• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Vintage King Mortone

D

Dave Burrill

Sep 18, 2003
3
0
Visit site
#1
Hi, Folks.

This is my first post here, and I'd like to ask a few questions concerning my DB.

I purchased this DB around 20 years ago with the intention of backing up some "old-time fiddle" and Bluegrass music. Knowing absolutely nothing about Uprights, I plunked down my $350 for this old, dusty thing at a local music store and proceeded to "teach" myself how to play it. It had old flat-wound steel strings which necessitated my wrapping my right hand fingers with masking tape, but hey, it was cool and the old bugger sounded quite big. After about 2-3 years, I started playing bass for a Christian Praise band using an electric bass, and the old King ended up being a decorator item.

I've since decided to "do something" with it and have (finally) restrung it and have started thinking about possible restoration for it.

Structurally, the DB is (from what I can see) very sound. And, aside from, what I would consider, normal wear and tear for something as old as this appears to be, the finish is actually in quite good condition and has a nice, subtle shaded (sunburst?) tone. There is a beautiful decal on the back, up at the heel of the neck that says it's a King. The tuning machines do not match, but the right hand machine has "Mortone" etched into it (be nice to find a matching machine for the left side). At one point, the bass had been owned by (I believe) San Diego State Teachers College (now San Diego State University), this information coming from the initials "SDSTC #______" being etched into one of the tuning machines and into the wood at the bottom of the bass next to the peg. There's an adjustable bridge and the fingerboard hasn't had a finish on it for years. All in all, it's not in bad shape.

However, it appears that it's gonna need a neck reset real soon as there is now a gap between the neck heel and the body. I switched out the strings to nylon in order to relieve some of the tension (still sounds good, though). Also, the neck appears to have been broken/repaired professionally a long time ago.

Whew! Sorry to be so long-winded. Questions....

Given all that info; is the bass worth restoring? Where do I find a serial number? Are there any luthiers that you could recommend in San Diego, Riverside, LA area? What is the approximate cost of a reset? What is the value range of old Kings in, I would say, Good+ condition?

Thanks in advance for any replies. Again, sorry to be so long.

Thanks,

Dave
 
#8
Yes, it is a very good idea to spend the extra bucks and get a new neck put in. Have you "luthiotic" guy set the string length between 41.5 and 42 inches. The original string length is a bit too long, and it would not be difficult for you to adjust to a slightly shorter string length.

Here's a question to Ahhnold, Brainstetter, and Jeffers- should he scroll graft?
 
#13
Originally posted by nicklloyd
Allright, Bob, what the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Calm down Nick. Perhaps "out of tune with itself" was a bad choice of words. What I'm saying is that you have to maintain the Neck Length/Body Stop ratio (usually 7:10), or the relative positions of the notes on the fingerboard will be different than they were originally. And...you have to carefully calculate the heal thumb stop as part of the process or your "D" neck might not actually be a true "D" any more.
 
#16
While the 7:10 rule works for the violin family, it doesn't always work for the basses.

Neck Length + Body Stop + 1.25" = String Length

Works like a champ.

Yes, with a 43" becoming a 42", the positions will change. But, most players find 43" uncomfortable, and if a 43" neck is going to be replaced/reset, why not bring the string length down closer to 42"? A "D" heel could still be achieved...
 
#17
I find the 7:10 works more often than it doesn't. However, I am concerned with the ratio, not the particular numbers 7:10. What's with the 1.25" added to the neck & body length? A fudge Factor?

I think this whole business about 43" string length being too big for most player is a bunch of bull. I've played a large 7/8 with a 43" for years and I don't find it any more difficult to get around on than my other bass with a 42" sl. You are talking about 1" over the full playing length. The actual hand stretch is minimal. The biggest obstacle in playing a 43" is mental. Someone tells you it's too big and you believe it without ever trying one to find out if it is or not. That King that I did the neck graft on (leaving it at 43") sold to the first person who looked at it.
 
#20
While I'm usually one of the first to spout the "Luthier's Prime Directive"[don't do what can't be undone], there are instances in which the "makers" intent may need to be altered. Most every old valued bass started out life as a monster-where a 43 in. mensur was for lightweights. Over the years as players needs changed the stringlength gradually came down. Not for "mental" reasons but for very nuts and bolts technical reasons. Personally if I were actively playing right now I would go with a big string length because it would suit my needs. But for players who are pro or trying to go pro and have to face huge amounts of playing and technical challenges the shorter string length is crucial.
No disrespect meant to the King, but these basses are cookie cutter instruments and I don't think there is anything wrong with altering them.--and how many million dollar fiddles have had their original mensur changed to meet modern needs?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back