• 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 want your $5k bass signed?

I've seen a number of very high end instruments that have the builder's or endorsing artist's signature scrawled in sharpee on the back of the head stock.

Do people like that? Does that stuff come off?

To me, it's like a beautiful piece of art with a little ugly graffiti on the edge.

Pretty simple then - don't buy one.

Neither of my Foderas are signed but I've seen ones that are. As others have pointed out, some builders do it as normal process.

It's good to have choices...
 
I'd appreciate a signature of the builder. I was too late when I placed my 2019 order for my Spector NS-6H2 to get Stuart's signature. Instead, I went for the option of signatures of all the Spector shop workers. They later added an option for Stuart's signature for an additional fee, but my bass was almost ready for shipment. I didn't want to delay it.

I might get an autograph of a celebrity, but only for example if it's a bass that person is known for. Examples: Victor Wooten's autograph on a Fodera or Gene Simmons autograph on an Axe or Punisher Bass. If I manage to get an instrument autographed, it will become a sentimental item that will not escape my home.
 
I've seen a number of very high end instruments that have the builder's or endorsing artist's signature scrawled in sharpee on the back of the head stock.

Do people like that? Does that stuff come off?

To me, it's like a beautiful piece of art with a little ugly graffiti on the edge.

Do you think artists should sign their paintings?
 
I personally would not want anybody's signature on an exposed portion of a bass, but inside the neck pocket or back of the neck heel would be cool, if it was a custom build.

As for the "art" example, I feel like I must point out here that it has been common practice for hundreds of years for artists to place a small piece of graffiti in the corner of their work. This is the first time I've ever heard someone speak of that practice in a negative light.
 
On the back of the headstock I actually think it's pretty cool. It's a personal touch I'm a world of very few personal touches.

Plus, just from a psychological standpoint, I'm not putting my name on ANYTHING that isn't as perfect as I can make it. I have to sign documents when I finish projects at work. I'm not signing my name until it is DONE RIGHT. I imagine Spector and Tobias and others likely feel the same way. So they are holding themselves to a higher standard. For that reason alone, I like it.
 
Do people like that?
doesn't do anything for me.
Does that stuff come off?
it'll come off with sandpaper! :D
To me, it's like a beautiful piece of art with a little ugly graffiti on the edge.
:laugh:

i don't care for it, but if i had my ax and a sharpie with me at certain moments.... :)

re: the "art/artist" issue: once an ax leaves the "tool" category and enters the "work of art" universe = it should be up to the person who commissioned the work --- what it looks like and what features it has. or, just keep all of your axes in the "tool" category and learn how to use them: the best tools are prized for their efficiency of function --- the 'looks' are only for fun. you can always carve your own initials into it. :D

who should determine whether an instrument is a "work of art," the builder or the buyer?
 
Do you think artists should sign their paintings?

I see that as a false analogy.

Generally speaking, the "artists" name is already on the front of the head stock in a well-executed manner.

When an artist signs a painting, it has consistency and coherence with the piece.

On the other end of the spectrum, do you want the CEO of Toyota to scrawl a signature across the back of your Camry? Not an apt analogy either, but illustrative nonetheless.