• 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.

1951-5 Precision Bass

#21
Man! I really like your post and your build and your photos! Very, very impressive! I love the '51 Fender and your 5 string version is awesome.

One idea I have is that the headstock is really long looking with 5 in-line. I can see that 4 + 1 is not likely with the "Telecaster" style headstock.

What about 4 clover leaf bass tuners on the top side and a small guitar tuner for the G string on the bottom side? The G string on a bass is pretty much equal to the E string on a guitar. With a small guitar tuner on the bottom side of the headstock, it would almost appear that it's a normal length '51 headstock.

You could do a drawing of it to see how it looks. My .02 cents tweak on a wonderfully designed 5er '51!
 
#22
Thanks for the input and positive commentary! Yes, the headstock has developed a certain length to it. It was adjusted so that it doesn't lose its sense of proportion and is definitely the "mother of all Tele headstocks".
3+1 and 4+1 headstocks look like an afterthought more often than not. That +1 ends up looking a little lazy hence why a leaf was taken out of the other Fender 5-in-lines. Y-key style tuners can reduce tuner-to-tuner spacing by about 5-6mm in most cases, however clover keys are a big must when vintage aspects are being maintained. Big because it has to be, but that's Fender all over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fenderchamp
#23
I think 5-in-line with clover leaf tuners is the way to go for a '51. Everything else would completely ruin the look. Besides, I always thought Fenders with 4+1 headstocks looked a little like they were trying to be MusicMan basses.

For a really big headstock, have a look at the original Fender Bass 5. :eek:

I always thought that the Warmoth Tele5 (used in the Rodent/Chef build) looked to short, since it pretty much squeezes 5 (smaller than standard, I think) tuners in to the space of 4, like the older Fender deluxe 5-in line-headstock does. The Benavente on the other hand, is a bit to long. This one looks like it manages to be just slightly shorter than the Benavente by squeezing the tuners just slightly closer together.

I like it. I think there's still room the make the headstock just slightly shorter by making the "tip" outline fit more snugly around the G-string tuner back plate. Might need to drill a new hole in the G-string tuner plate so the screw isn't to close to the edge.
 
#24
Also, if one is going to design a classic looking 5-in-line headstock I think the Telebass shape is the way to go, since it's smaller/slimmer than the later Fender style. If you base it on the later design you have to either compromise with tuner size or you end up with a monster size headstock like the original Bass 5. I also think all-in-line is part of the Fender DNA, so to speak, and has a certain appeal on a Fender style bass.

Not that 4+1 bothers me outright. I have a Fender P5 and I like it.
 
#25
None of them have ever struck me as outsize. Fenders are big even in their standard form, but when proportioned with the rest of the instrument they fit in. The Jazz Deluxe V with a 5-in-line doesn't look outsize whilst the original Bass V only looks large because of the narrow body proportioning. Match that up with an equally beefy body and it ties up. Agreed about the anti +1 optioning. I don't believe in there being a conscious decision to resemble Music Man designs - more convergent development - there is a disparity which just doesn't gel.
 
#27
The Jazz Deluxe 5 is the same size as a 4-string headstock. This requires smaller tuners to fit all 5 of them in there. Those smaller tuners look wrong to me in that context, not the headstock size per se. On the Warmoth Tele 5 version though, it does look short to me for some reason.
Prostheta said:
The Jazz Deluxe V with a 5-in-line doesn't look outsize...
Click to expand...


I agree that the Bass V headstock doesn't look that disproportionate in context, but it sure is huge. What makes it work is the fact that the body is also big. I wouldn't call the Bass V body narrow, really. It's just long.
Prostheta said:
... the original Bass V only looks large because of the narrow body proportioning. Match that up with an equally beefy body and it ties up.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#29
Trouble at mill.
Main extraction went to the wall today meaning that no painting or work will be completed this end of summer. The work would be possible, but gaming with 2k without extraction is not an option. Sorry to disappoint, people. The good news however, is that the colour scheme for the first 1951-5 has been decided on. We chose a beautiful dark metallic red from the chips. Burgundy enough to be more unstated than a bright red (which goes pink...) but vivid enough to have interest. Should be good after it is buried in plenty of clear and polished up to a glassy finish. Also looking at pickguard materials, the red matches up nicely with laminated parchment/black/parchment.

Hang onto your hats and we'll be right back into this in a few weeks. In the meantime, if you have any questions about the methods or the design I'm happy to discuss :-)
 
#31
Since nothing of importance will be achieved until August, I decided to re-do the mockup to reflect the hardware and paint changes.
LumiCustom1951-5_2_zps886b4402.jpg


The bridge is a Hipshot B-style bridge, however I only have an A-style in at the moment. That might go on there depending on whether or not I can get a B-style in. The tuners are Hipshot HB6-Y Ultralites with clover keys. Pickguard will be parchment, possibly 3-ply bevelled or maybe plain straight. Willing to discuss opinions on this of course ;-)

My good friend Brett at Guitar Logistics started work on the pickups:

IMG_20140628_151145_zpsvcr39ivl.jpg


IMG_20140628_152741_zpsmpss1vv6.jpg

IMG_20140628_165153_zpsefbsb4yn.jpg

IMG_20140628_165158_zpsq3qn1m43.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tuba_samurai
#35
.709"/18mm for this first bass. It is quite feasible to use .750"/19mm spacing without altering the neck geometry. The only alteration that it would affect would be the string location over each pickup pole.

The design is actually part of an educational article I am preparing on instrument-making. This first bass is a dry run to proof the dimensions and design aspects before I commit them. The second bass will be a blow-by-blow breakdown of each step and the rationale behind them. At least, that is what I am hoping to do anyway. Time is - as always - at a premium.

When this bass is complete it is possible that it will feature as part of a crowd-funding scheme as a perk. I'm in the process of planning/setting up a dedicated studio workshop from which to publish monthly articles and videos on guitar and bass making. Hell, I've done this for too long and I enjoy returning that which I learnt back into the pool.
 
#36
Thanks for that update. I would definitely contribute the price of 2 good six packs to this crowd-fund. I am a longtime lurker of luthiery and I've already learned much from your posts. :)

As for the bass, were it mine, I would go with an old style bent bridge. I SWEAR there is a difference when you are digging in to "Jaco area" of the strings with such a bridge. It's like there is a little more give back there and I dig that (no pun intended). My '62 RI Jazz has such a bridge and whenever I play it, the first thing I do is play near the bridge to experience it. I also feel that they are just a bit more resonant, I hear more upper harmonics. That being said, if a bent bridge made the B string lifeless then I'm not sure it's worth the tradeoff. In that case you may as well make a 4 instead.

Not for this build, but just to throw it out there...I also like basses with no pickguard. When I take the pickguard off of my Jazz I also hear more high frequency content. Would it be possible to hide the deep neck with a wood cover? Perhaps a trick magnetized one like others do for their electronics cavities?

I like the electronics you describe. Before I read your post I was actually thinking this: no volume, no tone, just a "Varitone" knob and an on/off switch that is housed in a knob so you don't know it's there. "Sleeper" detail that is! The knob would just click back and forth, like the 6-way Aria switch only fixed to two positions - on and off. :cool:
 
#37
Difficult to say about bridge mass. The jury is out and has been lunching for a few decades now ;-) Maybe it is real or maybe it is in the player's head. That said, the placebo effect might mentally alter how a player plays, making it real? Metabassism.

I thought about a no-pickguard version which I guess would need to be rear-loaded. It would be feasible to work around the exposed tenon. It would just require trickery to make invisible, however we'd be looking at six bolts at the rear.

The varitone will be altered from the original. Six values are too many so having the six position wide-open would do the trick I think. The sixth is too much like whalesong for my taste!
 
  • Like
Reactions: fenderchamp
#38
In that case, for MY bass I would have the Varitone go from wide open to completely off at the second position, then 4 more variations of less treble. Would that be do-able?

Perhaps the bent bridge has nothing to do with it and it's all about those dinky grooved saddles.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back