• 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.

68 Fender P Bass - imposter?

#22
JIO said:
Body and pg are original - possibly the bridge, maybe the pots. (obviously the EMG pu's and the neck is an Allparts replacement not original) Too bad the battery rout in the back.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much!
So you're not concerned about the bridge holes and neck holes being non standard? That's really the only thing I'm worried about. Otherwise it seems legit. Seems strange they aren't standard. How would that have happened and how common was it?
 
#24
Sands said:
Thank you very much!
So you're not concerned about the bridge holes and neck holes being non standard? That's really the only thing I'm worried about. Otherwise it seems legit. Seems strange they aren't standard. How would that have happened and how common was it?
Click to expand...

These were the years when CBS was becoming fully integrated as the managing element for functional day to day operations. From mid '65 through the later 60's, I could imagine things remained somewhat consistent as they were probably using pre-sale stock etc. According to 'The Fender Bass' An Illustrated History - the threaded saddle bridge was used until 1969 - so your single slot saddle bridge could have been swapped for the original. For whatever reason, this was common back then. The single slot saddle version was used from 1969 (mid year) well into the 80's. The base plate was beefed up in '82 thru '85 - perhaps yours is one of those as they did a lot of strange things during those years. The pg is definitely from that late 60's period as it has the skinny black center layer - it's just in very good condition. Pg's like this show up on eBay selling for hundreds of dollars.
 
#27
Sands said:
So you're not concerned about the bridge holes and neck holes being non standard? That's really the only thing I'm worried about. Otherwise it seems legit. Seems strange they aren't standard. How would that have happened and how common was it?
Click to expand...
JIO said:
These were the years when CBS was becoming fully integrated as the managing element for functional day to day operations. From mid '65 through the later 60's, I could imagine things remained somewhat consistent as they were probably using pre-sale stock etc. According to 'The Fender Bass' An Illustrated History - the threaded saddle bridge was used until 1969 - so your single slot saddle bridge could have been swapped for the original. For whatever reason, this was common back then. The single slot saddle version was used from 1969 (mid year) well into the 80's. The base plate was beefed up in '82 thru '85 - perhaps yours is one of those as they did a lot of strange things during those years. The pg is definitely from that late 60's period as it has the skinny black center layer - it's just in very good condition. Pg's like this show up on eBay selling for hundreds of dollars.
Click to expand...

Understand. The pg definitely looks right. The finish looks very old. The neck
Plate seems right. But the thing is that the holes are different in the body under the bridge. Wouldn't the single slot and the threaded have the same holes in the body? I tried placing a badass II on it and it was fine until the outer holes which were significantly askew. (I could have rammed them in at nearly a 45' angle). As far as the neck holes, this is also concerning. Shouldn't they line up with another p bass neck's holes? It doesn't. I don't understand how the bass could have been made with non standard mounting holes. I'm sure it's possible the builders could have done it. But did they? Seems like an odd approach if you've got some kind of template or jig. I just want to be sure before I do anything!
 
#28
Dave W said:
The 62' AVRI came stock with a 4 ply guard that you buy aftermarket too.

My reasoning for not being sure about it are the cut marks on the top edge but I haven't inspected a ton of older basses to know its its common or not.
Click to expand...

…but not with the skinny black layer - and most likely that '62 pg is photo/dot pattern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave W
#29
Sands said:
Understand. The pg definitely looks right. The finish looks very old. The neck
Plate seems right. But the thing is that the holes are different in the body under the bridge. Wouldn't the single slot and the threaded have the same holes in the body? I tried placing a badass II on it and it was fine until the outer holes which were significantly askew. (I could have rammed them in at nearly a 45' angle). As far as the neck holes, this is also concerning. Shouldn't they line up with another p bass neck's holes? It doesn't. I don't understand how the bass could have been made with non standard mounting holes. I'm sure it's possible the builders could have done it. But did they? Seems like an odd approach if you've got some kind of template or jig. I just want to be sure before I do anything!
Click to expand...

So you're saying there are 2 sets of pg holes? Not clear there - you mean the pg doesn't fit the body hole pattern? A couple possibilities arise depending on further details. As far as the bridge, it's anyones guess why holes don't line up since that's not the original bridge. And the neck pocket - again, it fit the original neck and the (original) plate seemed to work with that set-up. Unless you had another '68 neck to see if it aligned - who knows.
 
#30
Sands said:
How long does it take to get that fading you see where the bridge cover was and on the paint under the pick guard?

I still wonder whether Fender would have sold a bass that had non standard neck and bridge holes.
Click to expand...

They did in 73 when the bridge was moved back and the intonation screw for the G string was longer as a result. The neck pocket is slightly altered for that period as well. That could easily be a 73 body. The bridge holes look moved back further than normal.
 
