Talk:Gibson Explorer

X-Plorer

The Gibson X-plorer is the new, proper name... that info should be changed.

WHOEVER changed it back, look at the official Gibson page. They call it the X-plorer!

Jeeze.

24.86.144.101 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)jvp1@sfu.ca

Name

I don't approve of the fact that the main page continues to call it the "Explorer" and that the X-plorer page redirects here. The new name should be acknowledged as the proper one. At the very least it should be referred to as the "X-plorer" throughout the article.24.86.144.101 09:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)jvp1@sfu.ca

The article name is fine as it reflects the historical(and still official) name of the model. It mentions that it is marketed as X-plorer(a stupid name BTW) and that it is also marketed as Explorer Pro. It has never been officially re-badged by Gibson. Gibson, for some reason, has simply decided to market to dimwits by using the "X" brand as part of their X-Factor series. The article is fine the way it is. 156.34.142.110 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not "Futura"

The original run of Explorers was never marketed under any name but "Explorer." "Futura" was a name coined long, long after the fact for the two or three extant prototypes (in mahogany) which follow the patent drawing rather than the production shape, and subsequently Gibson used the name "Futura" for its reproductions of those prototypes.The only redesign of *production* Explorers was the replacement of the original forked headstock with the 'scimitar' shape after the first few examples.

"Futura" was a dim memory of the unofficial monickers circulating around the factory for the three 1958 solidbodies (collectively) during their development, before the Sales Department named them officially: Futuristic, Futura, Futurama, Modernistic, Modern, Moderna, Moderne. This last wound up attaching itself, also long after the fact, to the third, never-produced design.--Solicitr (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay- I'm not going to rework other editors' writing without raising it in Talk first. But the article at present contains some errors regarding the development and original run of the Explorer, so I though I'd set them out here.

1. In the middle 1950s, probably early 57, a commercial artist hired by Gibson did watercolor 'concept sketches' of futuristically-shaped electric guitars (based on pencil sketches by Ted McCarty), including the future Explorer- at that time without a cutaway.

2. In June 1957 Gibson filed design patent applications for three guitars: early versions of what would become the Flying V and Explorer, together with the mysterious "Moderne."

3. That same summer at the NAMM trade show in Chicago, a mockup prototype of the future Explorer, identical to the patent drawing, was photographed.

4. During the next months mahogany prototypes were made, still identical in shape to the patent drawing, two or three of which survive. Years later, copies of these prototypes would be marketed under the name "Futura."

5. Presumably in early 1958 production was begun. The production Korina guitar had a significantly wider waist then the patent drawing and "Futura" prototypes, but early examples (or serialized late prototypes) still retained the forked peghead.

6. In April 1958 a sales brochure was printed, naming the design "Explorer" for the first time: the guitar photographed had the later scimitar peghead.

7. The Explorer and Vee (and possibly the "Moderne", but I doubt it) were officially debuted at the summer 1958 NAMM show.

8. A 1958 shipping record for "22 Mod[ernistic]. Guitars" is believed by most to refer to Explorers. Gibson traditionally made instruments in batches of 40; if late prototypes were also serialised and sold (a common practice) then the total number of original Explorers would be between 40 and 50. On the other hand, it is possible that only a half-batch of 20 was ever made: these plus two prototypes would account for the recorded 22.--Solicitr (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In the absebce of protest, I've made the edits Solicitr (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Several sources indicate a batch of original Explorers and Flying V's (with nickel hardware) shipping from the factory in 1962-63. Those Explorers would conceivably make up the rest of the initial 40.

Somewhat off topic, but at least three Gibson execs and one from Fender recall seeing the Moderne prototype at the 1958 NAMM show. Granted, eyewitness accounts given 30+ years after the fact may not be the most reliable source. Nevertheless, best evidence suggests that several prototype Modernes were indeed constructed 1957-58. The Erlewine/Gruhn Moderne is probably one of them. The Billy Gibbons Moderne may be another. Dukeford (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression, I think based on a McCarty interview, that all the '63 nickel guitars were Vees. At any rate some of those exist, while I don't believe any Explorer does.

I'm agnostic as to whether a Moderne prototype was actually exhibited in '58. The sales brochures that had been printed in April only have the two guitars, which suggests to me that the Moderne had already been dropped; that doesn't necessarily mean that Gibson didn't trot out a prototype for the show. My private hypothesis for various reasons is that the Moderne was delayed and ultimately killed because the "Gumby" headstock simply didn't work- at least not without string trees, which McCarty would never have approved. The draftsman who did the Moderne patent drawing was working from a neckless body, unlike the X and V. A rank speculation is that trying to rework the Moderne headstock resulted in the droop-top that was then mated to the Explorer- but that's just guessin'.

I think it's possible that the Erlewine/Gruhn guitar might just be a Frankenderne, a genuine prototype body with neck and hardware (and that absurd pickguard) added. Erlewine certainly thought the body had all the hallmarks of being a genuine Gibson. The very fact that it's black argues for it.

Billy Gibbons- well, nobody's ever seen it. And BG isn't above spinning a yarn.Solicitr (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably correct on the '63 guitars. If Gibson had done a full run of 40 Explorers, there would be more extant.

The fact that the Moderne wasn't included in the 1958 sales brochures would certainly point to the design being dropped. And, if that were the case, why bring a prototype to the exhibit? Your hypothesis makes sense, since the "Gumby" headstock won't work without string trees. Still, would Gibson go to the trouble of submitting patent documents on a guitar without bothering to produce any protoypes? Most Gibson execs do agree that a handfull (2-4?) of Moderne prototypes were constructed. The Erlewine/Gruhn guitar might be one of Ted McCarty's "maverick" guitars, one-offs that left the factory without being put into production. Besides, who in the early '70's would have gone to the trouble of building a copy of a guitar that was, at the time, virtually unknown (then selling it for $175!!)?

