Danelectro Coral Deluxe Bass project

[Cyberhippo]

Sorry for being so off-the-back (bicycle racing term!) on the last number of posts. Thanks for dropping by!

Hey I gotta' post this recent (no affiliation) Reverb item - I absolutely love my '68 Coral Deluxe Bass which as you witnessed here on my thread I resurrected at a reasonable cost. But now knowing what a truly great bass it is - I think their asking price is not unreasonable, especially w/an OHSC AND that cool bridge cover! (mine was missing -I had one fabbed for over $100!) And their comparison to a Thunderbird is spot-on as I also own a '64 T-bird and the only difference between how hard they both rock is single-coils vs hum-buckers. My band (The Sean Conneries) drummer thinks they both are on the same level. Normally my bandmates could care less what I'm playing - so for him to offer up that critique...

https://reverb.com/item/84550452-19...-34-scale-bass-lipstick-pickups-original-case

View attachment 7042807

View attachment 7042805

100% agree!

I'm still surprised how little attention Coral basses receive but interesting to see that the prices are starting to reflect it a little more.
An identical one listed in 2018 for 2k (which seemed low to me at the time

 

[JIO]

Thanks. I fail to understand why the new Silvertone and Danelectro don't reissue these and similar guitar models.

In a way, even if RI'd it would never be the same. The Coral Deluxe Bass has many unusual features that they wouldn't copy. Starting with no truss-rod - instead two steel rods through the neck. (which unfortunately creates neck-dive) And a solid rosewood hs grafted onto a poplar neck. (body is poplar also) And that neck profile is also unique - a flat D profile and a 1-3/4" to 2-3/4" fb. Maybe some players wouldn't like it - but I love it. And that swirl pg. They would generic-ize all those quirky elements and it wouldn't be that bass anymore.

This happened to recent Burns of London RI's. Top two pic's are early '60s BoL Bison Bass's and below them is a recent RI. The main difference is the neck - the Burns has a narrow medium scale neck 1.5" to 2-1/8" The RI looks to be more like a standard Fender neck, and to my eyes throws the visual balance/vibe of the original off. The Burns has a very unusual tr adjuster accessed under the neck-plate, and the RI neck looks to have a standard tr accessed at the hs. No cool Bison engraved bridge cover and a modern bridge. And gold hardware - yuk! The original Burns basses had a roller saddle bridge predating a Schaller 3D by decades. And finally they couldn't even copy the pg correctly. The Bison, like the Coral Deluxe Bass are so unique that making a generic RI ruins it. Interestingly enough, the CDB was originally introduced in the early '60s by Danelectro as "the Dane". It was mostly the same but for whatever reason the CDB had the grafted rosewood hs unlike the standard hs on the Dane.

recent RI -

1963 Danelectro Dane - in gorgeous dead MINT condition. It sold on Reverb about 6yrs ago, before I was aware of them.

 

[JIO]

100% agree!

I'm still surprised how little attention Coral basses receive but interesting to see that the prices are starting to reflect it a little more.
An identical one listed in 2018 for 2k (which seemed low to me at the time

Yes, I saw that one. The baby-blue Dane I just posted sold for a similar price! If I had seen it then - I would own it today!

 

[JIO]

Crossing my fingers they don’t!

It would never be as good -

 

[Verne Andru]

It would never be as good -

Yes and no I think.

I was around back in the day and my first case of GAS was over the Silvertone Amp-In-Case in the Sears catalog. While many reissues (Samick, Eastman, Supro, etc.) fail to understand the original appeal I think Evets has done a great job with the new Danelectros. Case in point is the reissue of the Amp-In-Case model reissued as the Dano 63. Here's mine:

In my opinion it keeps the good while fixing the bad - it's still a semi-hollow frame with masonite top/back powered by a couple lipstick pickups and an aluminum nut. The new necks are maple, which is much more robust than poplar, have an adjustable truss-rod (good in my opinion) and don't suffer that horrible 6-in-line headstock that caused all sorts of tuning instability problems. I also wasn't a fan of the original popsicle bridge - bad for intonation. The only thing I wish they did differently is go back to poplar body frame - the plywood they now use adds too much weight.

Then we look at what Silvertone/Samick did and you have to wonder what they're smoking. In many ways they did the opposite of Evets - they kept all the bad and tossed the good - i.e. the body shape is not only solid wood but it is the wrong shape and they kept the horrible headstock layout.

Then there's what they did to the Danelectro/Coral models - instead of doing the version with the lipsticks (which is what everyone wants) they did one with "foil" pickups which were part of the reason the brand originally died. These reissues didn't sell any better.

Then we go back to Evets and find their Dead on '67, which was apparently copied exactly from Pete Townshend's Coral. While these originally sold for $300-$400 they're now commanding stupid prices. For this one they kept true to the original including a Gibson scale neck with a wide 1.75" nut.

