My new professor

[lloccmttocs]

It's finally finished! I thought about adding onto the already existing thread but I got lazy. The bass was even on the top of the upton bass artice. And there was a picture. I pick it up tomorrow morning! I'll take bigger pictures once I get it myself but I figured It's been so long so I figured I'd post what I found.

[BEEF]

Congrats!!!

It looks great.


Mine's just finished and waiting on a set of Obligatos.

It should ship to me next week.


If you see it in the shop, tell her I said hi.

[lloccmttocs]

Originally Posted by BEEF

Congrats!!!

It looks great.


Mine's just finished and waiting on a set of Obligatos.

It should ship to me next week.


If you see it in the shop, tell her I said hi.

What varnish did you get?

[moopants]

I saw that article! What a beautiful bass...

[Silversorcerer]

I'm checking out some close ups of these at Upton's and I noticed there is very little or no relief at the edge of the tables beyond the purfling like you see on the Kremonas, Wilfers, Pollmanns, Christophers, Shens and other quality carved top instruments. It looks very flat at the edge of the table more like a laminated top or a pressed solid top. What's up with that?

I always thought that extra thickness at the edge was a good idea in terms of durability and looks. Nice flamed wood, sure enough, and a decent varnish, but without the carved in relief these remind me of the pressed "solid" top double basses that are commonly very cheap to buy. And while a bent back is a solid piece of wood, it really is not carved. It's a flat bent back. I would think for twice the price of a truly fully carved Kremona, one would be getting a little more actual carving and not just some fancy flat flamed maple. I'm a little disappointed and thought these were supposed to be a substantially higher end bass than the Hawkes. It seems overpriced to me for what it actually is.

[BEEF]

What varnish did you get?

Should be a deep dark warm brown.

I like my basses like I like my coffee.

[jallenbass]

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

And while a bent back is a solid piece of wood, it really is not carved. It's a flat bent back.

Both of my 125 year old flatbacks look bent and not a carved in bend to me. I think the key here is solid wood as opposed to plywood.

[Silversorcerer]

Originally Posted by jallenbass

Both of my 125 year old flatbacks look bent and not a carved in bend to me. I think the key here is solid wood as opposed to plywood.

True, flatbacks with solid wood are quite common, as are the bracing stability issues that come with them. Obviously a carved swelled back is more wood, more work, two ends to simultaneously shape to fit the soundpost, etc. So where is the savings that should be passed on to the customer? This is a comparatively expensive instrument to many with swelled carved backs.

How about the edging of the top table? Do your vintage basses have a raised edge beyond the purfling? I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen a carved top with a flat edge beyond the purfling. Maybe some early Prescott church basses? It kind of surprised me to see this flat edge on a modern carved bass. I think I would prefer a little more meat there considering the potential for impacts to the edge. I know it's not plywood, but that is generally the way plywood tops or pressed solid tops look. It seems like a bit of a short cut for a bass with such fine wood. But then there's the absence of notches at the f-holes again also, which certainly makes it more difficult to locate the bridge accurately as well. Is Upton re-inventing the wheel here?? Explanations anyone?

[Matthew Tucker]

Not sure what you're talking about. The edge looks very nice to me and the nicks are there, but subtle. (I nearly left them off my bass altogether, but gave in at the last moment. )

[jallenbass]

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

How about the edging of the top table? Do your vintage basses have a raised edge beyond the purfling?

Both have a little bit of a raised edge and both are worn down to the sides where the bass touches the floor when laid on its side.

[ScottyAx800]

Jealousy. Serious, serious jealousy.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

I'm checking out some close ups of these at Upton's and I noticed there is very little or no relief at the edge of the tables beyond the purfling like you see on the Kremonas, Wilfers, Pollmanns, Christophers, Shens and other quality carved top instruments. It looks very flat at the edge of the table more like a laminated top or a pressed solid top. What's up with that?

I always thought that extra thickness at the edge was a good idea in terms of durability and looks. Nice flamed wood, sure enough, and a decent varnish, but without the carved in relief these remind me of the pressed "solid" top double basses that are commonly very cheap to buy. And while a bent back is a solid piece of wood, it really is not carved. It's a flat bent back. I would think for twice the price of a truly fully carved Kremona, one would be getting a little more actual carving and not just some fancy flat flamed maple. I'm a little disappointed and thought these were supposed to be a substantially higher end bass than the Hawkes. It seems overpriced to me for what it actually is.

Wow-- all this from a guy who never held or played one! The relief on edge of the table is slightly less than you sometimes otherwise see. So what? These basses may "remind you" of pressed solid-top basses that are very cheap to buy but they are not at all pressed solid tops and do not at all share their characteristics. They are fully carved and hand-graduated tops.

