# The "Prototype" Gibson Moderne...What's everyone's take?



## tommychains (Jul 14, 2012)

I always wondered if this guitar ever did exist. Many call it the "Bigfoot of the Guitar World"' with no real record of its existance. This raises many questions, unfortunately not many answers.

So i turn to the SS community for your takes on this legendary guitar.

Here are some facts i do know...

In 1957' 3 guitar sketches were made at Gibson Guitars, these were the start of a "New Age" of body shapes' going against the traditional styles at the time. These guitars were on the drawing board as the Explorer, Flying V' and the MODERNE. 

Though the explorer and flying v were in fact put into production in 1958, they did not sell very well. Surviving examples fetch upwards of $100,000.

But what about the Moderne?

The moderne wasn't released until 1982, and still didn't sell too well. Many have tried to find evidence or proof of prototypes that exist, but not much has amounted. In the mid 1980's, guitar collectors offered a $1,000,000 reward to anyone who could find the guitar, but it was never found. Also, a shipment list from Gibson was shown to have "Mod. Guitars" on the label, but noone can find even a hint of them being Modernes, so many believe it was in fact Gibson Explorers.

Sources claim Ted McCarty said there were a few prototypes made, but still no proof. Many theorys to it exist, but few are able to be backed up.


So after all this typing...WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON IT?


----------



## Demiurge (Jul 14, 2012)

I suppose there would be a high value for the prototype of any famous guitar shape; since the Moderne is a little bit more _in_famous as it KO'ed for a reason (kind of ugly as hell), there may be high value for it but in a more limited market... kind of like a curiosity. As far as where an original prototype might be, maybe Gibson buried it in the same landfill as Atari's dumped their unsold E.T. cartridges (per the urban legend). 

If the Moderne came out of the same design batch as the Flying V and the Explorer, one definitely can't pick on them for a very strong 2 out of 3.


----------



## Andromalia (Jul 14, 2012)

Who cares, if it surfaces up you know it's Billy Gibbons who will snatch it anyway. 
Not a fan of the shape, that said uglier guitars have sold.


----------



## axxessdenied (Jul 14, 2012)

I just looked it up and threw up in my mouth a bit


----------



## pushpull7 (Jul 14, 2012)

I remember that firebird. You'd think they had learned


----------



## ittoa666 (Jul 14, 2012)

It's quite obvious why the moderne never saw a public release in bulk, and why the V and Explorer did (slightly), better back then.







I mean, seriously.

Also, I know those are ibanez models, but who's actually paying attention?


----------



## ZXIIIT (Jul 14, 2012)

The Moderne looks like a result of guitar inbreeding, yuck.


----------



## AugmentedFourth (Jul 14, 2012)

Uh, I would totally play this guitar:


----------



## Djdnxgdj3983jrjd8udb3bcns (Jul 14, 2012)

I'm sorry but the moderne is an eyesore...


----------



## 3074326 (Jul 14, 2012)

Bigfoot exists, and I have proof:






From the Gibson USA (NOT Custom) factory.. less than a year old.


----------



## groverj3 (Jul 14, 2012)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Uh, I would totally play this guitar:



Switches to turn on and off the other switches 

Also, it looks like it would uncomfortable to play in any position...


----------



## GazPots (Jul 15, 2012)




----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (Jul 15, 2012)

i actually dig the shape more than the explorer or V


----------



## VinnyShredz (Jul 15, 2012)

Hurts my eyes... a lot


----------



## Don Vito (Jul 15, 2012)

It's the awkward child of a BC Rich Ignitor.(yeah I know "X came first" blah blah)


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jul 15, 2012)

3074326 said:


> Bigfoot exists, and I have proof:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That may be something to do with this:

Gibson.com: Gibson Moderne

It's been reissued.


----------



## arcadia fades (Jul 15, 2012)

yuechhh gawd nooo


----------



## poke (Jul 15, 2012)

As much as I love Gibsons, I've always thought it was butt-ugly


----------



## danger5oh (Jul 15, 2012)

Aside from the control layout, I'd totally _play_ one... but _buy_ one? No thanks.


----------



## tuneinrecords (Jul 15, 2012)

It would sit way too low on my leg. I like how a strat shaped body puts the neck up a little higher when playing sitting down. Even a Les Paul shaped body puts the neck lower when sitting down. This thing however would require a strap to keep the guitar up. Same deal with V's and other whacky shaped guitars. Lots of young kids love 'em until they start playing them and realize you can't sit down with the thing.