So it can be done but I agree there are a lot of screwballs making product decisions so there's no guarantee we'll see anything that makes sense. I do wish Evets/Danelectro would reissue the Dead on '67 cause I missed it the first time around.

 

[Matt Liebenau]

Yes and no I think.

I was around back in the day and my first case of GAS was over the Silvertone Amp-In-Case in the Sears catalog. While many reissues (Samick, Eastman, Supro, etc.) fail to understand the original appeal I think Evets has done a great job with the new Danelectros. Case in point is the reissue of the Amp-In-Case model reissued as the Dano 63. Here's mine:

View attachment 7043329

In my opinion it keeps the good while fixing the bad - it's still a semi-hollow frame with masonite top/back powered by a couple lipstick pickups and an aluminum nut. The new necks are maple, which is much more robust than poplar, have an adjustable truss-rod (good in my opinion) and don't suffer that horrible 6-in-line headstock that caused all sorts of tuning instability problems. I also wasn't a fan of the original popsicle bridge - bad for intonation. The only thing I wish they did differently is go back to poplar body frame - the plywood they now use adds too much weight.

Then we look at what Silvertone/Samick did and you have to wonder what they're smoking. In many ways they did the opposite of Evets - they kept all the bad and tossed the good - i.e. the body shape is not only solid wood but it is the wrong shape and they kept the horrible headstock layout.


View attachment 7043335

Then there's what they did to the Danelectro/Coral models - instead of doing the version with the lipsticks (which is what everyone wants) they did one with "foil" pickups which were part of the reason the brand originally died. These reissues didn't sell any better.

View attachment 7043338

Then we go back to Evets and find their Dead on '67, which was apparently copied exactly from Pete Townshend's Coral. While these originally sold for $300-$400 they're now commanding stupid prices. For this one they kept true to the original including a Gibson scale neck with a wide 1.75" nut.

View attachment 7043328

So it can be done but I agree there are a lot of screwballs making product decisions so there's no guarantee we'll see anything that makes sense. I do wish Evets/Danelectro would reissue the Dead on '67 cause I missed it the first time around.

I don’t know about “screwballs” making decisions but I’d guess that if the decision makers even play anything they don’t “get” old, oddball instruments or why someone would want one.

 

[Reedt2000]

I don’t know about “screwballs” making decisions but I’d guess that if the decision makers even play anything they don’t “get” old, oddball instruments or why someone would want one.

Eastman gets it, and would be one of the few companies that might make clones of basses like this one.

 

[farace]

Eastman gets it, and would be one of the few companies that might make clones of basses like this one.

I’ve not been impressed with much of what I’ve seen from Eastman. They get the shape more or less right, but they seem to just use bolt-on hardware and stock pickups much of the time, when a big part of what made some of these older designs so much fun was the proprietary hardware and electronics. I hate seeing something claimed to be a reissue and then there’s clone Fender bridge and P-Bass pickups on it. And so all they’ve really done is make a different-shaped P-Bass.

 

[Matt Liebenau]

Eastman gets it, and would be one of the few companies that might make clones of basses like this one.

I still have an Eastwood Messinger and have played a few other of their instruments. I kind of agree with farace, they get the shapes right, the build quality seems good and I really like the Messinger but the off the shelf pickups are a bit of a bummer when the odd pickups were part of what made the originals cool.

Mind now, that doesn’t mean I’d turn down that Tiger bass I know you were about to send me.

 

[Verne Andru]

Eastman gets it, and would be one of the few companies that might make clones of basses like this one.

Like others have noted, Eastman makes "reissue-shaped-objects" but doesn't spend the time to do it right. Their take on the infamous Ampeg scroll-bass, which doesn't have a scroll, is a prime example.

I do like some of the stuff Eastman is doing but they generally don't go the extra mile.

 

[JIO]

Yes and no I think.

I was around back in the day and my first case of GAS was over the Silvertone Amp-In-Case in the Sears catalog. While many reissues (Samick, Eastman, Supro, etc.) fail to understand the original appeal I think Evets has done a great job with the new Danelectros. Case in point is the reissue of the Amp-In-Case model reissued as the Dano 63. Here's mine:

View attachment 7043329

In my opinion it keeps the good while fixing the bad - it's still a semi-hollow frame with masonite top/back powered by a couple lipstick pickups and an aluminum nut. The new necks are maple, which is much more robust than poplar, have an adjustable truss-rod (good in my opinion) and don't suffer that horrible 6-in-line headstock that caused all sorts of tuning instability problems. I also wasn't a fan of the original popsicle bridge - bad for intonation. The only thing I wish they did differently is go back to poplar body frame - the plywood they now use adds too much weight.