Indeed, a flat-back is not a fully-carved bass. Most of us here know that. Most of us are also aware that there are many fine flat-back basses of great prestige. In fact, there are threads on TB that discuss the relative merits of each and even trusted luthiers cannot mount convincing arguments for the merits of one design principle over the other. Most of us also know that there is nothing magical about "fully carved," per se. It is the execution that counts. There are many "fully-carved" basses out there and they are what I consider to be of poor quality. I came to that judgment by examining and playing them in person. There is one, in particular, about which I am thinking that pales in comparison to the Upton hybrid along every relevant dimension of which I can think. That includes build-quality, finish, and, most importantly, playability and sound. To compare the Upton Professor to a fully-carved Kremona is, well, an insult to the former. They don't belong in the same room, much less mentioned in the same breath.

I have what I consider to be a quite nice fully-carved Romanian bass that was hand-picked years ago by the guys at Upton. As is, it would go for about $6000. That's a down-to-earth realistic estimate of its value. It is in a different league than the basses you mentioned above. It blows them all away. Well, I played my bass side-by-side with an Upton Professor and after two minutes I decided I had to have one! Other than distinguished vintage basses or basses costing upwards of $15,000 - $20,000, the Professor was the first new bass I played that outdid mine.

Overpriced for what it is? You based that judgment on a picture and a method of construction.

It is interesting that there was recently a professional player at Upton who played the Professor. He had the same reaction I did. He wondered why in the world Gary was offering the Professor for so low a price!

Tell you what. Play a Professor and then we'll talk.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

True, flatbacks with solid wood are quite common, as are the bracing stability issues that come with them. Obviously a carved swelled back is more wood, more work, two ends to simultaneously shape to fit the soundpost, etc. So where is the savings that should be passed on to the customer? This is a comparatively expensive instrument to many with swelled carved backs.

Where is the savings? If one took the Professor as it is and added the extra expense of a carved back, I suspect it would have to sell for at least $8k - $10k. In my opinion, and having played a Professor and compared it side-by-side to other basses, it is, if anything, priced below what one would expect in the marketplace. Thus the "savings."

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

How about the edging of the top table? Do your vintage basses have a raised edge beyond the purfling? I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen a carved top with a flat edge beyond the purfling. Maybe some early Prescott church basses? It kind of surprised me to see this flat edge on a modern carved bass. I think I would prefer a little more meat there considering the potential for impacts to the edge. I know it's not plywood, but that is generally the way plywood tops or pressed solid tops look. It seems like a bit of a short cut for a bass with such fine wood. But then there's the absence of notches at the f-holes again also, which certainly makes it more difficult to locate the bridge accurately as well. Is Upton re-inventing the wheel here?? Explanations anyone?

They do not have flat edges. Perhaps a bit flatter than to what you are accustomed-- but not flat. They also have fully nicked f-holes. No re-invention of the wheel. Again, rather than looking at pictures, hold one and play one. I did!

[Silversorcerer]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

Not sure what you're talking about. The edge looks very nice to me and the nicks are there, but subtle. (I nearly left them off my bass altogether, but gave in at the last moment. )

Yes, that is a better photo of the niches which apparently aren't there when the bass is in the white as shown here:
I hadn't seen the finished close up. The edging still looks a good bit shallower than most of the new carved DB's I see in the flesh, but I find now looking at some photos of a good number of them old and new that it varies considerably according to maker. The shading makes it look deeper than it does in the white, but it still seems a bit shallow, so my first observation based on the instrument in the white is wrong, or at least inaccurrate to a degree, but still most of what I've seen lately on newer basses is a taller edge.

[drurb]

I believe the current Professors, even in the white, have the nicked f-holes. The picture on the site is not representative.

[jallenbass]

Originally Posted by drurb

Indeed, a flat-back is not a fully-carved bass.

And since the ribs are bent and not carved there really is no such thing as a "fully" carved bass.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by jallenbass

And since the ribs are bent and not carved there really is no such thing as a "fully" carved bass.

Of course, but the term has a technical definition.

[Silversorcerer]

Originally Posted by drurb

I believe the current Professors, even in the white, have the nicked f-holes. The picture on the site is not representative.

Well, it's a picture of the bass unfinished so I think the finished picture is what counts. Seeing the photo in the white, I thought that like on some other Upton models that don't have the notches that these didn't either. As far as sound comparison goes, I'll just have to take your word for it, realizing that a good deal of subjectivity is involved when comparing DB's. The words in bold typeface appear louder to me, but that must be subjective since I can't really hear them at all.

