elduave Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Once, there was only the Explorer. That was the right shape. Then came the Standard. Eventually, that became the shape. Now, the Ultimate. Subtly different has become right. I saw a pic of a 93 Explorer the other day and it looked wrong.
soli'd Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 Just about every explorer shape that wasn't a Hamer has looked wrong to me since 1976. Until these ultimates...
bubs_42 Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 I'm not going to slam Gibson, but I will say that when I pick up an Explorer it just feels odd to me.
RobB Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 I like the slightly down-sized shape of the Ultimate. A little les ungainly than an Explorer and comfortable to sling low.
hamerhead Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 It would be awesome to see them all side-by-side. I know the differences should hit me in the face, but they don't, really. A side-by-side would probably be quite an eye-opener.
Hackubus Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 I can't get over how "wrong" the Gibson Explorers look to me anymore. Kinda like the arrow in the FedEx logo, once you spot it, you'll never unsee it.
Jakeboy Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 I concur with the need to see a side-by-side shot.....
veatch Posted September 14, 2015 Posted September 14, 2015 I think the best chance of an Explorer, Dean Z, Standard, Ultimate comparison will be when Gene gets #28...
BTMN Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 No Gibbers here. Ever. Except an Explorer 90 the 90% size one. On the comparison shot. i already had a threesome in my head, Vintage, Modern Vintage, and New Vintage and now perhaps multiple brands.
serial Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 From this past Friday nigt's gig. My top two Explorer-shapes (my blueburst 78 Standard isn't shabby either):
elduave Posted September 15, 2015 Author Posted September 15, 2015 CM actually explained it to me simply, and it made total sense. In my words, on the Ultimate, the part that sits closest to your belly button is "steeper," on the neck side, and the "waist" is a bit narrower than a Standard.Edited to add, the Gibson Explorer now look like Futura-ish to me, which you can hopefully see in Steve's pic above.
hamerhead Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 It's funny you say that, Dave. I did a Google search hoping to find them paired up and the Gibson sure enough looked Futura-ish to me , too.Chris's pictures really show how svelte the Ultimate looks next to the Standard. I never woulda guessed it.
serial Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 I can't get over how "wrong" the Gibson Explorers look to me anymore. Kinda like the arrow in the FedEx logo, once you spot it, you'll never unsee it.They've been hideously wrong since they introduced the "76 Explorer" so-called "reissue" in the late 80s which is a horrific mess. This was the last good one-an '82 from the 76-82 Explorers which were in my experience, damned good guitars and they still looked great.
elduave Posted September 15, 2015 Author Posted September 15, 2015 I can't get over how "wrong" the Gibson Explorers look to me anymore. Kinda like the arrow in the FedEx logo, once you spot it, you'll never unsee it.They've been hideously wrong since they introduced the "76 Explorer" so-called "reissue" in the late 80s which is a horrific mess. This was the last good one-an '82 from the 76-82 Explorers which were in my experience, damned good guitars and they still looked great. Yeah, that's just wrong. LOL! Funny, I don't get the same vibe from the E2 CMT. I'd like to add that to the side by side mural.
cmatthes Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 The '89-present "76 Reissue" shape = Garbage
DaveL Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 Ever since the shiskov's came out, the headstock on a 90's-2000's Hamer standard now looks weird to me. very clubby. Mike slimmed his down while still keeping it very solid..
BubbaVO Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 Kind of like this:http://itsnotaboutme.tv/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/kate-upton-fat.jpgvsthis:https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8b/6a/9f/8b6a9fe0135f0e6f1335a3c59c0e6f09.gif
Bobby Marshall Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 As far as the ultimate headstock, I borrowed this pic from the 22 thread. A nice nod to the early Standards. And I am not talking about the serial number stamp. Almost like the Native American artists that put an imperfection in the piece. It may appear wrong to others but it is a nuance that makes it what it is. Mr. Shishkov is a master.
RobB Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 As far as the ultimate headstock, I borrowed this pic from the 22 thread. A nice nod to the early Standards. And I am not talking about the serial number stamp. Almost like the Native American artists that put an imperfection in the piece. It may appear wrong to others but it is a nuance that makes it what it is. Mr. Shishkov is a master. Nuance is what makes the Ultimate shape look so natural. It is very familiar, but the smaller shape and the reshaped upper bout lends to an original take on a classic. Very glad Mike went with the smaller headstock. It really compliments the shape of the guitar.
DaveL Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 a few more shots... I've since cleaned the peanuts up... lol
polara Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 I'm still trying to train myself to handle the shape ergonomically. Visually it's a stunner but I feel like I'm playing a ladder. How long did it take you other Explorer/Standard/Ultimate owners to adjust to big-n-pointy after a lifetime playing "normal" instruments?
Jakeboy Posted September 23, 2015 Posted September 23, 2015 Since my first decent guitar was a 1976 Explorer, it was like coming home.....dig the natural armrest when playing while standing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.