----------



## 3074326 (Jul 15, 2012)

BucketheadRules said:


> That may be something to do with this:
> 
> Gibson.com: Gibson Moderne
> 
> It's been reissued.



 Didn't realize that.

/idiot


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 15, 2012)

AugmentedFourth said:


> Uh, I would totally play this guitar:



Okay I actually really like that.


----------



## xxvicarious (Jul 15, 2012)

What a waste of a tree.


----------



## mishabasi (Jul 15, 2012)

Gibson has made a lot of stupid looking guitars :/


----------



## Jet9 (Jul 18, 2012)

AugmentedFourth said:


>



Put an explorer headstock on that...


----------



## MetalBuddah (Jul 18, 2012)

One of my favorite guitar body shapes ever. gets a lot of shit but I love it 

Too bad Gibson totally messed up the headstock on that reissue...


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 18, 2012)

I think the OP is referring to the original "lost" prototype. IMO, it probably doesn't exist. As mentioned earlier Billy Gibbons supposedly acquired the original prototype but it was never verified.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 18, 2012)

I'm going to have to side with those who think they never made it out of the plant. If Ted said they were built, then they were built. He doesn't have a reason to lie, and if there would be anyone to know it would be him. 

Too many have offered small fortunes to find these and have come away empty handed. Too much time has passed for it to be a single collector or collectors hoarding them from the get go. 

They were probably destroyed/parted out when the model's production was cancelled. I'm sure no one had the forethought to keep them around for no reason and overtime those that did survive initially probably went to the wayside. 

Though, you never know, there could be a 108 year old former music store worker that bought all six back in the 50's and has them in a display case in his basement.


----------



## wakjob (Jul 19, 2012)

These were also known as the "Gumby" guitars.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Jul 19, 2012)

MetalBuddah said:


> Too bad Gibson totally messed up the headstock on that reissue...



They didn't!

The original headstock looked cool and fitted with the shape, but it was a fucking nightmare in every other way... have you seen the number of string trees they had to use on it?


----------



## ejendres (Jul 19, 2012)

those things are so hideous.


----------



## The Reverend (Jul 19, 2012)

I've never even heard of these until just now. I'm a sucker for old things, though, I wish they had some surviving prototypes. 

I don't think I would like to play one, however. Aside from crazy shit like Spalt guitars, I'm totally okay with Strat, Tele, and LP shapes.


----------



## Heywood_Jablowme (Jul 22, 2012)

Playing a 1982 Moderne


----------



## zappatton2 (Jul 22, 2012)

I love the Moderne, WITH the ugly string-tree headstock. I don't know why, I know it's ugly, but I've always wanted one.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Jul 22, 2012)

Love the body, but that headstock...


----------



## petervindel (Jul 22, 2012)

I actually have an Ibanez that I guess you can say is "influenced" by The Modern´s design:


----------



## Fiction (Jul 22, 2012)

ittoa666 said:


>



I never realized how awesome the V and Explorer looked until it was placed next to that piece of shit


----------



## Dan Halen (Jul 22, 2012)

I think this guitar is like the fender "swinger" its retro/modern shape makes it kinda strangely appealing.





It's not a matter of whether it's pretty or not. it's more of a taste factor. it's obviously a non standard and the people who like standard guitars most WILL NOT like this. but i like modern looking guitars and i think with the original headstock and an actual paint finish it may be a really cool looking Item and regain a lot of popularity. i was thinking a mint green or a purple.


----------



## Jack Secret (Jul 22, 2012)

Rick Nielsen of Cheap Trick says he owns that original Moderne. He has so many insanely expensive guitars, it could quite possibly be true.


----------



## Danukenator (Jul 22, 2012)

Same is true for Billy Gibbons. If someone truly had the original Moderne, why hide it? Why hide it from the public eye?


----------



## Jack Secret (Jul 22, 2012)

Danukenator said:


> Same is true for Billy Gibbons. If someone truly had the original Moderne, why hide it? Why hide it from the public eye?




If it is with either one, neither of them are shy about bringing insanely expensive vintage stuff out on tour. I do recall Nielsen bringing out a Moderne on a few tours but no idea if that's allegedly the original. Ever see a Nielsen guitars used live tour? Gibson '58, Gibson '58, Gibson '59, Gibson '59, etc., kick 'em to the ground, pick 'em up, retune, play "She's Tight", throw many picks at the crowd.


