• 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.

1953 Precision Bass

#101
You guys crack me up. We don't know a "history" on the instrument, so we can't make one up. Guitars have certainly been "played to death", others have been "abused to death". In the long run, who freakin' cares ? This bass is what it is, and no amount of whining about it "not being in pristine condition" will make it a shiny, pretty bass. This bass isn't important because it is worn in, abused, played, beat up, neglected, whatever....it is important because it is a rare glimpse at an early Fender bass....you know, the bass that "started it all" for most of us, as it was the first commercially successful solid body bass. People keep going on about "I'd rather buy a perfect instrument"...well, go freakin' buy one then. I gave the links to the others on the market at this time...pony up the cash. Oh, you don't have $20k to spend on a bass ? Well, pretty much none of us do, so saying stuff like "I would rather buy...." is ridiculous. You're not in the market.....so just appreciate the bass for what it is...the "Grandfather" of YOUR bass.

God, I'm almost sorry I started this thread and bothered to share the photos...
 
#102
smcd said:
No, not judgemental. Accurate. Sheehan's bass above is beat to crap. Most of that isn't normal playing wear and tear. It's been routed and hacked. Which he's entitled to do, I mean... it's his bass.

But using Sheehan's bass as an example pretty much proves the opposite of the point you were trying to make.
Click to expand...

How so? You've witnessed him beating it to crap? And what is "normal" wear and tear? How do your roadies treat your instrument... and would your bass have fared better after thousands of gigs? You also witnessed Billy chipping/sanding the black paint to bare wood and deliberately snapping the pickguard at the input jack? If not you and others of your ilk are... well... judgmental. ;)
 
#106
For all those who complain about the condition of these basses, just think, a beat up '53 will cost a lot less than one in pristine condition, but will probably sound just as good, maybe even better. Why not take advantage of that fact and get a beat up oldster, and then you can have it refinished to your liking so that it looks pretty and pristine, and then you can take care of it and keep it looking pristine?

Personally I prefer the look of a pristine bass to a worn out beast. But I still like the look of a beat-up antique, just not as much as one that's been well cared for. And I'd buy the beat-up one in a heartbeat over a pristine one, because I care most about the tone of the instrument, and if buying a worn out bass saves me thousands of $$, you bet I'll buy the ugly battle-scarred beast. And I wouldn't bother spending the cash on refinishing it and making it all shiny again. I'd just clean it up a bit to remove any dust and and dodgy biological residue, and then leave it as is in all its ugly charm.
 
#107
lunarpollen said:
For all those who complain about the condition of these basses, just think, a beat up '53 will cost a lot less than one in pristine condition, but will probably sound just as good, maybe even better. Why not take advantage of that fact and get a beat up oldster, and then you can have it refinished to your liking so that it looks pretty and pristine, and then you can take care of it and keep it looking pristine?
Click to expand...
Well, because if you do that you'll kill it's value. There's a lot of value in 'original,' even if it's 'beaten to death.'
 
#108
I like how the bass is marked as used , most can tell that. Maybe its because relics are sold new. 13500$ is kinda tempting for what it is i could barely afford it and i would not have enough money for a new amp so a 1953 p through a behringer 2x10 hahah
 
#109
Dark Horse said:
You guys crack me up. We don't know a "history" on the instrument, so we can't make one up. Guitars have certainly been "played to death", others have been "abused to death". In the long run, who freakin' cares ? This bass is what it is, and no amount of whining about it "not being in pristine condition" will make it a shiny, pretty bass. This bass isn't important because it is worn in, abused, played, beat up, neglected, whatever....it is important because it is a rare glimpse at an early Fender bass....you know, the bass that "started it all" for most of us, as it was the first commercially successful solid body bass. People keep going on about "I'd rather buy a perfect instrument"...well, go freakin' buy one then. I gave the links to the others on the market at this time...pony up the cash. Oh, you don't have $20k to spend on a bass ? Well, pretty much none of us do, so saying stuff like "I would rather buy...." is ridiculous. You're not in the market.....so just appreciate the bass for what it is...the "Grandfather" of YOUR bass.

God, I'm almost sorry I started this thread and bothered to share the photos...
Click to expand...

I've been thoroughly enjoying this thread. (A few silly tangents notwithstanding - what are you gonna do?) And your posts have been right on the money IMO. :D

So, please. Keep 'em coming!
 
#112
GregC said:
Show me the timeline where your two assumptions about the bass's history can coexist.

Then explain how it is you are so marvelously omniscient.
Click to expand...
You've made a statement, I've asked you to clarify, and you answer with a question?? Again... explain how those 2 posts are inconsistent.


