• 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.

Club Sadowsky!!!

#23,542
P. Bass said:
Me too. :) This is close but still a sweetheart. This has to be the most generic pic I've ever posted of it. :^)
B.

DSCF0505-1.jpg
Click to expand...

I like it with the Tort! :)
 
#23,547
It's really a very personal thing, that PJ thing.
It may be that my "aversion" came from watching people butcher perfectly good basses back in the day before PJ's were well done production items.

The mind is a terrible thing, and as nostatic notes, I'm a thoroughbred heretic:)
 
#23,548
Chef said:
It's really a very personal thing, that PJ thing.
It may be that my "aversion" came from watching people butcher perfectly good basses back in the day before PJ's were well done production items.

The mind is a terrible thing, and as nostatic notes, I'm a thoroughbred heretic:)
Click to expand...

I could be out of line here but isn't this what Roger was asked to do repeatedly to valuable vintage basses & ONE of the valid reasons (Edit:that he decided to start from scratch) to build those mods (including electronics upgrades) into a Fender style, to avoid destroying vintage value-(Edit: perhaps vintage appreciation is more apt here). If I'm not mistaken, NYC was the breeding ground for this new thinking due to the demand in the NYC studio (engineers) & the insight & preference of the musician.
B.
 
#23,549
Could be...and of course, back then, those weren't vintage basses being modified.
Who knew;)


To offer an alternate point of view, I suppose a certain number of vintage J's were hacked into PJ's too.

As I said, aesthetic matters like this are pretty personal, and my views on this are really only my own. I have 4 or 5 old P basses, and none of them are getting a J pup.

If I had a vintage J (I don't) I wouldn't hack it into a PJ either. No need anymore.
 
#23,550
Luckily I don't have a romantic attachment to the basses of yore...back in those days I was playing Strats :eek:

For me it is just more of a visual thing and the way the bass hangs. I like the symmetry of the butt end of a P-bass vs the swoop of a J. It seems like the bridges seem to be pushed more towards the edge of the body on P bodies as well and I prefer that. For whatever reason a P hangs better on a strap than a J (total individual experience/preference).

Then again I'll be getting a tweaked J body on the R5-24, but I think the extended cutaways change the lines on that body anways.
 
#23,551
Chef said:
Could be...and of course, back then, those weren't vintage basses being modified.
Who knew;)


To offer an alternate point of view, I suppose a certain number of vintage J's were hacked into PJ's too.

As I said, aesthetic matters like this are pretty personal, and my views on this are really only my own. I have 4 or 5 old P basses, and none of them are getting a J pup.

If I had a vintage J (I don't) I wouldn't hack it into a PJ either. No need anymore.
Click to expand...

Whether or not they were vintage at the time is not relevant really. The people (Edit: like Roger) doing the work undoubtedly realized that they WOULD become valuable vintage stock,(Edit: So probably thought it best to start from scratch & leave the Fenders in factory condition).

EVERTHING about music is very personal (BTW) ;)
B.
 
#23,552
P. Bass said:
Whether or not they were vintage at the time is not relevant really. The people doing the work undoubtedly realized that they WOULD become valuable vintage stock.
Click to expand...
That is not at all my experience. I did a PJ to a '72 P that I picked up for $150. The pups had been replaced by the white DiMarzios and someone had put a brass nut on it; and at the time, the pre-CBS' were valued in part because of the nitro finish, which noticeably allowed the wood to dry out in a more resonant way. We never regarded the '70's instruments as anything special. I took that P, literally ground the epoxy coating off that body and put a shellac coating on it. That bass lost about 5 pounds just through moisture loss after I took that epoxy off. A Midwestern winter helped. Then, I put in a '57 RI pup and routed and added a '62 RI J bridge pup. It turned out to be a much better bass than the original CBS instrument.

I honestly don't get this Puritanical dogma about vintage instruments. These were working instruments. People didn't have as much disposable funds as they do today. Cats had one instrument most of the time, and did what they needed to do to make it work as well as possible. No one was going around purposely "destroying" instruments. That's just not the right way to look at things. IME/IMO.
 
