Do basses raise in value or drop value as they get older?

[lpdeluxe]

"Drying out" can refer to the effect of time on the internal saps and resins, as well, and fiddlers seem to think that 17th Century Stradivarius violins have gotten better over time. I dunno -- if it took them 4 centuries to get broken in, how did Stradivarius ever sell a new one? I think it's more likely that a masterfully built acoustic instrument MAY maintain its musicality over a long period of time. Hell, for all we know, a new Cremona violin sounded like a choir of angels when it was new, and has steadily deteriorated ever since. Equally likely is the idea that improvements in bowing technique, and subtle changes in construction (ALL of those old fiddles have been altered) through repairs have made them better. Or worse, for that matter. All we know is that Paganini liked 'em, and so do contemporary players.

But there's no way to test for that, or any other assumption. Certainly it's true that a violin that was sat on at some point in its existence will not work as well as a perhaps initially inferior instrument that is still intact, but what's the point? I don't know of anyone who is going to the trouble and expense to preserve solid-body basses in differing environments over a period of years just to prove or disprove an esoteric point (look at the cryogenics movement: even with a large supply of money and a great deal of enthusiasm for their goal of prolonging life, its practitioners have faced massive difficulties in maintaining the temperature of their, um, merchandise).

As has been pointed out by Brad Johnson earlier, we can't even trust recordings, subject as they are to all kinds of limitations regarding contemporary fashion, technology (or the lack of it) and human preferences in performance techniques, instrumental and electronic fads, and on and on. Call it the Brad Johnson Uncertainty Principle: you cannot replicate the sound of a recording with another recording. Or with live music. Did anyone mention yet the vagaries of atmospheric conditions, temperature, humidity, the size of the room you're playing in? I was playing my bass in my living room last night, and my wonderful sounding AV '57 really didn't sound very good, I have to say. Is THAT the sound "signature" I'm going to use in future comparisons? Will I even be able to remember exactly what it sounded like? My experience suggests that I won't. The more you look at it, the less you can be sure of.

So I follow the old drag racing mantra from the '50s: Run what you brung. Instead of obsessing over unmeasurable and unknowable variations due to the undocumented effect of immaterial pixie dust on your bass, just do this: play it like you mean it. That'll take care of everything.

 

[cchorney]

And you know this how?
Unless you played that bass when it was brand new, you have no idea how it really sounded when new.
You may have an expectation of how you think it SHOULD have sounded new but in actuality you have no idea if your assumption is correct or not. There are many factors that would explain its less than optimum (to you) sound.

For example, Are you sure it was the bass and not the used strings on it?

Fender Jazz basses from the factory have a pretty consistent sound, and I've played mid 90's MIM's before. Now, you may have a point that I don't know how THAT bass sounded new, but I was making a larger point, which you apparently missed.

As to your example that maybe it was the strings and not the bass, that's why I wrote in the same post "As to whether the age related sound change can be explained to just strings is a question".

 

[NineSpine]

I don't think I'm confusing the issue at all. You just came up with a false qualifier based on nothing I said, maybe that's why you're confused.

I was responding to a direct claim about a study. He tried to use a study on environmental moisture content to make a point about aging and moisture, and I rightfully pointed out that this was invalid. You interjected yourself into that exchange. Stop pretending my point was made in a vacuum or even directed at you so that you can feign an intellectual high ground.

If you expect the moisture content of two same vintage instruments over time (for this example, years), one kept in a non air conditioned double wide in Reno, NV and one kept in a car in Guam, to be the same, cool. I don't.

I don't. What I do expect is that if you took the one from Reno and kept it in Guam for a little while, it would then achieve moisture equilibrium with that environment relatively quickly. The important part of what kind of environment the instrument is kept in, not how old the instrument is.

BTW didn't realize there was an idea that an instrument will dry out further over decades REGARDLESS OF ANY FACTORS. Who's epxressed that opinion.

Who expressed the opposing opinion? To be clear, if I haven't been clear enough: I don't think moisture content is going to have a noticeable effect on the timbre of an electric instrument, but even if we ignored that and focused on the measurable difference in the moisture content of the wood, the age would be pretty close to irrelevant after a couple of years. Numerous people have stated that the instrument will dry out over long periods of time. If an instrument takes decades to dry out and reach moisture equilibrium with it's environment, then the idea that the environment can easily alter the moisture content over relatively short periods of time becomes contradictory.

I'm in the wood can matter camp and as such the condition of the wood can matter too. I also believe that even solid bodied basses are first acoustic instruments. Which is why I disagree with your statement of "fact" about truisms. I won't debate either of those points.

