• 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.

1990 Warwick Thumb?

T

thedg

Dec 29, 2009
19
0
#1
I'm in the market for a new bass, and came across a 1990 Warwick Thumb at a local shop for $1800. I had never played one before and it just felt good playing it - the most smooth and comfortable bass I've played and also sounded incredible (I played sitting, so I didn't experience the dreaded "neck dive"). So, being in pretty good condition, is $1800 a good deal? Right now its between that and a new Stingray.
Thanks in advance.
 
#7
thedg said:
I'm in the market for a new bass, and came across a 1990 Warwick Thumb at a local shop for $1800. I had never played one before and it just felt good playing it - the most smooth and comfortable bass I've played and also sounded incredible (I played sitting, so I didn't experience the dreaded "neck dive"). So, being in pretty good condition, is $1800 a good deal? Right now its between that and a new Stingray.
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I just played a bolt-on Thumb 5'er at my local guitar shop and it was at around $1k mark. If you're looking for help deciding between a new Stingray and a 20 year old Warwick... IMO Stingray all the way.. I love 'em. The music I play lends itself more to what a Stingray produces. I'm not a fan of the MEC pups.. they seem very sterile.
 
#9
The Thumb is an incredible instrument IMO, pretty much a unique voice combined with a very playable design. Sounds a little like a Stingray, but more refined (again, IMO).

However, I really, really, really strongly advise playing it standing with a strap, for about half an hour at least to find out if it is comfortable or not. My Thumb BO rarely sees action these days because of the physical pain it causes from it's unbalanced design.
 
#10
Agreed on potentially-deal-killing neck dive; I had a Thumb BO-4 and loved it to the point of vowing to have another someday, but it definitely dove a bit. Being a 4, it wasn't awful & I dealt w/it for the tone & playability.
$1800 is alright I guess for a NT- mind you I prefer the sound of BO's(NOT saying one is *better*, just my personal pref). I will say I recently sold a wenge-necked 98 FNA(tad bit cheaper bass); I sat on it for a LONG time & eventually had to settle for far less than a grand.
 
#13
I've had my Thumb NT 5er for a long time now and the neck dive isn't any worse than any other bass I've owned... not sure what expectations people have when they claim terrible neck dive.

1990 will have the wenge neck, which many Warwick fans claim is a better sound that the ovangkol. Without seeing it myself, $1800 sounds like a fair retail price for that bass. You should definitely try to talk him down another hundred or two.
 
#14
KsPiNeSh said:
I've had my Thumb NT 5er for a long time now and the neck dive isn't any worse than any other bass I've owned... not sure what expectations people have when they claim terrible neck dive.
Click to expand...

It's a simple matter of physics - the upper horn on the Thumb is very short (I don't remember what fret it lines up with). The short upper horn paired with a neck made from a fairly heavy wood CAN result in some pretty serious neck dive. I'm sure some Thumbs have it worse than others (depending largely on the weight of the wood). I've owned two Thumbs long term (a BO 4 and a NT 5) and they were not the best balanced instruments. I also owned two Thumb BO 5s (very short term) and I had to take them back to the store because of the neck dive (and the uncomfortably large necks). To the OP - try the bass standing with a strap. Be honest with yourself about how comfortable it is to wear and, if you are in love, buy the thing and enjoy it!
 
#16
thedg said:
So, being in pretty good condition, is $1800 a good deal?
Click to expand...

Later NTs (97-2002) go for around 1200-1400... So you're paying a bit of a premium for the eariler year... IMO 1800 is not a steal, but it's not a total ripoff either.

If you played it and you liked it, I'd try to get it for sure. Don't be afraid to haggle a little.

(Does it come with the gig bag, hard case, or flight case? If it comes with the warwick flight case, it's a bit better deal.)
 
#17
fu22ba55 said:
Later NTs (97-2002) go for around 1200-1400... So you're paying a bit of a premium for the eariler year... IMO 1800 is not a steal, but it's not a total ripoff either.

If you played it and you liked it, I'd try to get it for sure. Don't be afraid to haggle a little.

(Does it come with the gig bag, hard case, or flight case? If it comes with the warwick flight case, it's a bit better deal.)
Click to expand...
Learning something about Warwicks here... Why are the pre '97 Thumbs worth more? Better built? Better electronics? Collect-ability? Thanks.
 
#19
Adlerburg said:
Learning something about Warwicks here... Why are the pre '97 Thumbs worth more? Better built? Better electronics? Collect-ability? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Warwick aficionado (there are plenty around these parts) but I'll offer some thoughts. Warwick built it's reputation in the late 80s and early 90s. During this time, the basses were actually hand-made and the woods (and other materials) used were top notch. Warwick later started to cut corners with some of their materials and they began, for example, to use ovankol instead of wenge in the construction of their necks (as mentioned, a lot of people seem to prefer the wenge). How much of the "older Warwicks are better" talk is legitimate I wouldn't know, but it would seem that a lot of people regard the late 80s and early 90s as the "golden era" of Warwicks.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back