Speaking of the E/G Moderne, since it was sold to a Japanese collector in the early '70's, could it be the model for the Ibanez Moderne copy? The layout is identical, including the (absurd) pickguard!

The pictures I've seen of the Gibbons Moderne(s) would indicate that Billy G. has more than one. The guitar in the B&W picture resembles the E/G Moderne, with fewer pickguard screws. The Moderne in the photo of Billy in the convertible might be an Ibanez copy, since it's blond. Both have Gibson "moustache" headstocks, like the E/G guitar. Dukeford (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Ibanez was copied from the E/G guitar. Pickguard, control knob location- all the same.

I think prototype Moderne bodies were made. At least one, unquestionably, since the patent drawing was taken from it. But how many if any of those bodies ever became complete guitars is another question entirely. My guess as to the E/G guitar is that some Gibson employee took a proto body home (legally or il-), and stuck on a standard Gibson neck. If the 'employee homebuilt' hypothesis is correct, the guy wasn't trying to forge the Sasquatch of axes, just making himself a guitar on the cheap. I built it one piece at a time.... Johnny Cash. Another dim possibility is that in order to have some sort of prototype, Gibson itself stuck a standard neck on one as a stopgap while a replacement for Gumby was worked out- but I think that unlikely, since so much of that guitar is very non-Gibson, starting with the pickguard.

Why would Gibson bother to file patent apps and not make prototypes? I think that (some of) the prototypes came first. But problems with the Moderne headstock became apparent immediately when the Custom Shop guys tried to make one- this certainly would explain why the draftsman (hired from outside, Gibson didn't keep any on payroll) was only given a body to work from, not a complete mockup as with the Explorer and Vee.

(Incidentally, this caused the draftsman to make an understandable but critical error- correct it, and the Moderne is suddenly a *much* more attractive instrument).

I wasn't aware that BG's axe had ever been photographed. Can you point me to a copy? I'd be particularly interested in where the control knobs are ocaded: my working theory is that they should be parallel to the cutout, not bisecting the lower 'leg' like the Vee.Solicitr (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The "employee homebuilt" scenario is certainly a possibility. However, Gibson's McCarty and John Huis both have stated that some of the prototypes were completely finished. Also, the "string tree" argument that McCarty would've vetoed their use is somewhat suspect, since the patent drawings for both the Moderne and the Explorer/Futura show trees on the headstocks (granted, the trees weren't ultimately used on the Futura or split headstock Explorers). Concerning the un-Gibsonlike pickguard - well, none of the three Korina guitars looked like anything Gibson had ever done previously; they were intended to compete with Fender's offerings, so why not a Fender-like pickguard?

If you haven't checked out either the "Les Paul Forum" or the "My Les Paul" forum, I strongly suggest you do so. Both have a series of (identical) posts on the Moderne that are enlightening and thought-provoking, with pictures of the Gibbons and E/G Moderne. Posters include Dan Erlewine, Robb Lawrence, and Ronald Wood, who has just finished a book on the Moderne. Duchossoir's book "Gibson Electrics" also has some good info on the Moderne and McCarty's "mavericks". Much of it can be read from a Google book search.

The Moderne is a fascinating enigma! Based on the available evidence and testimony of the involved parties, it is entirely likely that a couple of finished Modernes left the factory. However, since they were undoubtably non-serialized prototypes, it would be difficult to positively authenticate one, particularly if the guitar didn't have a Gumby headstock.Dukeford (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion thread. I'll have to get the book (I have Duchossoir and Wheeler). It's interesting that the first owner of the E/G guitar says he had it renecked at Gibson- but says the new one was a Melody Maker neck. The E/G clearly doesn't have a MM headstock! Hmmm.

The pickguard- partly because it's so huge. Ted was a penny-pincher, and p/g plastic wasn't to be wasted (that's why original Vees and Explorers have both black and white p/g's- by flipping the sheet over they could cut more out of it). Fender's were giant because the electronics were assembled and pre-wired to them, remember? Gibson went to the trouble of routing the control cavity from the rear and through-drilling; there was no need for a giant p/g to cover it all up. (Also, installing a Tune-O-Matic through a p/g can be done, but its a PITA).

String trees- remember, the patent draftsman was an outside contractor (TM confirmed this). Not a guitar guy. I reckon he stuck them on the X and M drawings because his ruler told him the strings wouldn't run straight. My own assessment is that Ted regarded string trees with disdain, like bolt-on necks and non-angled headstocks- good enough for Leo, maybe, but beneath Gibson's dignity. Certainly they weren't used on the fork-heads, even though that design had problems with string fouling (IMO, the reason it was dropped)- I've seen a photo where the owner said to hell with it and strung the thing inside-out.

Whatever headstock a hypothetical production Moderne would have wound up with, it would have been unusual, not the standard mustache.

"Three korina guitars." Are you sure? I think it more likely than not that the Moderne was always supposed to be painted black- and thus usign korina would have been a waste of expensive wood. The watercolor sketch is marked "poplar"- the Michigan analogue to the alder Fender was using. Or mahogany, Gibson's go-to wood.

Pickups

It's not appropriate I think to narrowly specify the pickup models used on *current production* Explorers, since the article covers the model generally. The original '58s had two PAFs (both the same, there was no neck/bridge distiction.) The '76s had dual T-buckers, again both the same. What can be said of the Explorer is that it has always had two humbuckers. It has not always had a 498 and a 500.Solicitr (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Danny Ferrington acoustic

Is it worth mentioning the two explorer shaped acoustic guitars Danny Ferrington made for Nick Lowe and Carlene Carter. http://innocentwords.com/carlene-carter-guitars-have-a-lot-of-heart-to-them/