And citing a nameless professional player who hears the Professor bass the same way you do is fine. But what's wrong with me mentioning the carved Kremona? Just because I can't directly compare the two and offer a subjective opinion? Ship me a Professor and I'll be happy to if that will result in a more respectful, more civil discussion. Somehow I have my doubts. Particularly when you have challenged my ear on this forum with just minor thirds and equal temperament minor thirds which you claimed the difference could not be heard and clearly I can hear it. And you proved it. So I think you have to realize that I might not trust your comparisons regardless of how boldly you declare them. Like the minor thirds issue, these are subjective opinions.

Should I start my own thread? Also, I'm kind of wondering how many Kremonas you have played? And when was the last time? Xavier Padilla plays a Kremona. I suppose it might be by choice. Perhaps he got a recent endorsement deal, I really don't know. Perhaps he hears in his what I hear and appreciate in mine. BTW, the Kremonas are available now with a spirit varnish finish, but I doubt it is audible.

[Silversorcerer]

Originally Posted by drurb

Of course, but the term has a technical definition.

Industry jargon is less than technical;- let's be honest. It has a definition, but that is subject to interpretation. It's not like what is a meter quite. If you hand plane a flat piece of wood it is not the same as carving it into a rounded, 3 dimensional shape. As for problems with braces, most round backs don't even have any of these so it is kind of like why I can't get tonsilitis. I have no tonsils. It is built in immunity to what could be an expensive repair down the road, is it not? In the repair section it would be rare to see the owner of a round back DB reporting that a back brace is loose. I have seen braces in some plywood round backs, but not in any carved round backs.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

Well, it's a picture of the bass unfinished so I think the finished picture is what counts. Seeing the photo in the white, I thought that like on some other Upton models that don't have the notches that these didn't either. As far as sound comparison goes, I'll just have to take your word for it, realizing that a good deal of subjectivity is involved when comparing DB's. The words in bold typeface appear louder to me, but that must be subjective since I can't really hear them at all.

And citing a nameless professional player who hears the Professor bass the same way you do is fine. But what's wrong with me mentioning the carved Kremona? Just because I can't directly compare the two and offer a subjective opinion? Ship me a Professor and I'll be happy to if that will result in a more respectful, more civil discussion. Somehow I have my doubts. Particularly when you have challenged my ear on this forum with just minor thirds and equal temperament minor thirds which you claimed the difference could not be heard and clearly I can hear it. And you proved it. So I think you have to realize that I might not trust your comparisons regardless of how boldly you declare them. Like the minor thirds issue, these are subjective opinions.

Should I start my own thread? Also, I'm kind of wondering how many Kremonas you have played? And when was the last time? Xavier Padilla plays a Kremona. I suppose it might be by choice. Perhaps he got a recent endorsement deal, I really don't know. Perhaps he hears in his what I hear and appreciate in mine. BTW, the Kremonas are available now with a spirit varnish finish, but I doubt it is audible.

I don't believe I ever said that you cannot hear the difference between just and minor thirds within harmonic complexes (as characterizes the sounds of instruments). That is a misrepresentation. Here is the thread. In addition, it is irrelevant. I do not see how my own ability or your ability to hear or not hear such subtle intervalic differences has any bearing on my judgment of the overall playability and overall sonic characteristics of a bass. Yes, you can mention that all bass preferences are subjective but, to my ear and hands, we are not discussing "close calls" or subtle differences. I suppose there are people who would judge a $259 BSO on ebay superior to a fine Prescott or the like. After all, it's only subjective.

I rather think that experienced players do share common preferences when the differences are vast. Now, having played the Professor and the Kremona in the very same room, in my opinion, the Professor exhibits vastly superior workmanship and produces vastly superior sound. Also, as I mentioned, I judged the Professor substantially superior to my own beloved fully-carved bass that, in my opinion, bests the Kremona by a vast margin as well. At three times the cost, it's not surprising that it does.

I don't expect you or anyone else to simply take my word for it. I would expect that, as an experienced player, you would assign proper weight to my opinion and consider it. My judgments are based on examining, holding, touching, and playing these instruments. You, on the other hand, rendered judgments as to their worthiness, give their price, based on a set of pictures. You did so in the face of apparently reasonable and accomplished players on TB reporting the virtues of these instruments. Frankly, I found that beneath your usual reasoned approach.

Now, as often seems to be the case, this too is a matter of degree. When I see a $259 bass on ebay and take a look at its pictures, I too, will draw conclusions. The evidence that such instruments are very low on the distribution of quality is overwhelming.

No one is going to ship you a Professor to try. For now, I am happy to let readers of this thread draw their own conclusions regarding the potential quality of the Upton Professor. They can consider my experiences and the fact that I will be giving up my fine carved bass in order to switch to one and they can consider your evaluation of these instruments based on looking at pictures from the Upton web site.