Fender road worn Jazz bass questions.

[VWbug08']

I've read a lot of posts that are very positive about the Road Worn Jazz Bass. Does anyone know what kind of wood the body is and if they have graphite stiffening rods in the necks like MIAs?
Thanks.

[DTF]

the specs on the fender site , dont say anything, id guess alder and no rods

[VWbug08']

Thanks. yes, I checked the site and couldn't find out. Didn't see anything specific when I did a search on previous posts.

[SteveC]

I don't know the answers to your questions, but the one I played was really nice. Loud, great tone, nice neck, etc.

[Clutchcargo]

I can't prove this but I remember reading somewhere that the Road Worn Jazz is the same bass as the 60's MIM. Looks like the specs are very close if not the same. I've had the MIM 60's Jazz for a couple of years and really like it. The heel truss rod adjustment is inconvienent but the reverse tuners don't bother me. No complaints here, a keeper..... Lee

[mdogs]

Hijack...I was watching the EC Crossroads DVD the other night and Oteil Burbridge was playing an RW P with flats. Sounded incredible, but in his hands what doesn't... Have to believe that I guy that can play anything he chooses (and does) would not play it if it wasn't top notch!

[One Drop]

Originally Posted by Clutchcargo

I can't prove this but I remember reading somewhere that the Road Worn Jazz is the same bass as the 60's MIM. Looks like the specs are very close if not the same. I've had the MIM 60's Jazz for a couple of years and really like it. The heel truss rod adjustment is inconvienent but the reverse tuners don't bother me. No complaints here, a keeper..... Lee

Don't think so. The RWs are lighter and I don't remember the necks feeling the same.

I've tried a few different '60s and RW Js, and while the '60s struck me as nice Js for the cash, every RW I've played struck me as a fabulous passive J at any price. I really don't know what they did with these, I guess just the sum of it's parts and good wood.

[tjh]

Originally Posted by Clutchcargo

I can't prove this but I remember reading somewhere that the Road Worn Jazz is the same bass as the 60's MIM. Looks like the specs are very close if not the same. I've had the MIM 60's Jazz for a couple of years and really like it. The heel truss rod adjustment is inconvienent but the reverse tuners don't bother me. No complaints here, a keeper..... Lee

This was my belief as well .. but according to a few that have played them both, somehow there is a difference ... I also have the Classic J, and in the near future will figure something out to compare the two a bit closer ... but, you are correct, the specs appear almost, if not identical, minus a few battle scars ... and for sure the Classic is the base instrument used prior to it being 'massaged' into something that is selling for $2-300 more ...

[Tusec]

RW body is alder and no graphite rods.

I owned an RW Jazz and a Classic 60s Jazz at the same time. I compared them closely and it is clear to me that they are NOT the same bass, though there is some overlap.

Differences:

-- RW body is 1/8" thinner

-- RW fingerboard is 1/16" thicker

-- nut material is different

-- RW tort pickguard color is different, darker/browner (could be normal variation though)

-- RW body is finished in nitro versus the Classic's poly

-- RW has rounded fingerboard edges (probably part of relic process)

-- Also, I seem to remember the RW position markers being made of a slightly different material and it having a thinner headstock, but I'm not sure of these.

Similarities:

-- same tuners and hardware (but aged on the RW)

-- same pickups (but aged on the RW)

I'd be interested in whether others have noticed these same differences and similarities.

[BigOldHarry]

Originally Posted by mdogs

Hijack...I was watching the EC Crossroads DVD the other night and Oteil Burbridge was playing an RW P with flats. Sounded incredible, but in his hands what doesn't... Have to believe that I guy that can play anything he chooses (and does) would not play it if it wasn't top notch!

Isn't it possible that he was playing an ACTUAL "road worn" bass, not a faux one? Did you see some sort of insignia that indicated that the bass was one of these factory "roadworn" basses?

[VWbug08']

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[Rocky McD]

I don't think there is a big difference between a regular MIM bass and a RW, other than the extensive hand work on the neck. The rounded edges, polished fret ends, and the sanded back of the neck jump out at you instantly as, "this bass is comfortable". The vintage, aged hardware is nice, the thinner lacquer is nice but the real difference is the "old friend comfort" that it gives you. Just my casual opinion.
Rocky

[tjh]

Originally Posted by Tusec

RW body is alder and no graphite rods.

I owned an RW Jazz and a Classic 60s Jazz at the same time. I compared them closely and it is clear to me that they are NOT the same bass, though there is some overlap.

