and the Jumbo frets added to that feel of having a big guitar in your hands. Comfort issues weren't really that much of a hassle, it does feel neck heavy when played sitting down (I didn't strap it on) but with the long headstock with the cast-sealed tuners that shouldn't have come as a surprise. The guitar was set up with a set of 009 strings which clearly couldn't bring out the best this guitar can offer and frankly for me they feel like rubberbands.

    Nooks and crannies
    The fret ends of this guitar were worked out well, no razorsharp ends sticking out to slash your fingers. But the finish on the neck covering the sides of the fingerboard could benifit from more eye to detail. The edges were rough and charred, they were buffed to a shine but you could still feel them. Equally rough was the pickguard, there wasn't one straight and neat routing to be found and the edging was hobbly and crude. The P90 pickups looked rather cheap (more about them later). And frankly I thought that the sunburst looked a little too yellow for my taste. Kudos however on the hardware, the pots feel sturdy and solid, the bridge and tailpiece are two big hunking pieces of hardware and there's nothing wrong with cast sealed tuners.

    Riders on the Storm
    I love the big fat neck, it just feels like you're holding a quality piece of wood in your hands. Bending strings of course with a Gibson scale length is a breeze. (although with the flimsy 009 set, it's easy to go overboard with this)
    For the righthand, the Gotoh bridge is a comfortable resting point, no high up saddels piercing your skin here. Apart from the neck dive I mentioned earlier, it's a comfortable instrument to play.

    Songs of the bird
    I plugged the Stormbird in to a Marshall valvestate Halfstack and let loose. Clean, the bridge pickup sounded like it needed a plasma transfusion and it needed it QUICKLY. The Bridge pickup sounded shrill and had a noticably less output than the neck pickup. That neck pickup however was a real winner, seldom have I heard a P90 sound so sweet and blooming. I could do a very convincing Jazzbox impersionation on it. When combined, the two pickups also made for a very sweet sounding guitar. Okay, time for the dirty channel.
    As soon as I pushed in the channel selector I reached for the volume control to turn it down because the bridge pickup just began to screech like a Pig about to be slaughtered and it wasn't even on moderate gain levels, fickling about with the controls on both the guitar and on the amp helped but not much. The neck pickup however was a delight, I could do those Dave Murray (Iron maiden player who favors the neck pickup for his solos) leads or turn down the gain and do Clapton's woman tone, this is how a P90 in the neck position of a guitar should sound.

    To buy or not to buy?
    To be honest I'm a bit torn about this guitar, it has a GREAT neck, it has an absolutley wonderful sounding neck pickup, it looks great and it plays like butter. But on the other hand you have this rather crudly routed pickguard, the too yellow looking sunburst, cheap looking plastic parts and a horrible Bridge pickup. I can't say if all Eastwood Stormbirds are like this but this particullar example didn't really leave me with a sense of awe. As a luthier and a repairman I can easily adress such issues but I'm not really that sure if a guitar in this price range will be worth it. Never the less, I love the way the Non-reverse Firebird looks and I'm glad that eastwood have brought the look of that guitar closer for my to obtain without my having to spend thousands of bucks on an original.

    I asked the guy if he could order me one in white. "No problem" he said "But it'll take around eight weeks to arrive"

    Would be a nice addition to my white strat I recon.


    but in the end I'm still not quite convinced that I should get myself one.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Blazer View Post
    So I got my hands on a Sunburst specimen of their Non-reverse Firebird (Why do they call that a "Non-reverse" when it's actually the normal Firebird shaped reversed?)
    The "normal" Gibson Firebird you're used to seeing is actually the Reverse model, and the shape similar to this Eastwood was a Non-Reverse model.
    I feel my soul go cold... only the dead are smiling.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by toejam View Post
      The "normal" Gibson Firebird you're used to seeing is actually the Reverse model, and the shape similar to this Eastwood was a Non-Reverse model.
      It still doesn't make sense though, if the original Firebird shape is reversed to create the "Non-reverse" styling then why are they referring the original style as "reverse" in the first place? If the original style was meant to be "reverse" then what was it the reverse of?

      For those who don't understand what I'm talking about. Here's a Firebird in the original "reverse" styling.


      And this is a Gibson Firebird in the reversed body styling that for some mysterious reason people call "non-reverse"


      I still don't get why they call a reversed body "non-reverse"

      Comment


      • #4
        This is an original Firebird:


        This is a 'reverse' Firebird:



        However, the 'reverse' is the one that is popular, and so inevitably got referred to just as a Firebird. So, the original design became 'non reverse'. Make sense?
        Popular is not the same as good
        Rare is not the same as valuable
        Worth is what someone will pay, not what you want to get

        Comment


        • #5
          Nope, you're wrong here. The first styling was the reverse styling which was made from 1963 until 1965 when the entire range got revamped with flipped over body style creating the 'non-reverse' style. In my post the pictures were in correct order.

          Comment


          • #6
            Gibson had made forays into radical body shapes - the Flying V and Explorer) in the 1950s - but they failed. The president of Gibson, Ted McCarty, hired car designer Ray Dietrich to design a guitar that would have popular appeal. Under Dietrich, the Firebird took on the lines of mid-50s car tailfins. Dietrich took the Explorer design and rounded the edges. The most unusual aspect is that the guitar is "backward" in that the right-hand (treble) horn of the body is longer than the other. Thus, the original Firebirds were unofficially referred to as "reverse".
            Does that clear anything up?

            Comment


            • #7
              The non-reverse Firebirds are ugly as fuck. The End.
              "POOP"

              Comment


              • #8
                I tend to agree.
                Sleep!!, That's where I'm a viking!!

                http://www.myspace.com/grindhouseadtheband

                Comment


                • #9
                  Mark Morton watched a reverse and non-reverse Firebird fuck, then he stole their baby and called it his own...

                  :ROTF:
                  I feel my soul go cold... only the dead are smiling.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Blazer View Post
                    Nope, you're wrong here. The first styling was the reverse styling which was made from 1963 until 1965 when the entire range got revamped with flipped over body style creating the 'non-reverse' style. In my post the pictures were in correct order.
                    you not know what you thinks you know
                    the guitar players look damaged - they've been outcasts all their lives

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Gibson should have called the non-reverse Firebird the Fireplace because its so ugly it belongs in one.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        FireBird/ThunderBird guitar/bass/reverse/non-reverse...WHATEVER...they all just don't do it for me unless it HAS A POINTY HEADSTOCK AND SHARKFINS:


                        http://youtube.com/amimbari

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jgcable View Post
                          Gibson should have called the non-reverse Firebird the Fireplace because its so ugly it belongs in one.
                          the non-reverse is indeed homely in the right-handed version

                          Paul Raymond of UFO had the clue, he just flipped one over and strung it lefty for when he was on rhythm guitar and it looked great on him.
                          the guitar players look damaged - they've been outcasts all their lives

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Blazer View Post
                            Nope, you're wrong here. The first styling was the reverse styling which was made from 1963 until 1965 when the entire range got revamped with flipped over body style creating the 'non-reverse' style. In my post the pictures were in correct order.

                            Nope. Neilli had it right.
                            I want to depart this world the same way I arrived; screaming and covered in someone else's blood

                            The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

                            My Blog: http://newcenstein.com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              LOL, sucks when you are so sure you are right, but everyone else knows different.
                              Sleep!!, That's where I'm a viking!!

                              http://www.myspace.com/grindhouseadtheband

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X