Alleva Copollo vs Nordy vs Lull vs Suhr...Fodera NYC...

[zortation]

Originally Posted by Zanderwestcoast

Celinder.....Moon.....Nash....Pensa

Kallas...

Regarding Moollon...I noticed that the neck pocket appears to be routed deep so that the neck rests very low where it jons the body, like vintage Fenders. Not a lot of builders pay attention to that kind of thing, but it's huge in how a j-style bass feels and plays.

I really like the butterscotch one.

Originally Posted by brianh

If you're looking for a vintage-esqe 4 string - I'd pick a Suhr or an AC. The Suhr's a much more affordable and equal quality. I think the Shur's nail the feel and sound of a 60's Fender, compared to the more modern Sadowsky, Lull vibe.

I would pit any Suhr up against any Sadowsky any day of the week. I'm not sure why, but their basses just seem to have that mojo built right into the instrument. I think they're the most underrated bass around.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by Zanderwestcoast

I would love to....I live in Victoria BC Canada. Not sure when I would have the chance but it would be worth it. I am sure the wait can't be as long as Fodera! Have you played the Nordy's or Lull's in comparison to your Allevas?

There are ways to mitigate the wait time on a Fodera but, in your case, that's a moot point. A Fodera isn't going to produce that "pre-CBS" tone, whatever that is.

My first bass was a '65 P-bass. It was my least favorite of all basses I've owned (over 20). There's really nothing special about basses built by Fender in the early years. It's just that people who spend Fodera-type money on an old used bass want to believe in the mystique that surrounds them. Modern basses in that price range (say $3,000 and up) have far superior construction and better electronics than any of the early Fenders.

If you have issues with the playability of basses like Sadowskys, then you'll probably have a tough time finding an early bass that suits you. However, all that said, you should buy whatever bass you want, but it's silly to make a decision without playing the basses you're considering. There are so many divergent opinions (including mine) here about which basses sound like what that you really have no basis to decide without putting your hands on them.


::: donning Nomex^® suit :::

[droskobass]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

My first bass was a '65 P-bass. It was my least favorite of all basses I've owned (over 20). There's really nothing special about basses built by Fender in the early years. It's just that people who spend Fodera-type money on an old used bass want to believe in the mystique that surrounds them. Modern basses in that price range (say $3,000 and up) have far superior construction and better electronics than any of the early Fenders.

The Fender Basses of the 70's were even worse quality and the weight, finish and playability were even worse, and this is where the term "Vintage bass" comes from. The belief that basses made in some years were generally better than other years.

Not all pre CBS were great and they aren't all easy to play by today's standards. They are unshielded for the most part and generally all have worn out frets etc. But the tone is the most recorded and the most widely in demand sound on recordings. Other basses have great tone too. but neck through body instruments or those with low impedance pickups tend to sound amazing in the guitar shop but lack the magic when recorded or get "lost in the Mix" on the bandstand

Today we are actually spoiled. We can have basses that feature hand wound pickups that re create the actual formula of the best of the best pickups of the early 60's on instruments that are lighter, with asymmetrical necks and 12 inch radii, onboard active electronics (usually by-passable) The best pots and caps, the best fret wire and shielding, ultralight tuners, carbon reinforced necks or quarter-sawn necks in the colours of our choice. These new era boutique basses generally balance better, have tighter neck pockets,

Now there is a thrill to finding a nice old bass, but none of my vintage basses play as well or sound as good as my boutique Lull M4 or my Angry Angus.

The value in a bass like a Moollon is that it is a true to spec pre CBS bass, with the addition of an ebony fingerboard, and quarter-sawn neck (which are features I generally prefer). These instruments compete directly with Fender Custom shop instruments without the pretence of "relicing" or the fantasy that the instrument was made in the 60's.

[Zanderwestcoast]

Based on the early 60's Fender Jazz basses that I have played I certainly have to disagree with your statement that there is nothing special with these instruments. In fact that is a pretty bold statement! In my experience the basses I played certainly didn't need any modern day preamps that as far as I am concerned only detract from tone and reduce the dynamic feel of the instrument. Had these instruments not been special, they would not have been copied to the extent that they have. Nor would they have been recorded and still in demand the way they are.

[BadBilly]

How come no one mentioned the Nash basses? Would anyone like to share some experience?

Do they sound like vintage Fender or just "look like"?
Thanks!

