68 Fender P Bass - imposter?

[Sands]

I know what you meant. If the bridge holes were original on the bass, a badass II would line up perfectly. It's a drop in replacement for a Fender bridge, and I know they fit without any modification to those holes.

Exactly. Does anyone dispute this? Does anyone concur?

 

[Sands]

On the bridge, or on the body? It shouldn't say anything on either under the bridge if they are original Fender parts.

It's on the bridge, looks to have transferred to the body - probably went on wet. Size is about 3 mm diameter or less.

 

[Lownote38]

Exactly. Does anyone dispute this?

I think what you have here is a 72-73 body that's been refinished here, and the bridge holes drilled "not quite right". The giveaway is that lower neck pocket route, and where the bridge holes are. My '68 neck pocket route is dead straight. It doesn't have that wavy look, but a 72-73 body will, AND the bridge would be moved back like that.

 

[Lownote38]

It's on the bridge, looks to have transferred to the body - probably went on wet. Size is about 3 mm diameter or less.

Non-original bridge and finish is my guess then.

 

[Sands]

I know what you meant. If the bridge holes were original on the bass, a badass II would line up perfectly. It's a drop in replacement for a Fender bridge, and I know they fit without any modification to those holes.

Again, exactly, not talking about the holes being too close or far from the neck, it's the spacing between the holes. So is the spacing between the 5 holes standard? I'd appreciate a number of replies on this in order to conclude this concern. If a number of you have seen this spacing off, correctable only by a bridge with the same or very close to the same spacing (or a fill and re-drill), well ok.

 

[Lownote38]

Again, exactly, not talking about the holes being too close or far from the neck, it's the spacing between the holes. So is the spacing between the 5 holes standard? I'd appreciate a number of replies on this in order to conclude this concern. If a number of you have seen this spacing off, correctable only by a bridge with the same or very close to the same spacing (or a fill and re-drill), well ok.

I have a 68, and a badass II fit on it (although I put the original back on). I've had a '73 body and a badass II fit on that (although the bridge holes were further away from the neck on that body, but I know that's not what you're talking about here). I've had a Japanese made Fender Precision, and a badass II fit on that. I've had a Mexican Fender Precision, and the badass II fit on that one as well. It fit a '62 reissue also. Basically, a badass II bridge WILL drop right in and the holes will line up on any Fender bass with the standard bent plate bridge pattern. Fender may have variances as far as fit and finish, but never with those bridge holes being "off".

 

[Sands]

I have a 68, and a badass II fit on it (although I put the original back on). I've had a '73 body and a badass II fit on that (although the bridge holes were further away from the neck on that body, but I know that's not what you're talking about here). I've had a Japanese made Fender Precision, and a badass II fit on that. I've had a Mexican Fender Precision, and the badass II fit on that one as well. It fit a '62 reissue also. Basically, a badass II bridge WILL drop right in and the holes will line up on any Fender bass with the standard bent plate bridge pattern. Fender may have variances as far as fit and finish, but never with those bridge holes being "off".

That's what I though was the case. Please everyone with expertise in this reply if you agree with this or if you can dispute it.

 

[FranF]

Pickguard looks original. It's very similar to my '72. The body is still kinda blowing my mind. I don't think it's a refin because the area under the pickguard where they don't use the red has that weird greenish black/yellow hue that just seems way too hard to duplicate and certainly not worth the bother. That bridge plate could be from any Japanese bass of the era, which could explain the slight hole spacing difference. The saddles look Fender though.

 

[Sands]

UPDATE: with a comparable 1969 in hand, I pulled the bridge from the 68 again, measured from the center of one end hole across to the center of the fifth hole (the other end). The 68 measures 2.714" vs 2.752" on the 69 I compared it to. Then I mounted the other vintage bridge to the 68. It was a bit tight but went in no problem. I suppose that the badass's thicker base made fitment problematic due to the slight variation. Considering the feedback so far and the fact that the other vintage bridge fit, it's clearly a legit vintage body...

Thank you for your assessment assistance. I'm glad I tried another correct bridge instead of just basing the matter on an aftermarket part.

So we have one very cool 1968 with EMGs, a early 70s PG, and I'm going to try to swap on a new sweet fretless Warmoth neck (macassar ebony, tinted satin maple neck) on it I picked up recently. I'm guessing this would be unique- a Fretless 68 P Bass with active EMGs. Obviously it would be almost a crime to route out a 68 for a battery box these days, but it's been done. This mod happened years ago when the instrument was a youngster just 15-20 years old, probably. Now it's 48. So I'm guessing we won't see many if any of these mods ever again on a 50s 60s or even 70s P Bass. And the finish is in remarkably good shape. Very nice unusual find. I think I'm going to try to sell it.

Again thank you all very much to all who brought their experience and expertise to this issue.

 

[Sands]

Looking back, it appears there is some difference of opinion whether it's a 68 or 71-73. The neck plate is correct for a 68. If anyone has any thoughts on this, let me know.