Then we look at what Silvertone/Samick did and you have to wonder what they're smoking. In many ways they did the opposite of Evets - they kept all the bad and tossed the good - i.e. the body shape is not only solid wood but it is the wrong shape and they kept the horrible headstock layout.


View attachment 7043335

Then there's what they did to the Danelectro/Coral models - instead of doing the version with the lipsticks (which is what everyone wants) they did one with "foil" pickups which were part of the reason the brand originally died. These reissues didn't sell any better.

View attachment 7043338

Then we go back to Evets and find their Dead on '67, which was apparently copied exactly from Pete Townshend's Coral. While these originally sold for $300-$400 they're now commanding stupid prices. For this one they kept true to the original including a Gibson scale neck with a wide 1.75" nut.

View attachment 7043328

So it can be done but I agree there are a lot of screwballs making product decisions so there's no guarantee we'll see anything that makes sense. I do wish Evets/Danelectro would reissue the Dead on '67 cause I missed it the first time around.

I don’t know about “screwballs” making decisions but I’d guess that if the decision makers even play anything they don’t “get” old, oddball instruments or why someone would want one.

Eastman gets it, and would be one of the few companies that might make clones of basses like this one.

I’ve not been impressed with much of what I’ve seen from Eastman. They get the shape more or less right, but they seem to just use bolt-on hardware and stock pickups much of the time, when a big part of what made some of these older designs so much fun was the proprietary hardware and electronics. I hate seeing something claimed to be a reissue and then there’s clone Fender bridge and P-Bass pickups on it. And so all they’ve really done is make a different-shaped P-Bass.

Like others have noted, Eastman makes "reissue-shaped-objects" but doesn't spend the time to do it right. Their take on the infamous Ampeg scroll-bass, which doesn't have a scroll, is a prime example.

I do like some of the stuff Eastman is doing but they generally don't go the extra mile.

Thanks guys - I have been aware of Eastman's retro guitars/basses for years. I finally got a chance to play one (their Ampeg "scroll" bass-clone) recently. I have played an original vintage scroll-bass and I love everything about them. It's such a unique instrument, one which Bruce Johnson here on tb is an authority on - the Eastman just falls short in so many ways. It's almost like, why bother? And it didn't sound that good either.

I also like the Dano Dead-on '67, and wish they would have also made the ss Coral bass version called the Wasp.

My Calabrone referenced that cool design -

I've seen a good retro-redux of the quirky 1958 Kay Solo King guitar but I can't recall who makes it. Kay (also badged "Old Craftsman") never made a bass version, so I made one years ago! The vintage bass that never existed - The Bass King!

The ('99) Dano Longhorn I recently got is pretty well done in the retro dept. It has the correct look, it's crazy light, very good quality and plays and sounds great! It has a couple 'modern' elements, but still delivers the vintage vibe. And used, they are very affordable.

 

[farace]

I keep threatening to build a retro-ish bass, fretless, hollow body like a Ric 4005, with the cat-eye soundhole, but body shaped like the Ampeg Scroll bass, headstock scrolled more like a Burns, and Filtertron pickups. I’ve had all the parts for years now, but other things keep demanding my attention. One of these days . . .

 

[JIO]

I keep threatening to build a retro-ish bass, fretless, hollow body like a Ric 4005, with the cat-eye soundhole, but body shaped like the Ampeg Scroll bass, headstock scrolled more like a Burns, and Filtertron pickups. I’ve had all the parts for years now, but other things keep demanding my attention. One of these days . . .

Hopefully sooner than later - I want to see it! I like retro builds that reference retro without trying to exactly replicate retro - sorta' what I said above. Airline did some pretty close retro-clones of vintage National guitars/basses, and as was referenced Danelectro - they are closest to being considered RI's.

 

[JIO]

Here's a good example... I own a '64 T-bird II (since '78) and the original '60s Thunderbird (gen 1 & 2) were know for a few short-falls design-wise. An overall non-ergonomic design leading to a tenancy to neck-dive and WCS hs break, and a bridge that didn't allow accurate intonation. The bass looked awesome - totally R&R and the hum-bucker pu's (II & IV) sounded awesome! But Gibson over the decades failed to accurately reproduce (or correct) the vintage RI vibe of a '60s (Gen 1 - '63-'65 - Gen 2 - '66-68) T-bird - to this day.