#31
JIO said:
So you're saying there are 2 sets of pg holes? Not clear there - you mean the pg doesn't fit the body hole pattern? A couple possibilities arise depending on further details. As far as the bridge, it's anyones guess why holes don't line up since that's not the original bridge. And the neck pocket - again, it fit the original neck and the (original) plate seemed to work with that set-up. Unless you had another '68 neck to see if it aligned - who knows.
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn't clear. The PG holes are perfect. The Bridge on it lines up just fine on the instrument but a Badass II didn't line up with the five bridge holes in body. Middle was fine. Two inner holes were ok. Both outer screws had to angle inward towards center screw quite a bit. However, screws go straight in using the bridge that it came with.

Body's neck holes don't line up with a newish warmoth P bass neck holes.

I really appreciate the input here.
 
#32
Lownote38 said:
They did in 73 when the bridge was moved back and the intonation screw for the G string was longer as a result. The neck pocket is slightly altered for that period as well. That could easily be a 73 body. The bridge holes look moved back further than normal.
Click to expand...
Thank you very interesting. Let me just clarify that the hole line up issue is this: the bridge that came on the bass mounts perfectly. It a replacement bridge, a badass II, cannot be mounted in existing holes in the body. The middle hole lines up fine. The two inner holes are ok. The two outer holes do not line up. They were inward towards the middle hole compared to the badass, so I'd have to ram them in at a nearly 45' angle. Didn't do that obviously.

Screws setting on top of the new bridge lined up to holes in body like this:

\ | | | /
 
#33
Sands said:
Sorry I wasn't clear. The PG holes are perfect. The Bridge on it lines up just fine on the instrument but a Badass II didn't line up with the five bridge holes in body. Middle was fine. Two inner holes were ok. Both outer screws had to angle inward towards center screw quite a bit. However, screws go straight in using the bridge that it came with.

Body's neck holes don't line up with a newish warmoth P bass neck holes.

I really appreciate the input here.
Click to expand...

So it seems to me it's more that the BA bridge doesn't line up correctly - not the other way around. The current commonly found Fender bent-plate threaded saddle bridges should line up correctly with the holes in the body. Same thing with the Warmoth neck - the concept of "standard" with anything non-Fender or non-comparable vintage is a very loosy-goosy hope.
 
#34
JIO said:
So it seems to me it's more that the BA bridge doesn't line up correctly - not the other way around. The current commonly found Fender bent-plate threaded saddle bridges should line up correctly with the holes in the body. Same thing with the Warmoth neck - the concept of "standard" with anything non-Fender or non-comparable vintage is a very loosy-goosy hope.
Click to expand...
Wow. I will try another 5 hole vintage bridge and see if it fits. Thank you all very much. Please watch for updates.
 
#35
mp40smg said:
not sure what you mean.
late 60s finishes did not crack/check or flake? I see the dings. But the finish looks way too even, with little to no wear on the finish itself aside from the dings.

And it appears to have survived the whole of the 70s with NO belt buckle scarring?
Was it owned by one of those flowing robes with rope belt type people it's whole life?
Click to expand...

Listen to me, that is a real '68 body and finish. I don't have time to tell you about it. Trust me.
 
#36
Flaked Beans said:
Listen to me, that is a real '68 body and finish. I don't have time to tell you about it. Trust me.
Click to expand...

The orig owner played it enough to wear through the arm cut finish. But no wear on the back?
Did the orig owner never wear pants?

If you say it's legit, I will assume you know more than I do. I just don't understand how you get that type of wear or lack of wear pattern. I have never seen that.

If the OP likes it and is happy with what he paid for the overall instrument, it really academic anyway.
 
#37
mp40smg said:
The orig owner played it enough to wear through the arm cut finish. But no wear on the back?
Did the orig owner never wear pants?

If you say it's legit, I will assume you know more than I do. I just don't understand how you get that type of wear or lack of wear pattern. I have never seen that.

If the OP likes it and is happy with what he paid for the overall instrument, it really academic anyway.
Click to expand...

Well if he doesn't have time to explain himself, it's just more mystery. I'll post another video with more time on the back. I don't let buttons or buckles scratch my guitars so it's not too surprising to me, but it really makes you wonder what was on the right wrist and or right hand. It didn't look to have been kept free of sweat. Toxic sweat? I will post another video of the back later. There is a repair, some checking, and a large number of scratches dings dents and at least one repair in the finish.
 
#38
mp40smg said:
The orig owner played it enough to wear through the arm cut finish. But no wear on the back?
Did the orig owner never wear pants?

If you say it's legit, I will assume you know more than I do. I just don't understand how you get that type of wear or lack of wear pattern. I have never seen that.

If the OP likes it and is happy with what he paid for the overall instrument, it really academic anyway.
Click to expand...
Maybe Flea owned it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drums1977 and BlacknWhite

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back