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.
AVRI 63 vs 62 P Bass
- Thread starter JP1886
- Start date
Actually the new AV '63 seems less accurate to me, feels like a 50's neck like they used the same cut as the new '58. The prior '62 AV neck feels much more like my '64, it's flatter front to back. More comfy for me.
I can weigh in here, as I've owned/used a 62 for quite a few years and purchased a 63 a few months ago.
Let me first state overall, that this is my opinion regarding everything I'm about to say, so that I don't have to follow every line with a qualifier... Also, these basses both have TI flats on them, and always have. I have no idea of the tones/playability of these basses with rounds on them.
First off, these 2 basses aren't really comparable. Not any more comparable than say a 62 and an AM Standard P-bass. Seriously, different neck, different pickups, different finish... What else is there to make a P-bass "different." The only things I can find that they both have in common (that aren/t common to all AM P-Basses) are:
1. They are both in the AVRI Line
2. They both have Reverse Tuners
That's pretty much where the similarities stop.
But if we must...
The 62.
As others have said, the neck is quite thin (front to back) and is really wide at the nut (1.75"!!). which at first takes some getting use to. IMO, the sound of the 62 is the most unique of all the P-basses, it's broad, airy, and has a dry/crisp(?) quality to it. You immediately know that you are hearing something different. I can totally see why Jamerson preferred to roll-on the bass on his B-15. Overall, I found I couldn't quite coax the tone out of it that I was wanting on the band-stand... That being said, in the studio, plugged in direct, the tone is heaven. Mine is so light that it has neck dive, which is a deal-breaker for me and ultimately relegated it to the studio.
The 63
Is the best Fender bass I've ever heard/played (and I'm not alone in this opinion). It's light, yet perfectly balanced. The tone is the P-bass tone I have in my head, yet sweeter somehow, on both ends. It's buttery and syrupy, but with a "weight" to the tone that is enveloping, and still never dark or cloudy. I use a lot of back-lines, which are sometimes pretty terrible amps (Line-6 the other day, for example) and so far I can't make the bass sound bad. The bass has the kind of tone and playability that make me a better player. We all know what that's like...
I'm not afraid to say it, the 63 is a better bass, overall, for me. Sure, the 62 has the mystique, and I'll even agree that it is the better looking of the 2, finish-wise, but honestly, can you tell a 62 from a 63 on the band-stand visually... (if that matters to you)... You might be able to tell by the amount of mistakes being made across that 1.75" neck!!<grin>
Am I going to sell my 62? Of course not. Is it going to many see gigs, probably not. The 63 is my main gigging bass for the foreseeable future.
To the OP. If you couldn't tell from the post above. The 63 is what I would choose. No question.
The '62 and '63 both have a 1.75" nut, no? There was a TB member that got a '63 with an A neck (1.5" nut) and posted about how it was a weird anomaly, but I thought they were the same because 1.75" was standard on a P until the late '60s.
Dear God... I feel like an incredibly insensitive douchebag!!! ...especially because: a) I have watched Scott's lessons before, and have tremendous respect for him as a teacher and player (and now I have even MORE); and b) I, myself, have suffered from a physical ailment that put an end to my career as a professional musician... so, you'd think I might be a little more tuned in to that sort of situation!
Jeez... I am embarrassed.
I owned a Japanese '62 RI. I believe it was a mid 90's. the neck was not 1.75", and the tuners were not correct either. The logo was correct, and the pickguard had more of a peperoni color to it. It must have been a cheaper model. The neck was comfortable. But not even close to the width of any US '62 I've owned.
I had a AVRI '62 P Bass, and I sold it because I did not care for the wide, but shallow (front to back) neck. Very uncomfoatable for me, and started causing me pain when I would play that bass.
Interested in the '63 if the neck is really more chunky. I have a '69 Tele with a big ole neck, and it is just fine by me.
Interested in the '63 if the neck is really more chunky. I have a '69 Tele with a big ole neck, and it is just fine by me.
I wouldn't worry about it. He's pretty cool about it. He put that page up on his site explaining it b/c he got tired of telling the same thing over and over. I think he's quite a great player and has a wealth of knowledge that he readily shares.
But, to help you with your feelings, you should send me your '63 as penance.
I subbed. Would love to see more debate between two so similar looking instruments being so different.
What Fender ought to do is keep their new/thicker '58 neck on their 50's reissues but go back to their old/flatter '62 neck on their '63 reissues. That goes against their one-size-fits-all approach to production basses but would be more accurate to the periods they're trying to emulate.
Agreed. Otherwise, Fender's blasé disregard for any period accuracy whatsoever not only results in a muddle for consumers, but it makes a mockery of the whole notion of "vintage reissue."
That being said, as the owner of both 57 and 62s, I'm not too worried about gassing for the latest offerings since the profile of the 62 neck is my 'goldilocks' sweet spot. And that sound! Nothing beats it for recording, least not from my collection.
Great thread, by the way. More, please!
I was at corona plant and did the whole tour dealio and got to play with the '63 they had in their retail store, I did not care much for the neck, it felt like a PVC pipe contour and thick.
'62 neck I prefer, I knew 62 is the right neck for me, luckily there was one 62 listed on the sale section, at half the cost of the '63.
'62 neck I prefer, I knew 62 is the right neck for me, luckily there was one 62 listed on the sale section, at half the cost of the '63.
Twangster101
You gonna pull them pistols or whistle Dixie?
Sugar McGuinn, a personal friend, compared the 62 with the 63 on Page 1 of this thread. Sugar cares a great deal about basses and tones. He knows his stuff. He still has his 62, but has been in LOVE with his 63 since he bought it a couple of years ago. Who knows how many basses this guy has or how many hours he has spent in studios and on stages. Recently, he loaned me his beloved 63 for a couple of weeks. You know what I did?
I bought one. I've had it nearly a week now. This is now the best bass I own. The thicker, wider neck is more comfortable that I could have possibly imagined. It does NOT seem big. It seems 'right.' I have played basses with thicker necks. This neck is not the very thickest I have played. I have played a 62, and did not care for the thin profile.
Ergonomically, I bonded with this thing from the first moment I strapped it on. That said, the best thing about this bass is the tone. For an articulate description, read Sugar's post. I strongly recommend this bass. You're welcome. <smile>
I bought one. I've had it nearly a week now. This is now the best bass I own. The thicker, wider neck is more comfortable that I could have possibly imagined. It does NOT seem big. It seems 'right.' I have played basses with thicker necks. This neck is not the very thickest I have played. I have played a 62, and did not care for the thin profile.
Ergonomically, I bonded with this thing from the first moment I strapped it on. That said, the best thing about this bass is the tone. For an articulate description, read Sugar's post. I strongly recommend this bass. You're welcome. <smile>
63 avri i played was very focused and punchy almost like a g&l sb-2 with flats, but the thing i noticed was that the paint had an orange peel texture, which started a debate with the salesman and some defensiveness (i'm not gonna pay $300 more than my first car if it's orange peeled)
The finish on my 63 is fine. For me, finish and appearance are in a distant third place behind playability and tone. At 58 years old, I'm just wishing I had the time to wear the finish off.
Funny... in the end, I sold the '63 and kept the '62...
The neck on the '63 was uncomfortable in my hands.
The neck on the '63 was uncomfortable in my hands.
