Not saying the Sads and Lulls aren't very nice instruments and worth their price...just keeping it real. The picture below shows the Fender's subtle wear more clearly. Notice how the E string side is worn slightly more than the G side, possibly from wrapping the thumb over the fingerboard. From my limited experience and judging by the fret/fingerboard wear, I would say that this bass was well cared for, but saw regular use for several years.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
1962 Jazz $20K on the bay
- Thread starter themacinator
- Start date
Just to put in my bit (though I don't know that much about vintage fenders):
oyes, you can fake a fender,
obut why would you want one in such 'perfect' condition anyway? Those that have been played, loved and beat about (almost) always sound better! I'd far rather own an old beat-up jazz bass because of what it sounds like than a brand new jazz bass because you can say 'oh yes, this is my '62 fender standard jazz bass (serial number *******) in perfect condition' that's obviously never been loved, and sounds like a brand new one but has a fancy name.
oyes, you can fake a fender,
obut why would you want one in such 'perfect' condition anyway? Those that have been played, loved and beat about (almost) always sound better! I'd far rather own an old beat-up jazz bass because of what it sounds like than a brand new jazz bass because you can say 'oh yes, this is my '62 fender standard jazz bass (serial number *******) in perfect condition' that's obviously never been loved, and sounds like a brand new one but has a fancy name.
John D said:Take a look at your Sadowskys and Lulls fifty years from now. I'll bet you that their fingerboards are rounded from wear then, just like that Fender is now.
Maybe. But we live in the present.
If in fact that comes from wear. The rest of the bass looks factory fresh.
The fender neck you guys are commenting on is NOT from the mint condition one that started this thread. So I think that is why you're talking past each other.
GreenWithEnvy said:
Ah, that explains it. I did think it odd that such a mint bass would look like that.
josiah goldfish said:
Agree. Although I don't think they sound any better. I just like a vintage instrument that tells a story.
I feel the same way about the antique furniture I buy.
These pictures are of the '71 stacked knob, and it is not factory fresh. I'd call it gracefully aged. YMMV
Edit: Sorry, someone beat me to it. I like both old and new basses, and like Dan, I like for them to tell a story.
Those instruments are still just run of the mill production instruments no matter what they think. The whole vintage market is BS and the funny thing is everyone knows it yet many still fall for the con.
Vintage Fender instruments are nothing more than Leo Fender intended: They were and are the best affordable pro level production instruments available. Why else do you think they have been the number one selling bass since they were first produced? No other brand has come even close to the popularity of Fender basses. I agree that age has very little to do with their quality. Mine has always been THAT good.
Exactly. There's no real magic in them getting older. An instrument sounds the way it does because it's basically always sounded that way (provided nobody's modified anything along the way). If there are any changes to the tone due to the use/abuse it's been through in it's lifetime it can go either way, good or bad...it's a crapshoot
Agreed, I'll even to so far as to say that the vintage market is more about nostalgia and capitalism than anything else. Take money and emotion out of the equation, and most people would favor a new instrument. Still, you ain't gettin' mine.
Still, you ain't gettin' mine.
No to worry, I have no real desire for any "vintage" instrument. The ones I have I've had from since before they were considered "vintage" and I've been disposing of them as time permits.
C'mon man! My finish BREATHES man! It's past it's mid-life crisis, rock solid - all that resin has dried away! She's brighter, whistling in the breeze (as I can even remember how bright she was 40 years ago).
*grabs pick, plucks strings*. Yeah, my 2011 is suddenly brighter too. Didn't have to wait 50 years either.
seeing the topic , I was thinking it was one of Jaco's for that price!! , nice bass though even though I dont like jazz basses.
Now there's an industry that's full of fakes
It's filled with expert forgers with decades of experience fooling the worlds most skilled experts. But they would never cross over into guitars unless there was money in it.You are so going to get it!
Yeah, I think it's BS too. But once you get suckered for that kind of money it's hard to accept you've been had. It was easier to understand when only the Japanese were falling for it. Now that they've started to sell them back at a profit the joke isn't as funny anymore.
Without opening up a can of worms (which I'm very good at), I'd just like to point out how extremely subtle the tonal changes would be from wood aging and "settling into itself". It would take a veteran audiophile with superb ears to hear the difference, and he could probably only do it with the bass solo'd in a studio environment using premium monitors. And even then, the change would not necessarily be "better". Just different.
But in real-world settings? With a live band or in a recorded mix? No way. You're better off working on your technique to maximize your tone.
Phew. You mean we're not playing hollow 400-year old Cellos?
I'm still learning how many alchemy myths luthiers carry over from acoustic to solid-body instruments.