I never claimed to be omniscient. Marvelous, well, yeah - I can see how you'd think that. It's not as hard as you imagine. All you need is experience and common sense and, drawing back on that, you can make some pretty accurate assumptions.

Like when a bum asks you for some spare change for a "bite to eat". A person who was credulous might say "Who am I to judge? He says he's hungry. Here you are sir. Enjoy your meal". But someone who's been around the block would say "This guy wants to buy booze". 98 times out of 100 the bum will buy booze. It's not being judgemental, it's having a little bit of street smarts.

Same with that bass.
 
#113
Dark Horse said:
You guys crack me up. We don't know a "history" on the instrument, so we can't make one up. Guitars have certainly been "played to death", others have been "abused to death". In the long run, who freakin' cares ? This bass is what it is, and no amount of whining about it "not being in pristine condition" will make it a shiny, pretty bass. This bass isn't important because it is worn in, abused, played, beat up, neglected, whatever....it is important because it is a rare glimpse at an early Fender bass....you know, the bass that "started it all" for most of us, as it was the first commercially successful solid body bass. People keep going on about "I'd rather buy a perfect instrument"...well, go freakin' buy one then. I gave the links to the others on the market at this time...pony up the cash. Oh, you don't have $20k to spend on a bass ? Well, pretty much none of us do, so saying stuff like "I would rather buy...." is ridiculous. You're not in the market.....so just appreciate the bass for what it is...the "Grandfather" of YOUR bass.

God, I'm almost sorry I started this thread and bothered to share the photos...
Click to expand...

No need to throw a tantrum. No one is slagging you for taking pictures. It's the "mojo" thing and the automatic worship of banged up old instruments that's the issue here.

And - now don't take this the wrong way - photos of early Fender basses aren't really rare. There are zillions of them. Not that yours aren't nice.
 
#114
I was wondering if it was my old one, but...


"
This page is frozen

We are sorry, this site is unavailable because it has used up its monthly bandwidth. Please try back another time.

If you are the site owner, you can signup for additional bandwidth by logging into your Webs.com account."
 
#115
smcd said:
No need to throw a tantrum. No one is slagging you for taking pictures. It's the "mojo" thing and the automatic worship of banged up old instruments that's the issue here.

And - now don't take this the wrong way - photos of early Fender basses aren't really rare. There are zillions of them. Not that yours aren't nice.
Click to expand...

No tantrum at all. The people that are typically "overreacting" are the ones who are all up in arms about the fact that this bass is in less than "pristine" condition. They keep going on and on instead of just appreciating a great old instrument. And yes, I know it's "great" because I've done this crazy thing...I've held it in my hands and PLAYED it. And guess what...the only other person in this thread who has PLAYED it also sang its praises.


The "issue" ? Seriously. Are you too myopic to see that the only "issue" in this (and many other) threads is that people like you are seemingly unable to let people have a differing opinion than yours. Others in the thread have said "I don't like it, I prefer a clean bass", and that's totally cool....but not you....no, you go on and on about how everyone is "wrong" and you are "right" about how a bass should look, play, and what its' history is. The fact is that you are 100% clueless about its' history, how it sounds, and how it feels in your hands. 100%. You had never seen this bass prior to me posting this thread and the pictures.

Look closer at the pictures - there are ZERO signs of abuse...quite the opposite in fact. There are no deep gouges, no chunks missing, no bent tuners, nothing. The fretboard is in nice shape, the tuners are in great shape and fully functional, the owner replaced needed parts in the bridge a long time ago, etc. What there ARE signs of is a bass that has been played and needed to change a few parts for the sake of "maintenance".

If you can find a better set of photos of a 53 P Bass, by all means post a link. I'd love to see them. Zillions.... you highly exaggerate, but you seem to have a tendency to do that.

With that said, I'm done with this thread. It has become entirely too ridiculous. I will, however, check back here to see your links to zillions of in depth pictures of first generation Blackguard P Basses.
 
#116
smcd said:
You've made a statement, I've asked you to clarify, and you answer with a question?? Again... explain how those 2 posts are inconsistent.


I never claimed to be omniscient. Marvelous, well, yeah - I can see how you'd think that. It's not as hard as you imagine. All you need is experience and common sense and, drawing back on that, you can make some pretty accurate assumptions.

Like when a bum asks you for some spare change for a "bite to eat". A person who was credulous might say "Who am I to judge? He says he's hungry. Here you are sir. Enjoy your meal". But someone who's been around the block would say "This guy wants to buy booze". 98 times out of 100 the bum will buy booze. It's not being judgemental, it's having a little bit of street smarts.