----------



## KlusonDeluxe (Dec 4, 2017)

These are the known suposed Gibson moderne prototypes and the Erlewine is the best known and is on permanent display at a music store in Tokyo Japan.


----------



## possumkiller (Dec 4, 2017)

Interestingly the Flying V wasn't originally named or shaped that way. The prototype had solid wood between the wings and was triangle shaped. The middle was cut out to drop weight and the result was named the Flying V.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 4, 2017)

There seem to have been six of them in existence. Probably some portion of those were only part authentic, and probably at least on of them was destroyed.

The "Erlewine" piece has the most documentation, but it's also widely known that the neck was from a different guitar. Most likely, some or most of that piece was fit onto other parts to make a complete guitar that was never made as a "Moderne." That guitar was owned by Erlewine, sold to a music store in Ann Arbor, Michigan, purchased by Doug Green, then sold to a collector in Japan.

Rendell Wall also used one for a concert, then took it back to Gibson, because it was a piece of junk. Reportedly, Gibson had that guitar destroyed, because it was an inferior design and had quality issues.

Bill Cherry and Ponty Gonzales have also reported seeing them out in the wild, even describing the shape of the guitars accurately long before the reissues were made or before any images of them would have been known. Whether those would be two separate guitars or one guitar that traveled from one place to another is difficult to guess.

One piece reportedly belongs to Billy Gibbons. Gibbons has been seen playing a Moderne reissue, but no one seems to have ever recalled seeing his original ever.

One other piece was reportedly sold to another guitar builder in Japan, and another reportedly destroyed at the factory to prevent it from making it into the hands of other builders who might copy it. Or it might have been the one that was supposed to ship to Japan that was destroyed, or the stories might all just be rumours.

Ultimately, who really cares?! The Moderne is kind of a dark grey spot in the early history of Gibson. I could see people going crazy for an early Flying V or an early Futura/Explorer, but these things are not only fugly, but a good-luck-convincing-anyone-it's-real level of risky for a collector. The historical significance is sketchy, too, because it never really caught on. If I had a vault full of 1956-1958 Gibsons that held also one of the prototype Moderne's, I bet the Moderne would be the last guitar I'd try to rescue if the vault caught fire, as pretty much any Gibson from that era would be nearly priceless.


----------



## SDMFVan (Dec 4, 2017)




----------



## bostjan (Dec 4, 2017)

Yeah, but it's a relevant new-ish discovery.



KlusonDeluxe said:


> View attachment 57571
> View attachment 57570


The one on the far right seems like an imposter. Pickguard is different (which is explainable), but also the neck joint appears significantly different (which is a lot more difficult to explain). If the body is not original, the whole piece is probably worthless as a collector's item, since the necks of these things as well as the other hardware was interchangeable with other Gibsons - the body would be really the only truly unique part of the guitar.


----------



## KlusonDeluxe (Dec 4, 2017)

bostjan said:


> The one on the far right seems like an imposter. Pickguard is different (which is explainable), but also the neck joint appears significantly different (which is a lot more difficult to explain). If the body is not original, the whole piece is probably worthless as a collector's item, since the necks of these things as well as the other hardware was interchangeable with other Gibsons - the body would be really the only truly unique part of the guitar.



I would think that the Schumer one might be the the one in best original condition. As often with Gibson prototypes like the ES335, Futura/Explorer, the Flying V, the first sharp cutaway solid bodies (Before named Les Pauls) and so on hade various differences. They tried out various woods, neck joints, cavities and so on for evaluating both cosmetics, production methods and so on.

The Schumer one are supposed to have mahogany neck and korina body just like a few Explorer guitar and Explorer basses, and prototype Vs. It also have bound neck. Also a different neck joint, more like an explorer.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 4, 2017)

I disagree though, in principle, because we are talking about a guitar of which one solitary batch of prototypes may have even ever been made, assuming they aren't all fakes. I think the Schumer piece has less providence than both the Erlewine and the Gibbons, therefore it's more suspect than the others. So, it's not like there's no reason it could have been from a different batch, you know, being that there is less than or exactly equal to one batch of bodies made during that time frame.