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by Zanderwestcoast

Based on the early 60's Fender Jazz basses that I have played I certainly have to disagree with your statement that there is nothing special with these instruments. In fact that is a pretty bold statement! In my experience the basses I played certainly didn't need any modern day preamps that as far as I am concerned only detract from tone and reduce the dynamic feel of the instrument. Had these instruments not been special, they would not have been copied to the extent that they have. Nor would they have been recorded and still in demand the way they are.

Except most of the copies (by people like Sadowsky, Lull, Lakland and others) take advantage of modern, consistent construction techniques that make it much less likely that you'll get a dud. I just don't buy into that "... detract from tone and reduce the 'dynamic feel' of the instrument ..." stuff. My active basses have fantastic tone and, as far as I can tell, have excellent "dynamic feel." Most of them can switch to passive mode for those who eschew active electronics.

I could invoke the old "let's see how they do in a double-blind test," but I'm sure I'd be wasting precious internet bandwidth.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by droskobass

The Fender Basses of the 70's were even worse quality and the weight, finish and playability were even worse, and this is where the term "Vintage bass" comes from. The belief that basses made in some years were generally better than other years.

Not all pre CBS were great and they aren't all easy to play by today's standards. They are unshielded for the most part and generally all have worn out frets etc. But the tone is the most recorded and the most widely in demand sound on recordings. Other basses have great tone too. but neck through body instruments or those with low impedance pickups tend to sound amazing in the guitar shop but lack the magic when recorded or get "lost in the Mix" on the bandstand

Today we are actually spoiled. We can have basses that feature hand wound pickups that re create the actual formula of the best of the best pickups of the early 60's on instruments that are lighter, with asymmetrical necks and 12 inch radii, onboard active electronics (usually by-passable) The best pots and caps, the best fret wire and shielding, ultralight tuners, carbon reinforced necks or quarter-sawn necks in the colours of our choice. These new era boutique basses generally balance better, have tighter neck pockets,

Now there is a thrill to finding a nice old bass, but none of my vintage basses play as well or sound as good as my boutique Lull M4 or my Angry Angus.

The value in a bass like a Moollon is that it is a true to spec pre CBS bass, with the addition of an ebony fingerboard, and quarter-sawn neck (which are features I generally prefer). These instruments compete directly with Fender Custom shop instruments without the pretence of "relicing" or the fantasy that the instrument was made in the 60's.

My hero.

[LutherHeggs00]

You should add M Basses to your list of possible choices.

M Basses

[burk48237]

In the vintage vs. Modern debate a few quick points:

1) There is a HUGE difference between 70's Fenders which had notoriously poor QC and the Pre CBS basses when Fender was far pickier about both its wood supplies and QC. I always laugh when people say they want the sound of 70's J bass. Because during the 70's all we did was buy beater Fenders, give them a good set up, and rip all of Fenders mediocre hardware off them to improve the bridges, tuners, pickups and pre. Still there is no more crap shoot market than a used 70's Fender. Even todays Guitar Center specials got better factory QC. The only advantage a 70's Fender has over a modern bass is if it was played the wood has dried out and has more resonance.

2) The 60's basses if kept fairly stock were generally better put together, using better lumber. Fender was a smaller company than and Leo actually cared. The workmanship is certainly as good as any production bass ever. And because the wood was better the chances of having a really resonant body with a good neck joint can make for some great Mojo. The disadvantages are they are more fragile (they are fifty year old after all), and so rare the thought of taking one on a tour is fearful. Plus no one will hear the difference after the first row anyway. I've had the privilege of playing some exceptional pre CBS instruments including Bobby Vegas 65 J and George Porters P bass, they are the real deal.

3) Sadowskys are only "zingy" for guys using the pre wrong with stainless strings. With the VTC set right, and the treble backed off, they can sound as fat as any J bass. Where most people screw up when they try a Sadowsky is they forget the pres are boost only and a little bit goes a long way.

4) How I'd rank the vintage J production models:

1) A/C: Jimmy nails vintage in a fiver better than anyone, but with some of the quirks too. He doesn't often do lightweight, and his instruments to have some of the quirks of "handmade".

2) Fender Custom Shop 64 J, I've played a few of these and in four string they all killed, five string and consistent is something Fender still hasn't done.

3) Lakeland USA Joe Osborn, Rosewood Alder. I've only played a few, but every one I played killed. I played one at summer NAMM two years ago that was the best passive bass I've ever played in my life.