Differences:

-- RW body is 1/8" thinner

-- RW fingerboard is 1/16" thicker

-- nut material is different

-- RW tort pickguard color is different, darker/browner (could be normal variation though)

-- RW body is finished in nitro versus the Classic's poly

-- RW has rounded fingerboard edges (probably part of relic process)

-- Also, I seem to remember the RW position markers being made of a slightly different material and it having a thinner headstock, but I'm not sure of these.

Similarities:

-- same tuners and hardware (but aged on the RW)

-- same pickups (but aged on the RW)

I'd be interested in whether others have noticed these same differences and similarities.

Very good post, thank you ... everything is pretty much what I expected, other than the extra thickness of the RW fretboard ... I would assume that this would be to accomodate the rolled fretboard edges, and increase the fret dressing ... so it appears, other than body thickness (and this & the finish would account for the weight differences) that the majority of the diff would be condensed to neck, nut, and playability/comfort ... I noticed a big difference between rolled FB edges and not on an American Standard J (96'), and a 2001 American Series Jazz, but that may have been because of the 9.5" radius FB ... I am not as sure it would be as noticable on the 7 1/4" ... but I am imagine that it helps ...

I have had 3 of the Classic Series 60's J's, and each neck was considerably different (couple years between each), I wonder if there is a higher rate of consistency on the RW necks?? ... also, all had somewhat different brown shades of tort guards ...

Looking at the bodies, it appears that the RW does have the 'CNC' hole under the pickguard, where none of the Classic's I have had did, although that may not be the case with the current ones ... this would not be an issue unless one opted to go without p/g ...

thanks again for such a thorough comparison ... I have to ask, do you still have both, and if not, which did you keep if either??

[tjh]

Originally Posted by Rocky McD

I don't think there is a big difference between a regular MIM bass and a RW, other than the extensive hand work on the neck. The rounded edges, polished fret ends, and the sanded back of the neck jump out at you instantly as, "this bass is comfortable". The vintage, aged hardware is nice, the thinner lacquer is nice but the real difference is the "old friend comfort" that it gives you. Just my casual opinion.
Rocky

I think you mean the difference between the Classic Series 60's and the RW, dont you?? ... there is a BIG difference between the 'regular' MIM (Standard) and the Road Worn ...

[mdogs]

Originally Posted by BigOldHarry

Isn't it possible that he was playing an ACTUAL "road worn" bass, not a faux one? Did you see some sort of insignia that indicated that the bass was one of these factory "roadworn" basses?

Well, you could not see it, but I know that he has talked about using one at with the ABB and the looks of the wear sure looked like RW.

[jasper383]

Originally Posted by BigOldHarry

Isn't it possible that he was playing an ACTUAL "road worn" bass, not a faux one? Did you see some sort of insignia that indicated that the bass was one of these factory "roadworn" basses?

There was a Bass Player Magazine writeup of him not long ago and it listed a RW bass among his gear.

[Dr. Cheese]

I am in love the Road Worn Jazz! It's not cheap but plays like a million bucks! I only wish there were Seventies Road Worn Jazzes!

[Tusec]

Here's a pic of the body thickness difference between the RW and the Classic:



The pic is from this thread which has more RW info:

Opinions on Fender Road Worn Jazz Bass

I actually was pretty freaked out by the 1/8" thinner body as you can see in my NBD thread after buying the bass:

NBD -- Road Worn Jazz

I did the math and found that the 1/8" would result in ~1/3 lb. difference between a RW and a Classic (assuming equal density). However, my Classic was at least a pound heavier than my RW, so the difference isn't just the thickness (or the finish, which I think is negligible). I just think they selected lighter bodies for the RWs. This is seems consistent with the RW reviews I've seen, nearly all of which mention the light weight.

Ultimately I was comforted about the body thickness when another TB'er posted this pic of a RW next to a Custom Shop '59 RI:



Apparently the oldies must have had the thinner 1-5/8" thickness versus the "standard" 1-3/4". Since there was precedent, I was okay with it.

I wound up selling the Classic for parts after cleverly snapping its truss rod. But I would have sold it anyways because the RW was better. It was livelier and more interesting sounding and more fun to play...just generally the better bass. Not tons better, and the Classic certainly wasn't bad, but still better. The RW is definitely a keeper.

[lostrings]

http://www.thebasswhisperer.com/revi...adworn_rev.pdf

[VWbug08']

LoStrings. Thank you. I appreciate the article.