Before Epiphone stepped up to the plate with its more recent fairly accurate Gen 1 "reverse" T-bird IV (why was it Epiphone that had to introduce this before Gibson?) - pioneers like tb member Scott Dasson's Badbird bridge was a way to "correct" one of the T-birds original design flaws. (intonation)

Gibson (and Epiphone) have produced many T-bird variants over the decades but most have employed the questionable 3-point bridge. (not like the '60s originals - introduced in the mid '70s) ... IMO, a sub-standard design. The more recent Epi Pro, mostly a RI of the '63-'65 T-bird IV addressed that issue. After that, Gibson eventually RI'd the '66-'68 "non-reverse" T-bird, but dropped the ball by installing that less than optimal - and not authentic 3-point bridge. Earth to Gibson - you failed once again in the bass department. Yah, I know you have a history for failing there ... but you know, some people learn from failure. Gibson as a corporation is a guitar focused and since their early less-corporate days have always treated basses like a red-headed step-child... so thank you Epiphone for what you have provided.

 

[T_Bone_TL]

Well, if you really go back (say 109 years in the case of the F4 in my family), it was

Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Corporation
Kalamazoo, Michigan (Manufacturers)

Which tends to suggest that Guitars were not their primary focus.

 

[JIO]

Well, if you really go back (say 109 years in the case of the F4 in my family), it was

Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Corporation
Kalamazoo, Michigan (Manufacturers)

Which tends to suggest that Guitars were not their primary focus.

then...

 

[Verne Andru]

Well, if you really go back (say 109 years in the case of the F4 in my family), it was

Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Corporation
Kalamazoo, Michigan (Manufacturers)

Which tends to suggest that Guitars were not their primary focus.

Even before that it was simply Gibson Mandolins.

Orville Gibson, who by all accounts was a bit of an idiot-savant, had a crazy idea - he wanted to create a mandolin using violin construction techniques instead of the bowl-back designs that were prevalent. It was as heretical as it was revolutionary but he found backers who took the idea and turned it into the 100+ year corporation we have today.

Not only was it a crazy idea at the time, but it worked in multiple ways. It suddenly gave mandolins, which were hugely popular at the time with things like mandolin orchestras dominating, a huge volume and tone boost while making it a more comfortable playing form-factor; bowl-backs are cumbersome to handle with little volume and tinny tone.

Orville's idea went on to spawn the Loar-era Gibson F-5 which remains the epitome of mandolin construction to this date. Gibson then expanded into tenor banjo as a way to get more volume, and then archtop guitars with the L-5 at the top of the food chain.

 

[JIO]

Even before that it was simply Gibson Mandolins.

Orville Gibson, who by all accounts was a bit of an idiot-savant, had a crazy idea - he wanted to create a mandolin using violin construction techniques instead of the bowl-back designs that were prevalent. It was as heretical as it was revolutionary but he found backers who took the idea and turned it into the 100+ year corporation we have today.

Not only was it a crazy idea at the time, but it worked in multiple ways. It suddenly gave mandolins, which were hugely popular at the time with things like mandolin orchestras dominating, a huge volume and tone boost while making it a more comfortable playing form-factor; bowl-backs are cumbersome to handle with little volume and tinny tone.

Orville's idea went on to spawn the Loar-era Gibson F-5 which remains the epitome of mandolin construction to this date. Gibson then expanded into tenor banjo as a way to get more volume, and then archtop guitars with the L-5 at the top of the food chain.

Epiphone also has a long and illustrious history dating back to the 1870's in Smyrna Turkey making fiddles, lutes and Greek lioutos. Their association with Gibson began in the late '50s.

 

[JIO]

https://reverb.com/item/84550452-19...-34-scale-bass-lipstick-pickups-original-case

I check listings on Reverb & eBay now & then and this came up just now. A '68 Coral Deluxe Bass w/OHSC & bridge cover. I'm posting in case anyone is interested - as someone who owns/plays one I highly recommend it. Their copy comparing it to a T-bird is spot-on in a couple ways. It is big (as long as a T-bird) and it sounds killer! Back-to-back, they have a different character but both are heavy hitters. I played a 2 set gig using both basses one per set (I own a '64 T-bird II) and I couldn't decide which sounded better!

 

[Cyberhippo]

https://reverb.com/item/84550452-19...-34-scale-bass-lipstick-pickups-original-case

I check listings on Reverb & eBay now & then and this came up just now. A '68 Coral Deluxe Bass w/OHSC & bridge cover. I'm posting in case anyone is interested - as someone who owns/plays one I highly recommend it. Their copy comparing it to a T-bird is spot-on in a couple ways. It is big (as long as a T-bird) and it sounds killer! Back-to-back, they have a different character but both are heavy hitters. I played a 2 set gig using both basses one per set (I own a '64 T-bird II) and I couldn't decide which sounded better!
View attachment 7098452

I’ve gotta ‘66 P-bass that I’ve stopped playing entirely because of my Coral.

Ironically, Johnk turned me on to Epiphone T-bird reissues WHILE he was working on my Coral. Blew my mind how much I loved it. Bought my son an Embassy cause those PUs are so versatile.