I am probably the exception as I want it to look like a truck hit it and someone put it back together.
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.
Double Bass Brock Radelet basses
- Thread starter Mike Goodbar
- Start date
I am probably the exception as I want it to look like a truck hit it and someone put it back together.
Yeah, but I imagine it is like the first ding in a new car. It goes from being a new car to just a car - and there is a lot of freedom in that. Unless you wanna be the guy who parks across 2 spaces in the furthest part of the lot from the stores, won't drive if it looks like rain, etc.
I'm having a modest amount of antiquing in the finish of my new bass. But beyond that, I'd rather age it myself, rather than having it done artificially. Kinda like folk who buy those faded, torn-up jeans, rather then going out and doing some work in their new jeans until they look old.
W/ my ply, I've recently realized I might wanna start being a TAD more careful abut how I treat it. Yeah, it is nice being able to just lay it on the floor, but the other day I laid it down on some flagstones, and there was a grinding sound as I picked it up. The edges are a lot more worn than I had thought. And then the freaking wind blew it over!
There is likely a line between not having to be too careful and being too careless!
yeah, i think antiquing is a little too popular these days. a new bass looking new is awesome.
on the topic of shiny varnish, this is my preferred look - a beautiful seth kimmel for sale here in the classifieds (not mine). it looks like (in some ways) it was carved in the 19th century, but also looks brand new... because it's only a few years old. Different strokes and all, but i can't wrap my head around not preferring this look over either highly-shiny polish or an antiqued new bass.
I agree. It is a beautiful instrument with beautiful wood going for an extremely under-market price.
not to hijack this thread, but i've played two kimmels that were made of very different woods/designs. both were absolutely world class instruments. I spoke to seth at length about possibly making my bass. While i went with a more local luthier for my instrument, i'm still speechless at how unbeatable the visual beauty, tone, attention to detail, and as we just said perfect varnish, are on his basses. He's such a cool, friendly, interesting, and nice guy on top of it. why aren't we all playing kimmels?!?
anyway,
back to the OP.. I really would love to try one of those basses, even if a lot of the non-negotiable build details are "not for me"
I do play a Kimmel, it’s number 64. Salvaged ponderosa pine top, flamed bigleaf maple back, sides, neck, and tailpiece. The maple is from a tree that came down just a few blocks from Seth’s house and workshop.
It’s a beautiful instrument and it’s better than I deserve.
This is exactly how I feel about Martin Penning’s instruments (including the non antiqued Kennedy model I commissioned him to build me). I didn’t choose non antiqued or anything, and in fact, that kind of detail wasn’t even on my mind. As for antiquing, I do admire when it’s done with good taste, and am particularly fond of the subtle (IMHO) antiquing work Nick Lloyd does on his basses.
Back to the original topic, both Brock’s and Jimm Ham’s instruments look incredible and are probably something else to play. I believe Craig Butterfield plays a bass by Ham, and both his playing and sound give me a good idea of what they’re like.
anyone who knows how many basses Ham has built since the first for Karr in -95?
hams and radelets are great sounding and sets a new standard for playability. The eb- neck, the shorter body stop, the reduced back plate, the sloped shoulders, the narrower string spacing…it all sums up to better music in a longer life span, wish more of us was aware of these ergonomical details when commissioning new basses. By the way, as we speak, the pollmann brothers are building me a custom with these specifications, think it’s just about to be varnished…no antiquing! (goes with my non tattoed birthday suite)
Please post some pics when you get the bass home. It sounds like an amazing build.
the Pöllmann brothers has now finished their version on the ham/radelet bass:
Not sure what you mean about a shorter body stop - I'd have guessed that was the length of the back plate. Why do you contend that an Eb neck is better? That seems to me to be just personal preference. I happen to prefer D but I can see arguments for Eb, but none that would constitute being better outright.
That Pöllmann looks awesome, I'm sure it'll be an amazing instrument. How much longer till it's in your hands? Post more pictures when it is!
!. Body stop is the length between the bridge-top of front plate.
2.For orchestra playing, an eb neck means you doesn't have to release your thumb to reach the first octave (g).
For solo play it extends your reach to the highest notes. Distant between d and eb is an inch at the heel, this translates to a third at the end of the FB. In this position the heel will be in contact with the arm pit (or upper arm), so it's the heel who finally determine your max reach. This is especially true to normal and shorter arms (think orangutanges would make great bass players), me being "normal".
I've played d-neck for 40 years, never even tried an eb-neck, my decision to switch are based on pure logic and the feel when playing; the d-neck feels more and more like an annoying obstacle, a road bump. The only reason to stick with the d would be if you have two basses and like to switch seamlessly. Eb is OUTRIGHT better for the modern player!
I spoke to Mike (one if the brothers) and they had run out of transportation boxes, so he said they would post it next week.
Last edited:
...forgot the original:
I wanted less deep ribs, that's why the design changed. Hams rib profil is 14-20,5-20,5. Pöllmann changed it to 14-18-20.
In my opinion the original Ham is the most asteticly pleasing, the Pöllmann Ham the most playable.
I wanted less deep ribs, that's why the design changed. Hams rib profil is 14-20,5-20,5. Pöllmann changed it to 14-18-20.
In my opinion the original Ham is the most asteticly pleasing, the Pöllmann Ham the most playable.
I first contacted Jim Ham, but he said he doesn't build basses for the moment. He sent me all the specs on his bass, so another builder could make one. I then contacted a couple of builders, but no one would take my Pollmann for exchange. Except Pöllmann! I wanted an inch less deep ribs at the upper bouts widest point, so the plate pattern changed to compensate for the loss of air volume (see attachment), and they made the ribs taper from c-bout to bottom (18-20 cm).
The Schnitzer has nothing to do with the concept of these basses, not an ergo bass in my eyes. Central to Ham is the higher placed bridge (and c-bout), approximately 3 cm compared to "standard". There is also a shorter backplate witch gives a sloped heel (a must for playing solo standing). The neck stop is set to Eb, witch suites the higher placed bridge and gives increased reach in the uppermost register, and you can also now pivot up to the first octave.
If I would commission a bass without an exchange , I would contact Radelet, his instruments sound (and look) just wonderful!
Last edited:
...some of the notes mr Ham sent me. Note the sloped heel. He explained it looks like a flat back on the picture, but it's really carved low, 25 mm (an inch) compared to "standard" 35 mm. He wanted the sound of a flat without the inevitable cracking:
Last edited:
