• 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.

Did this somehow get by everybody? (D. Lakin content)

calypsocoral302

calypsocoral302

Oct 29, 2010
1,563
1,805
Central Pennsylvania
#1
I just saw something on Bass Central-- a new D. Lakin model called "The Shark," which made me chuckle.

Take a MM Stingray body, move the 'bucker toward the bridge, add a J single coil in the mid position, and voila! the Shark!

I apologize if this has already been posted, but I watch this forum pretty darn closely and didn't see this come up. Unless someone posted it while I was sleeping and it somehow got NO replies (highly doubtful).

Photo credit to BassCentral:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

My opinion-- why did they not do this before?

The only aesthetic issue I have with it is how high the control plate comes up on the body (right up to the waist). Other than that, I think this is really cool! And yes, I like the headstock, I know a lot of guys don't, but I think it neatly blends the lines of the "Tele" style headstock on the original '51-'56 P's, with that of the '57 and later P&J headstock. Again, just my opinion.

Cool bass. I'd love to hear from someone (preferably not in a certain program) who played/heard/owns one!
 
Last edited:
#10
The earlier thread wasn't very receptive to this new model. It's obvious what is trying to be done with this, and the photo is a pretty huge improvement over the prototype pics. I think Dan should consider a MM/Lakland style bridge, as I think the oversized body sort of welcomes it.

As for the comments on the location of the MM pickup... I think it's in the right place on the body, but the smaller bridge "appears" too far forward. If the saddles are moved back during intonation (instead of being up at the front edge in the photo), the location becomes more correct in relation to the pup, but the shape of bridge is also visually misleading since that tail end of it is smaller in comparison to the MM/Lakland bridges I mentioned above. It would still be too close to Stingray sweetspot, but fairly close to Lakland positioning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: One Drop
#13
Read more on this in another thread, there are J Bass models with different bridge pickup positions

http://www.talkbass.com/attachments/12644717_1243227209037413_8469217737172599581_n-jpg.782263/
One Drop said:
It's the rule that says you can't call someone's bass ugly, that someone oftentimes breaks not too cleverly by mentioning the rule in question.
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting me know.

I may have violated this in the Is Bass Design Settled? thread, but hey, we all have opinions. Some of us like (only) in-line machine heads, some like side-by-side, some like both, all are valid.

But I won't post my opinion here, though it is embedded somewhat in that thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: One Drop
#15
Dr. Cheese said:
There is a video of Dan Lakin playing a prototype. The humbucker did not sound like a Stingray soloed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that. IIRC not great sound quality.

Like his Lakland designs I don't think he is going for nailing the MM sound.

My comment was directed at jasper383, who thought the PUP would be useless if not in the MM sweet spot, and seemed to be criticizing the bass for this reason, based on sight alone.
 
#16
One Drop said:
Yeah, I saw that. IIRC not great sound quality.

Like his Lakland designs I don't think he is going for nailing the MM sound.

My comment was directed at jasper383, who thought the PUP would be useless if not in the MM sweet spot, and seemed to be criticizing the bass for this reason, based on sight alone.
Click to expand...

I would be much less interested in the humbucker outside of the sweet spot too unless it was set for coil splitting like the 55-94.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back