----------



## KlusonDeluxe (Dec 4, 2017)

If it would have been possible to bring all three of these prototypes together and have various vintage guitar experts examine them, I´ll guess none of them would be considered genuine by all experts. 

I think its to late to have these prototypes proven authentic since the people like Ted McCarthy aren´t around anymore. People like him are/were the only one that could have identified them, and it should have been done years ago when the memories were more resent. I think we should only consider these prototypes as interesting discussion topics and nothing more.


----------



## noise in my mind (Dec 4, 2017)

A flying V for fatties that don't want to lean forward.


----------



## bostjan (Dec 4, 2017)

Well, to some extend, yes, but you could still look at the finish, and get a good idea of how long ago it was done. If the guitar was finished more than 35 years ago, then since a production model never existed, it'd likely be authentic period-wise. We also have the patent drawings, and some pretty detailed descriptions from other people who had reported to have seen these guitars first hand, with those reports also coming from before the guitar design was ever in production as a reissue. With no place for those people to have seen the guitar at the time, except the patent drawing, which were unlikely to have been available prior to the internet age, I would assume that the odds of multiple people lying about what they saw, and those lies coincidentally matching both the design as we now know it and also matching each other in some details, are astronomically low.

So, this guitar existed. How many were made might be as little as one, but I am positive it was made. I really don't think the number of original 1950's pieces ever went into double digits, seeing as how there are so few reports of anyone ever seeing one in the wild, as well as Ted not believing any survived. It could very well be that none of the original prototypes survived more than a couple of years. We know for a fact that the Erlewine piece has a different neck and was refinished after it started out as whatever it started out as, but we also have strong reason to believe that the body shape was not modified since the late 1960's. Coupled with the fact that no one really knew what shape these were outside of Gibson employees, it is safe to assume that the piece's body was made by a Gibson employee, based off of the actual design, which is probably as good as it'll ever get.

The Gibbon's piece is sketchy, because the earliest dated photo of it is from 1982, the year reissue production started, so it is possibly a reissue prototype or even a late 70's Ibanez Futura with a Gibson logo on the headstock.

The Erlewine predates even the Ibanez copies by 7-8 years.

I'm actually unable to come up with any info on the "Schumer" at all. I had never previously heard of it, and like I pointed out, the body is obviously a different shape than the patent drawings, the Erlewine, and pretty much every other reissue, copy, blah blah blah. It's different enough, to me, to consider it inauthentic, rather than a prototype of a prototype or something like that.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 4, 2017)

who cares, the moderne belongs in the trash next to the reverse v, schecters's death fork/trident guitar and basically all of bc rich's guitar designs (besides the eagle or mockingbird, those are kind of cool).


----------



## marcwormjim (Dec 5, 2017)

Let’s not forget the EBMM St Vincent, Kiesel Letchford, and PRS Eric Johnson prototype.


----------



## odibrom (Dec 5, 2017)

Different guitar designs are welcome, because they bring some fresh imagery besides the conventional and over seen LP, Strat, Tele, V or Explorer aesthetics...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Dec 5, 2017)

odibrom said:


> Different guitar designs are welcome, because they bring some fresh imagery besides the conventional and over seen LP, Strat, Tele, V or Explorer aesthetics...


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 5, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Let’s not forget the EBMM St Vincent, Kiesel Letchford, and PRS Eric Johnson prototype.


i actually like the aesthetics of the st. vincent, but it's not the most comfortable guitar imo so it fails in that regard. There's no point in having a unique design if it's not comfortable and completely functional.


----------



## zappatton2 (Dec 6, 2017)

Yes the Moderne is ugly, but I think that's why I enjoy it so much. I'll be "that guy" who enjoys weird fugly guitars, and I also think if a real 50's Moderne ever verifiably existed, it would be worth more than a small fortune on sheer rarity alone. I do hope to see one completely verified some day, but I remain skeptical that one really exists.


----------



## odibrom (Dec 7, 2017)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


>



Everything has a purpose in life. That guitar's one may be to remember where not to go and that is a heavy burden to carry. Just for that it should be respected.

... and aesthetics mean nothing besides that. Why do all the designs fall into those 5? Because they have resisted the test of time in the hands of lots and lots of players in lots of different expressions...

But I'm glad you can sum it all up in this ironic meme... good for you.


----------



## marcwormjim (Dec 8, 2017)

Edit: Never argue down, folks.


----------