#23,554
bucephylus said:
That is not at all my experience. I did a PJ to a '72 P that I picked up for $150. The pups had been replaced by the white DiMarzios and someone had put a brass nut on it; and at the time, the pre-CBS' were valued in part because of the nitro finish, which noticeably allowed the wood to dry out in a more resonant way. We never regarded the '70's instruments as anything special. I took that P, literally ground the epoxy coating off that body and put a shellac coating on it. That bass lost about 5 pounds just through moisture loss after I took that epoxy off. A Midwestern winter helped. Then, I put in a '57 RI pup and routed and added a '62 RI J bridge pup. It turned out to be a much better bass than the original CBS instrument.

I honestly don't get this Puritanical dogma about vintage instruments. These were working instruments. People didn't have as much disposable funds as they do today. Cats had one instrument most of the time, and did what they needed to do to make it work as well as possible. No one was going around purposely "destroying" instruments. That's just not the right way to look at things. IME/IMO.
Click to expand...

"Puritanical DOGMA"! (Edit: How is keeping an instrument original when it's relatively new, considered dogma? Trying to find an original thumb rest or touching up a ding w/ ONLY vintage nitro is, IMO, considered dogma) That's rich. Have you HEARD some of these early Fenders that have been preserved? Of course they were "working" instruments. That's why there was such a lot of destruction goin' down.
First of all the "people" that did the work that I referred to who had long term insight,(Edit: about the future appreciation of some one being able to play an original condition Fender), were the professionals like Roger, not the would like to be's (Edit: use common sense here), that were doing hack jobs on PRE CBS instruments. A 1972 Fender? Really! You don't wanna hear my opinion of CBS Fenders. And please don't talk at me like I'm excluded from the "WE" that you refer to. ( I have been playing Fenders since 1962). If I recall correctly not many of "US" were even aware of the nitro finish issue at that early stage. There was no reference to make any comparison with regard to the resonance enhancement.
If you want a lesson in nitro, I've got a story about necks for ya. :D
B.
 
#23,555
P. Bass said:
"Puritanical DOGMA"! That's rich. Have you HEARD some of these early Fenders that have been preserved? Of course they were "working" instruments. That's why there was such a lot of destruction goin' down.
First of all the "people" that did the work that I referred to who had long term insight, were the professionals like Roger, not the would like to be's that were doing hack jobs on PRE CBS instruments. A 1972 Fender? Really! You don't wanna hear my opinion of CBS Fenders. And please don't talk at me like I'm excluded from the "WE" that you refer to. ( I have been playing Fenders since 1962). If I recall correctly not many of "US" were even aware of the nitro finish issue at that early stage. There was no reference to make any comparison with regard to the resonance enhancement.
If you want a lesson in nitro, I've got a story about necks for ya. :D
B.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed your point. Apologies if so. FWIW, I NEVER hacked a pre-CBS bass.

In defense of "would-like-to be's," I personally had not heard of Roger until the late 80's. I used Carl Barney in Bridgeport in the early '70's and Bryan Galloup later for things I personally couldn't do. Bryan was a Dan Erlewine protege. Don't know whom you are referring to. Some cats are certainly irresponsible, but there are also a lot of players that are just doing the best they can. I didn't start playing until '69, but even then, there just wasn't a whole lot of information about who could do what. Again, maybe I missed your point, but it sounded like you have some issue with people who modded their basses way back when. And again, if not, I apologize for missing the point.
 
#23,558
bucephylus said:
I honestly don't get this Puritanical dogma about vintage instruments.
Click to expand...

neither do I. We just can take a look at the double bass world: very expensive vintage basses are repared, modified and have parts replaced without losing their value (if the job is done right by a pro luthier) and then you see crazy ebay autions for things like an 'original 62 JB pickguard screw'...this makes me laugh.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back