4) Nordy: If you get Careys vintage model you're getting a bass that feels probably a lot like that 60's J felt new, they don't quit have the broken in feel of an A/C or custom shop, but they are better values. And no one does a P Bass like Carey.

5) Sadowsky: I haven't played his UV NYC (the 60's spacing true size model). But his basses while they don't sound quite "vintage" work. And they work in situations where guys normally love vintage Fenders. Check out the amount of Sadowskys in Nashville studios. While I'd love to have a Fender for the Home, if I was limited to one bass it would always be a Sadowsky

[narud]

Originally Posted by burk48237

In the vintage vs. Modern debate a few quick points:

1) There is a HUGE difference between 70's Fenders which had notoriously poor QC and the Pre CBS basses when Fender was far pickier about both its wood supplies and QC. I always laugh when people say they want the sound of 70's J bass. Because during the 70's all we did was buy beater Fenders, give them a good set up, and rip all of Fenders mediocre hardware off them to improve the bridges, tuners, pickups and pre. Still there is no more crap shoot market than a used 70's Fender. Even todays Guitar Center specials got better factory QC. The only advantage a 70's Fender has over a modern bass is if it was played the wood has dried out and has more resonance.

funny, since i have pre cbs and late 70's cbs basses sitting right here and the bridges and tuners are of the same quality. different styles (reverse tuners vs standard/threaded barrel bridge vs single slot) but are functionally the same. pickups? made the same way and sound great from any era. heavy ash vs alder? thats preference.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by narud

funny, since i have pre cbs and late 70's cbs basses sitting right here and the bridges and tuners are of the same quality. different styles (reverse tuners vs standard/threaded barrel bridge vs single slot) but are functionally the same. pickups? made the same way and sound great from any era. heavy ash vs alder? thats preference.

The difference was in fit and finish in the case of the bridges everyone was going to badass at the time. I bet 30-50% of the recordings of a "70's J Bass" had a badass bridge on them. Also the replacement pickuo and active pre amp craze was huge in the late 70's. The most famous "70's Jazz Bass sound" is a Ash bodied/Maple neck J set up and heavily massaged by Roger Sadowsky with a Stars guitar pre-amp, Agular pick-ups, and a Badass bridge.

As far as workmanship, it was night and day between the 70's basses and pre CBS basses. I remember seeing 70's J's come into the store with necks mounted so bad we didn't even try to set them up. I also remember Fender shipping Ash basses with three piece bodies. At the music store I worked at we shipped back 3 out of every 10 Fenders we got during that era because they were just plain unacceptable. It doesn't mean you couldn't find a good one, but the odds are stacked against you.

Fender simply didn't care and didn't have a clue at that point in their history. They were so clueless that they didn't even produce a Frettless Jazz bass during the height of the Jaco era. I would take a Tokai (80's) or Ibenez knock off from that era for quality and consistency any day, and it wasn't even close.

[narud]

Originally Posted by burk48237

The difference was in fit and finish in the case of the bridges everyone was going to badass at the time. I bet 30-50% of the recordings of a "70's J Bass" had a badass bridge on them. Also the replacement pickuo and active pre amp craze was huge in the late 70's. The most famous "70's Jazz Bass sound" is a Ash bodied/Maple neck J set up and heavily massaged by Roger Sadowsky with a Stars guitar pre-amp, Agular pick-ups, and a Badass bridge.

As far as workmanship, it was night and day between the 70's basses and pre CBS basses. I remember seeing 70's J's come into the store with necks mounted so bad we didn't even try to set them up. I also remember Fender shipping Ash basses with three piece bodies. At the music store I worked at we shipped back 3 out of every 10 Fenders we got during that era because they were just plain unacceptable. It doesn't mean you couldn't find a good one, but the odds are stacked against you.

Fender simply didn't care and didn't have a clue at that point in their history. They were so clueless that they didn't even produce a Frettless Jazz bass during the height of the Jaco era. I would take a Tokai (80's) or Ibenez knock off from that era for quality and consistency any day, and it wasn't even close.

theres recordings of marcus' bass before the preamp. sounds like a 70's jazz. its essentially a 70's jazz with a tct in it. stock pickups. typical ash maple of the time. that bass would have sounded like that without rogers "massaging"

my 62 jazz has a 3 piece body. both it and my 64 p have neck pocket gaps. where is this idea coming from that they were custom hand crafted instruments? fenders have always been production guitars.

a tokai or an ibanez knockoff? thats all you

[78Jazzlover]

Originally Posted by burk48237

In the vintage vs. Modern debate a few quick points:

1) There is a HUGE difference between 70's Fenders which had notoriously poor QC and the Pre CBS basses when Fender was far pickier about both its wood supplies and QC. I always laugh when people say they want the sound of 70's J bass. Because during the 70's all we did was buy beater Fenders, give them a good set up, and rip all of Fenders mediocre hardware off them to improve the bridges, tuners, pickups and pre. Still there is no more crap shoot market than a used 70's Fender. Even todays Guitar Center specials got better factory QC. The only advantage a 70's Fender has over a modern bass is if it was played the wood has dried out and has more resonance.

