• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Do you find natural finish ugly?

Even though I'm a fan of wood grain in general I've never loved the look of natural finish basses. I do, however, love translucent stain - best of both worlds IMO.

sennbass1-jpg.jpg
07.jpg
images-q-tbn-and9gctofjfy-qw4-ouus31hrvv9rhkmbqhw40bymgwhkt90smeynpjimuvv04wukq-jpg.jpg
 
I'm all about the wood!
And I love the translucent stuff too!
This is just sum of my all natural quiver....

I totally understand why some would not like this - but for me seeing the wood is what it's all about! Why paint it?

Modulus Bassstar fretless w NOS swirl maple body.
Modulus Cocobolo topped Q5.
Fender (Suhr designed) Deluxe American J Bass - Translucent finish over Ash.
Andrew Jerman Custom 5 String e-mando w Mahogany sandwich - Koa top and back.
Andrew Jerman Custom 8 String e-mando w Tiger Maple Top Mahogany body.
Handmade Tele w Flame Maple Veneer top.
ModBasssta21.jpg
ModQ5_3.jpg
Fender_Dlx_Amer_JBass2.jpg
Jerman5.jpg
jerman8.jpg
Tele.jpg
 
As a general rule? No, I don't find them particularly...unpleasant... looking. As many others have said - it depends on the wood. I have one of these Eastwood Lefty BV.jpg (Eastwood Flying V Bass), with a shiny clear finish. Although the Basswood body does have some halfway decent grain pattern - not always the case with that stuff - the fact that it's made of about 5 different pieces is... not the "U" word, exactly; it just doesn't look as good as it might have, otherwise. If you're right handed, it also comes in black; very nice. If you're a lefty like me? What you see is what you get...

My other natural finish bass is this Alembic. Epic 1.JPG Matt finish over nice-but-not-busy-looking Walnut and Maple. And, this '78 Kramer Kramer 1.JPG, also walnut and maple. If all my other basses were something like these two in appearance? Yeah, I'd be pretty happy... What I do find unappealing, OTOH, are ridiculously busy looking pieces of wood. And, IMO, they're particularly unsightly if they're finished in some outre' translucent color. As is any other piece of wood, AFAIC. But, that's just me; like they say, differences of opinion...:whistle:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: B-Mac
Yes – very ugly. I have never seen a clear finished solid body that I like, and most are actually repulsive looking to me. Some acoustics and archtops look okay that way to me (though even then, it's seldom the best available finish available on those guitars).

My first two basses were a '77 fretless B00 bass and a '96 fretless L-2000, both with natural finishes. I still have both, but man, are they ugly as sin. Even if I played fretless any more, I probably would not like to be seen playing those basses.

I have been considering sending my L-2000 to MJT to be stripped and refinished in sunburst lacquer with no fake damage or aging. I might want to put a fretted neck on it too, or have frets added. (The B00 bass, being somewhat valuable, will be kept stock.)
 
I like natural finishes!
For me,Alembic set the appearance standard!
Exotic and dark woods with lots of figuring and grain.
Gold hardware.
Satin finish.

But know this!
I don't buy Fender.
I don't like paint,plastic and chrome.
I find that most Fender natural finish bass are made from the most bland pieces of wood in existence.

They really don't go make an effort to choose the most attractive blanks.
Bland ash with little or no figuring.
It may as well have been bleached!

And their "Walnut"finish isn't walnut!
It's stained ash!
They will never use real exotic woods for their basses.

My current basses.
20180323_155021.jpg


Formerly owned basses.
Photo0091.jpg
Sledgehammer 5 (2).jpg
Photo0094.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: B-Mac and G-Z