Club Alleva-Coppolo (Part 13)

[KJung]

How is that?

I also disagree with your statement anyway, because some builder could have a design that also moves the neck pickup. What's important, is how close the bridge pickup is to the bridge end of the 34" scale, and the easiest way to measure that is from the nut since it doesn't have the compensating saddle issue.

Really, if you wanna' be totally accurate, you should measure both, and at least one needs to be measured from the nut.

Just easier to measure between the pickups, which is how the 60's to 70's thing is talked about in 90%+ of the posts and internet documents I've seen that talk about it.

Also, if I builder moved the neck pickup, then the whole question is totally moot, since you would have neither classic 60's or 70's position anyway in reality... both pickups must be accurately placed.

Small, small, small issue

 

[Vic]

Small, small, small issue

1/2" to be exact.

 

[Bernie Connors]

Small, small, small issue

True, but then again, what would TB be without minutiae?

 

[basses55]

True, but then again, what would TB be without minutiae?

Pictures.....its the pictures.

 

[KJung]

True, but then again, what would TB be without minutiae?

I'm the king of trivial topics

 

[peterpalmieri]

I dont think measuring from the nut leaves quite a bit of room for error on a pup diff of 1/2 inch. When I measure, its clear (even it I dont position the end of the measure with 100% accuracy on the middle, or fretboard end of the nut) which side of 31 1/2 or 32 inches the measurement to the pole piece is going to be. Its almost dead on.

BTW, another factor is how accurate the pups are mounted inside the route. Believe it or not, over the long term I've had pups mounted as much as approx. 1/4 inch off the center measurement, and, also a few not mounted perfectly straight in the route but on a slight angle. I know this is not common, but for me it mitigates against always measuring between pups. I check every bass.

I checked again- LG= 31 1/2 inch, LM= 32 inch.
I re- checked my 69 J and my 74 J and they are as above.

So the eBay bass may be 60s spacing

 

[Bernie Connors]

Pictures.....its the pictures.

Touche

 

[Bernie Connors]

I'm the king of trivial topics

Haha!

 

[basses55]

So the eBay bass may be 60s spacing

I think you could be correct and have a good eye! ( if its 31 1/2 inch)

At least according to my (possibly) less than accurate measurements

The only way to really know is the actual measurement of that bass against vintage Js. It still may be an LM, I just wanted to provide the measurement on a 60s and 70s J to compare it to after the seller gives the actual figure.

 

[KJung]

I think you could be correct and have a good eye!

At least according to my (possibly) less than accurate measurements

If it is, that is a killer spec! Shame it has that clunky BA bridge, but other than that, it looks killer to me. Jimmy just made such a big deal way back when in one of the early threads about not liking that spec, that it is interesting that there might be one out there, especially tricked out 70's in every other way. He literally posted that is the only spec he would not do, even on a custom basis (ash/maple/60's).

That's why I'm trying to find an explanation, since I agree at least one of those pictures does look more 60's spacing than 70's.

Maybe this bass is the one that prompted Jimmy to not like that spec, since it is an early model. Who knows!

 

[basses55]

If it is, that is a killer spec! Shame it has that clunky BA bridge, but other than that, it looks killer to me. Jimmy just made such a big deal way back when in one of the early threads about not liking that spec, that it is interesting that there might be one out there, especially tricked out 70's in every other way. He literally posted that is the only spec he would not do, even on a custom basis (ash/maple/60's).

That's why I'm trying to find an explanation, since I agree at least one of those pictures does look more 60's spacing than 70's.

Maybe this bass is the one that prompted Jimmy to not like that spec, since it is an early model. Who knows!

Well....your world still may be intact if its 32 inch.
As for calling it an LM or LG, and bowing to the minutiae
of Talkbass for today only.........

I vote that it be called an LM (even if it has 60s spacing).

Now, back to the pictures.....

 

[Saluki]

Tom and Vic,

I think your both nuts. All this measuring talk was driving me crazy so I just bought it so I could measure it myself.














JK, waiting for KJ to jump on it so I can buy it from him.

 

[KJung]

Tom and Vic,

I think your both nuts. All this measuring talk was driving me crazy so I just bought it so I could measure it myself.














JK, waiting for KJ to jump on it so I can buy it from him.

All this talk got me to look at my basses closely, and I noticed that all the bridge saddles on each instrument were in a different positions. I took a straightedge and put them all in the same position. I feel much better now.... much cleaner look.

 

[Bernie Connors]

I think the level of OCD in this thread has reached unparalleled heights...

 

[Vic]

All this talk got me to look at my basses closely, and I noticed that all the bridge saddles on each instrument were in a different positions. I took a straightedge and put them all in the same position. I feel much better now.... much cleaner look.

You too? I thought I was the only one that did that. Funny... now I don't seem to need my chorus pedal anymore...

 

[biggreddbass]

Maybe this bass is the one that prompted Jimmy to not like that spec, since it is an early model. Who knows!

I know ... trust me ... this is AC # 2,3 or 4.
Jimmy hadn't started the 70's spacing yet.
We spoke about it today and he agrees that it sounds like the very first maple board bass he made ... Can't tell exactly without the serial #
The specs on all 4 of the first basses were the same with the exception of body wood & fingerboard.
Even the pickups are the same ... meaning both were wound like a neck pickup ... in all 4 basses ... after these, Jimmy figured out the correct amount of winding for neck & bridge and the correct pole piece spacing.. it was kinda cool actually .. slightly more P bass sounding that J, but none the less cool. I didn't swap mine out for about a year & a half because i was diggin' the sound.

 

[esoxhntr]

I think I'm off to order an LMG 5 !!

And what might an LMG 5 be?

Maple body, with ash neck, and Bulgarian rosewood fingerboard, all with 80's PUP spacing, active EMGs, and a BAIII bridge?

 

[Vic]

And what might an LMG 5 be?

Maple body, with ash neck, and Bulgarian rosewood fingerboard, all with 80's PUP spacing, active EMGs, and a BAIII bridge?

Do you measure that pickup spacing from the output jack or the top horn?

 

[tombowlus]

Do you measure that pickup spacing from the output jack or the top horn?

I measure it from my navel.

 

[KJung]

I know ... trust me ... this is AC # 2,3 or 4.
Jimmy hadn't started the 70's spacing yet.
We spoke about it today and he agrees that it sounds like the very first maple board bass he made ... Can't tell exactly without the serial #
The specs on all 4 of the first basses were the same with the exception of body wood & fingerboard.
Even the pickups are the same ... meaning both were wound like a neck pickup ... in all 4 basses ... after these, Jimmy figured out the correct amount of winding for neck & bridge and the correct pole piece spacing.. it was kinda cool actually .. slightly more P bass sounding that J, but none the less cool. I didn't swap mine out for about a year & a half because i was diggin' the sound.

Excellent... the real scoop!