2) The 60's basses if kept fairly stock were generally better put together, using better lumber. Fender was a smaller company than and Leo actually cared. The workmanship is certainly as good as any production bass ever. And because the wood was better the chances of having a really resonant body with a good neck joint can make for some great Mojo. The disadvantages are they are more fragile (they are fifty year old after all), and so rare the thought of taking one on a tour is fearful. Plus no one will hear the difference after the first row anyway. I've had the privilege of playing some exceptional pre CBS instruments including Bobby Vegas 65 J and George Porters P bass, they are the real deal.

3) Sadowskys are only "zingy" for guys using the pre wrong with stainless strings. With the VTC set right, and the treble backed off, they can sound as fat as any J bass. Where most people screw up when they try a Sadowsky is they forget the pres are boost only and a little bit goes a long way.

4) How I'd rank the vintage J production models:

1) A/C: Jimmy nails vintage in a fiver better than anyone, but with some of the quirks too. He doesn't often do lightweight, and his instruments to have some of the quirks of "handmade".

2) Fender Custom Shop 64 J, I've played a few of these and in four string they all killed, five string and consistent is something Fender still hasn't done.

3) Lakeland USA Joe Osborn, Rosewood Alder. I've only played a few, but every one I played killed. I played one at summer NAMM two years ago that was the best passive bass I've ever played in my life.

4) Nordy: If you get Careys vintage model you're getting a bass that feels probably a lot like that 60's J felt new, they don't quit have the broken in feel of an A/C or custom shop, but they are better values. And no one does a P Bass like Carey.

5) Sadowsky: I haven't played his UV NYC (the 60's spacing true size model). But his basses while they don't sound quite "vintage" work. And they work in situations where guys normally love vintage Fenders. Check out the amount of Sadowskys in Nashville studios. While I'd love to have a Fender for the Home, if I was limited to one bass it would always be a Sadowsky

A few things;

- Pre CBS may have been somewhat better on average, but I've never thought as "huge" a difference as some people want to believe.

-Many players, engineers and producers choose a bass for the recorded tonal quality, not just for live work, and IMO there can be a meaningful difference between lets say a Sadowsky and an old Fender.

-Though I've tried many times, I cannot breed the "zingyness" out of an ash Sadowsky even with the VTC. Although its tamed down a bit I can still hear the brittle quality of the high end and still miss more low mid punch. I dont overuse the pre and understand the "boost only" concept. Alder Sadowskys are a bit better in this regard ( at least high end) which may just mirror the difference between wood characteristics IMO.

- I believe that Coppolo does make one hell of a P. I got to try one and it was great.

- Values vary to different players, in that if you really want an older sounding "broken in" Jazz style in a 5 string then Coppolo may be worth the price, or other brands, and seems to be for many people. A cheaper Nordy may just not be a "better" value on any level.

-More people play Fenders in studios all over the world than Sadowskys in Nashville. But that does not really translate into any definitive general rule either as it really comes down to what the player's taste leads him to.

[narud]

Originally Posted by 78Jazzlover

- Values vary to different players, in that if you really want an older sounding "broken in" Jazz style in a 5 string then Coppolo may be worth the price, or other brands, and seems to be for many people. A cheaper Nordy may just not be a "better" value on any level.

fwiw, my nordy 5 sounds way more like my 62 jazz than all the coppolo's ive played or the clips they recently posted. they really are (or were now that production numbers are going down) a great value. when it comes to 4's though, id still take a fender.

[78Jazzlover]

Originally Posted by narud

fwiw, my nordy 5 sounds way more like my 62 jazz than all the coppolo's ive played or the clips they recently posted. they really are (or were now that production numbers are going down) a great value. when it comes to 4's though, id still take a fender.

....and once again I've heard the exact opposite from people. They are a great value to you. Others wouldent play a Nordy for their price, and I've heard people say they wouldent play a Coppolo after trying them out. You are one of the most vocal about that.