Same with that bass.
Click to expand...
You're making all kinds of assumptions about this bass' history, as Dark Horse said.
smcd said:
More likely this bass was used as a baseball bat/car jack by 2 generations of bratty kids and then left in a damp cellar next to the boiler for 20 years.
Click to expand...
smcd said:
That bass in the OP wasn't played for 50 years. It was perhaps played for 20 or so years and then put away when the owner got a better bass. Certainly that bass hasn't been regularly gigged since the early 90's when the vintage market began taking off.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, particularly since you're the one making all the claims about the bass. But let's see...played for 20 years + left in a damp cellar next to a boiler for 20 years + 2 generations of kids using it as a baseball bat/car jack (a generation = 20-25 years)...that's a good bit longer than the bass' 56 years of life.

More importantly, as DH said, there are no gouges to indicate all this abuse you're claiming. If anything, the wear looks a lot like that of George Porter's P that I posted. So you might want to tone down your certainty just a little bit there.
 
#117
Dark Horse said:
Look closer at the pictures - there are ZERO signs of abuse...quite the opposite in fact. There are no deep gouges, no chunks missing, no bent tuners, nothing. The fretboard is in nice shape, the tuners are in great shape and fully functional, the owner replaced needed parts in the bridge a long time ago, etc. What there ARE signs of is a bass that has been played and needed to change a few parts for the sake of "maintenance".
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I was lucky enough to spend as much time with this bass as I wanted to, so you could say I got a good look at it. Now, even though it's definitely seen its share of dirty hands and smoke-filled clubs, it doesn't show any signs of actual abuse. I could maybe suggest there was a little "neglect" on someone's behalf, because the bass looks like it took on a bunch of direct sunlight for extended periods of time, though...

The bottom line is, it plays incredibly well, sounds amazing, and is a spectacular find - regardless of its condition. We should all be thanking Darkhorse for taking the time to share this piece of history with us.
 
#118
Dark Horse said:
The "issue" ? Seriously. Are you too myopic to see that the only "issue" in this (and many other) threads is that people like you are seemingly unable to let people have a differing opinion than yours. Others in the thread have said "I don't like it, I prefer a clean bass", and that's totally cool....but not you....no, you go on and on about how everyone is "wrong" and you are "right" about how a bass should look, play, and what its' history is. The fact is that you are 100% clueless about its' history, how it sounds, and how it feels in your hands. 100%. You had never seen this bass prior to me posting this thread and the pictures.

Look closer at the pictures - there are ZERO signs of abuse...quite the opposite in fact. There are no deep gouges, no chunks missing, no bent tuners, nothing. The fretboard is in nice shape, the tuners are in great shape and fully functional, the owner replaced needed parts in the bridge a long time ago, etc. What there ARE signs of is a bass that has been played and needed to change a few parts for the sake of "maintenance".

If you can find a better set of photos of a 53 P Bass, by all means post a link. I'd love to see them. Zillions.... you highly exaggerate, but you seem to have a tendency to do that.

With that said, I'm done with this thread. It has become entirely too ridiculous. I will, however, check back here to see your links to zillions of in depth pictures of first generation Blackguard P Basses.
Click to expand...

In which post did I say someone is "wrong" and I'm "right" about "how a bass should look". Rather than throw a little fit, perhaps you should go back and look for that evidence. Once you don't find it, you'll realize what I'm saying.

There are innumerable signs of abuse on that bass. I don't think you understand what abuse is. At best, it's been neglected.
 
#119
GregC said:
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, particularly since you're the one making all the claims about the bass. But let's see...played for 20 years + left in a damp cellar next to a boiler for 20 years + 2 generations of kids using it as a baseball bat/car jack (a generation = 20-25 years)...that's a good bit longer than the bass' 56 years of life.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Umm.... it seems in your zeal to prove me wrong, you're taking what I say quite literally. When one says "I almost died when that happened", it doesn't mean that person was actually near death.

Likewise, when I say that bass has been by a boiler for 20 years, it doesn't mean "I know for a fact that this bass sat in a corner to the right of a Babcock & Wilcox boiler, model RG-2100 for 20 years exactly. Not a day more or less."

Nor when I say it's been used as a baseball bat/car jack by 2 generations of kids do I mean "The O'Banion kids, George and Horace, used this bass repeatedly to jack up their 1951 Hudson Hornet. And their kids, Maura and Abernathy, used it as a bat for 2 seasons of Little League."


What I'm saying is that this bass has been subject to abuse and neglect beyond "normal playing wear". This is clear from the photos.


It's "poetic license". Do you understand what I'm saying?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back