Well, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. Electric instruments are not acoustic instruments "first". It's an electric instrument. It is not amplified by a sound board. It is amplified by magnetic pickups and an amplifier. Saying it's an acoustic instrument "first" is like saying that a CD player is an 8-track first. It is a different technology and it operates on different principles.

 

[arsie]

The only guaranteed way to ensure that your basses raise in value is to become a famous bass player.

Alternatively, you can buy a bass from a builder. Hope that the builder gets famous (because someone else became a famous bass player). Track down and kill the builder so he does not build any more basses. Track down and steal or destroy every other bass that builder has made, killing any bass player that resists, including aforementioned famous bass player that got the builder famous.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I was responding to a direct claim about a study. He tried to use a study on environmental moisture content to make a point about aging and moisture, and I rightfully pointed out that this was invalid. You interjected yourself into that exchange. Stop pretending my point was made in a vacuum or even directed at you so that you can feign an intellectual high ground.

I was responding to this: "Wood is not going to dry out to a significantly different degree over decades. After a couple of years, it's pretty much done".

Apparently it was a conditional statement. Sorry if you think that's any sort of high ground.

I don't. What I do expect is that if you took the one from Reno and kept it in Guam for a little while, it would then achieve moisture equilibrium with that environment relatively quickly. The important part of what kind of environment the instrument is kept in, not how old the instrument is.

Unless the instruments in the locations I mentioned performed identically, it could make a difference.

Who expressed the opposing opinion? To be clear, if I haven't been clear enough: I don't think moisture content is going to have a noticeable effect on the timbre of an electric instrument, but even if we ignored that and focused on the measurable difference in the moisture content of the wood, the age would be pretty close to irrelevant after a couple of years. Numerous people have stated that the instrument will dry out over long periods of time. If an instrument takes decades to dry out and reach moisture equilibrium with it's environment, then the idea that the environment can easily alter the moisture content over relatively short periods of time becomes contradictory.

Well, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. Sound familiar?

The environment's effect doesn't have to be "easy" it just has to be. So why the qualifier?

And even if a bass reaches "equilibrium, that is not necessarily the end of any changes to that instrument.

Well, you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. Electric instruments are not acoustic instruments "first". It's an electric instrument. It is not amplified by a sound board. It is amplified by magnetic pickups and an amplifier. Saying it's an acoustic instrument "first" is like saying that a CD player is an 8-track first. It is a different technology and it operates on different principles.

It doesn't make it not true just because you disagree. Here's a really basic way to look at it. Pluck an electric bass while it is nowhere near an amp. Do you hear pitch or not? People seem to have a really difficult time understanding that just because an instrument is electrified does not mean that it doesn't clearly have acoustic properties which means you can hear the damn thing when you play it whether it's plugged in or not.

Now try the same thing with a Motif synth. "That" is not an acoustic instrument.

Next we can disagree on all electric basses sound the same when unplugged... since they're not acoustic instruments first.

BTW as analogies go, wow. That cd/8track thing? Not even close.

And neither of them works without electricity. But electric basses do.

 

[Brad Johnson]

The only guaranteed way to ensure that your basses raise in value is to become a famous bass player.

Alternatively, you can buy a bass from a builder. Hope that the builder gets famous (because someone else became a famous bass player). Track down and kill the builder so he does not build any more basses. Track down and steal or destroy every other bass that builder has made, killing any bass player that resists, including aforementioned famous bass player that got the builder famous.

Still a crapshoot.

 

[lpdeluxe]

The only guaranteed way to ensure that your basses raise in value is to become a famous bass player.

Alternatively, you can buy a bass from a builder. Hope that the builder gets famous (because someone else became a famous bass player). Track down and kill the builder so he does not build any more basses. Track down and steal or destroy every other bass that builder has made, killing any bass player that resists, including aforementioned famous bass player that got the builder famous.

This is the "Kind Hearts and Coronets" approach. For those of you unfamiliar with that 1949 classic Brit comedy, a minor sort-of aristocrat calculates that he is 11 persons away from a duchy, with land and wealth attached. He methodically begins doing away with each "obstacle" until, at last, he is the only heir left alive. It's worth watching for the twist at the end, when hubris undoes all his diligence. It's also very funny. Alec Guinness played eight of the family members (male and female) between the killer and his title.

Didn't work for him, unlikely to work for you. It's very likely to be wasted effort, and the odds of getting caught are high.

Better to get a bass you like, and play it.