No sweat, I would never lay money down on a Sadowsky as they are, thousands would disagree, and rather vociferously here on Talkbass. This is the thing here, the OP has a thread on a subject that cannot be settled with any consensus that would be acceptable by all. So like 95 % of Talkbass threads, it should end in the OP going to try some out for themselves or listen to music with the instruments in question.

[narud]

Originally Posted by 78Jazzlover

....and once again I've heard the exact opposite from people. They are a great value to you. Others wouldent play a Nordy for their price, and I've heard people say they wouldent play a Coppolo after trying them out. You are one of the most vocal about that.

No sweat, I would never lay money down on a Sadowsky as they are, thousands would disagree, and rather vociferously here on Talkbass. This is the thing here, the OP has a thread on a subject that cannot be settled with any consensus that would be acceptable by all. So like 95 % of Talkbass threads, it should end in the OP going to try some out for themselves or listen to music with the instruments in question.

and since the op wants a 4, fender's a no brainer

[CliffD]

Originally Posted by burk48237

In the vintage vs. Modern debate a few quick points:

1) There is a HUGE difference between 70's Fenders which had notoriously poor QC and the Pre CBS basses when Fender was far pickier about both its wood supplies and QC. I always laugh when people say they want the sound of 70's J bass. Because during the 70's all we did was buy beater Fenders, give them a good set up, and rip all of Fenders mediocre hardware off them to improve the bridges, tuners, pickups and pre. Still there is no more crap shoot market than a used 70's Fender. Even todays Guitar Center specials got better factory QC. The only advantage a 70's Fender has over a modern bass is if it was played the wood has dried out and has more resonance.

Wow...70s fender jazz basses must be crap....

[Zanderwestcoast]

I own many modern basses which I enjoy very much including a Nordy VJ5, a Lakland 55 94 deluxe, Roscoe SKB 3005, among many others, but my 76 Fender Jazz Ash/maple is still my go to bass. To suggest these basses are poorly put together and don't sound good is f***ing ridiculous. I have played many modern day J basses including Sadowskys that arguably might be built to a higher standard but ultimately don't sound as good and can often easily get lost in the mix, especially in a real world live or recording situation. Its not enough for a bass to sound good in a music shop on its own...it has to sound good over top other istruments in a musical context. This is an area that the vintage Fenders excel and why they have been an industry stndard for so long.

[droskobass]

I don't think anyone is saying 70's fenders sound bad. I just think that if there wasn't an overall average drop in consistency in quality, or weight, neck quality, Fulerplast under the nitro (if there is any nitro) etc... the "vintage market" as we know it, never would have started. All Fender basses would be considered equal and the older ones wouldn't be judged by the year they were made but by their overall condition. (the newer, the better!)

George Gruhn has a cool video where he talks about the difference between an "old instrument" and a vintage instrument. Sure some 70's J and P basses are insanely great...but not all of them. And for that reason, all of those made prior to 1965 are much more valuable to collectors. Some of the CBS may be good instruments (I own four great CBS Fenders), they may be old, they might have MOJO and sound great. but they aren't really "Vintage" as in the best years ever for basses.

a 1993 Sadowsky a 2008 Lull, a 2009 AC... could all be considered vintage instruments one day. There a very few of them out there (in fact the numbers of each are clearly documented) the quality of construction are the highest of their respective eras...etc. Roger doesn't build his own basses any more. (AFAIK) they are team built. Who knows, in 20 years a 1993 Sadowsky may be worth ten times as much as a 2008. but that's not what we're discussing in this thread.

The OP was really asking about which bass was the most playable.

In my opinion, Lulls are the most playable instruments on earth in terms of weight, balance, and fingerboard/neck design. Mike also intentionally makes them sound like pre CBS or even 70's fenders.

Mike Lull an Vinny Coppolo still touch every single instrument that they make and they only make about 200-300 basses a year... This may determine these basses' "vintage" value in the future. (just like a pre EB Musicman, a pre gibson Tobias or a modern MTD...)

[ghoulbug]

Originally Posted by narud

and since the op wants a 4, fender's a no brainer

You'd probably recommend the AV Reissues, right?
I regret not getting one for myself, all the while watching the price jump up from around $1100 to $1800.

Seeing as how I'd never feel comfortable paying over $3000 for a classic Fender style bass, I'll probably Warmoth my project with a local tech or have Stambaugh build it.