So how the 1962 introduction of Rotosound Swing Bass get in all the history books if the V.C. Squier #90 strings were first? I don't suppose there's too many original sets lying around any more 
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Fender bass guys with flats, string through the body or bridge?
- Thread starter MrRiff
- Start date
So in the 1957-8 catalog, here's the lone bass string set. What's with the high C listed as the 4th string? As in replacing the E. Of course, all the strings are wound.
By the mid-1960s all Fenders shipped with flatwounds, the 90 was probably only orderable (and not cheaply either) but not in stock at stores, where the only roundwounds were Black Diamonds (stock on Danelectros) and not even everywhere, and certainly not across the Pond.
Funny you mention 1962 as the history book date: only those who pay attention to what Rotosound maintains are aware of it - most other casual readers of bass history as it pertains to strings know about 1966, and believe the Roto Swing Bass only appeared when Entwistle asked for them.
Now, we know he only tweaked an existing product, but the relevant bit is that, when he first looked during the "My Generation" sessions, said product was not available even on Denmark Street. Should that lead us to conclude the Rotosound folks lie when they say they'd been making them for four years already?
(By the way, I have seen James How flatwound and nylon tapewound sets from the early '60s but not rounds: to me at least they're every bit as elusive as the Fenders.)
HaphAsSard,
Where is some documentation about the construction of #90 set, I'm honestly curious about it.
Where is some documentation about the construction of #90 set, I'm honestly curious about it.
Yes, that's because you got the TB (Through Body) version of LaBella flats. They specifically make them differently than their normal flats. Don't know what it is, but they warn you not to string their regular flats through the body.
View attachment 5355304[/QUOTE]
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/26093405/
here
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/27342904/
and here
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/28133468/
attributing it to the possible existence of early adopters who had asked Fender for a "tenor tuning" option (ADGC).
I admit I hadn't noticed the double "4th", though. I would chalk it up to a typo, but it is interesting this wasn't corrected until the 1966 catalogue
https://www.thewho.net/whotabs/images/strings/1966_Fender_Strings_01.jpg
https://www.thewho.net/whotabs/images/strings/1966_Fender_Strings_02.jpg
where the 85, 855 and 95 singles are called "C-1st", at a point when a 5-string model, the Fender V, had finally been introduced.
www.instagram.com/p/CJjwjviHVkI/ ), where he supposedly expands on his curt hashtag, at least according to people who linked to it here and on other forums.
The thing is, I can't see those comments (I don't do Insta myself, and can only see the original post), and I haven't found a good Samaritan willing to capture them for me yet. And not for lack of asking:
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/28117284/
The above having been said, and allowing for some tenuousness of the following argument in absentia...
I find it strange that the 80 and 850 sets are called "Mastersound Flatwound" and the older 90, belonging to the "Pure Nickel Wrap" line, has no such descriptor. Why spell out "flatwound" at all, if not to point out that its flatwoundness is a characteristic not shared by all available sets?
Finally: by 1977, the Fender 90 set was simply filed under "roundwound" in a comparative gauges list included in a catalog by a competitor (Ernie Ball) -
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/26886992/
I myself had noticed the high C mystery, and mentioned it here
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/26093405/
here
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/27342904/
and here
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/28133468/
attributing it to the possible existence of early adopters who had asked Fender for a "tenor tuning" option (ADGC).
I admit I hadn't noticed the double "4th", though. I would chalk it up to a typo, but it is interesting this wasn't corrected until the 1966 catalogue
https://www.thewho.net/whotabs/images/strings/1966_Fender_Strings_01.jpg
https://www.thewho.net/whotabs/images/strings/1966_Fender_Strings_02.jpg
where the 85, 855 and 95 singles are called "C-1st", at a point when a 5-string model, the Fender V, had finally been introduced.
You and me both. In fact, are you on Instagram by chance? I've been (figuratively) dying to see Foster's comments to his own post (I already linked to above
www.instagram.com/p/CJjwjviHVkI/ ), where he supposedly expands on his curt hashtag, at least according to people who linked to it here and on other forums.
The thing is, I can't see those comments (I don't do Insta myself, and can only see the original post), and I haven't found a good Samaritan willing to capture them for me yet. And not for lack of asking:
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/28117284/
The above having been said, and allowing for some tenuousness of the following argument in absentia...
I find it strange that the 80 and 850 sets are called "Mastersound Flatwound" and the older 90, belonging to the "Pure Nickel Wrap" line, has no such descriptor. Why spell out "flatwound" at all, if not to point out that its flatwoundness is a characteristic not shared by all available sets?
Finally: by 1977, the Fender 90 set was simply filed under "roundwound" in a comparative gauges list included in a catalog by a competitor (Ernie Ball) -
https://www.talkbass.com/posts/26886992/
Last edited:
Yes, upon comparing them to my other bass with topload Labellas, the TB's have silk windings down by the ball ends!
I actually use LaBella Deep Talking Bass White Tape Wound strings on my '82 Jazz Bass. Only choice on an '82 Jazz is to string them through the bridge because they didn't do any through-body options on the Jazz back then.
I really like the White Tape Wounds because they are brighter than most flats or tape wounds and the sound is wonderfully balanced from string to string so I don't end up with any thin or tinny sounds in D and G strings like I used to get with round wounds. For instance I can play an E on the A string or on the D string and get basically the same body to the sound. So I just play it wherever it's most convenient at the time. Same with the A on the D string or the G string, whichever one is closest to my fingers at the time.
TI Jazz Flats have silk windings at the ball ends, other flats I've used like GHS and EB don't.
I hear no difference with through body.
No good can come from the more severe break angle.
Who ever though this was a good idea?
No good can come from the more severe break angle.
Who ever though this was a good idea?
evidently Leo Fender did as many early Fender basses were sting through the body only.
String-through-body was common on solid-body guitars, ever since the 1931 Rickenbacker Frying Pan lap-steel. The Fender Esquire and Telecaster were and are string-thru. Some had vibrato (Bigsby or otherwise) tailpieces, some had fixed trapeze ones.
In bassdom, the original (Audiovox 736 Bass Fiddle) and reissue (Serenader Bass) Tutmarcs were string-through, the original '51 Fender Precision and its contoured '54 version also were, the 1952 Kay K162 (the "Howlin' Wolf Bass") had a bridge + trapeze tailpiece arrangement. The 1953 Gibson Electric Bass (EB-1) had an early example of a metal bridge with integrated ball-end stop section, coeval (AFAIK) with the first Les Paul wraparound bridges.
I know what you're talking about, I have the same issue on a jazz bass with heavy Labella's. I can see the tape under stress at the angle on the roller coming up from the bottom, but I've had it on there for 3 years and it ain't breaking yet. I oops'd it.
I noticed that La Bella now makes a string through version of a medium size flat wound and it basically has two silked cores on each end of the string. If and when I change the strange I will probably put a set of those on however I'm digging the old school fat ass flatwounds I got on there right now and they are fit to the nut. IF one breaks... c'est la vie!
I noticed that La Bella now makes a string through version of a medium size flat wound and it basically has two silked cores on each end of the string. If and when I change the strange I will probably put a set of those on however I'm digging the old school fat ass flatwounds I got on there right now and they are fit to the nut. IF one breaks... c'est la vie!
I'll chime in with a little personal experience;
I've only ever had one string-thru bodied bass, a Fender American Standard Jazz. Having had another bass with the same pickups...in this case, Fender Custom Shop '60s...I couldn't hear any notable difference between the two. One thing for sure, though, when I had to sell it, I had to keep the strings I put on there. The break angle left a kink in the strings that wouldn't resolve when I tried moving them to another bass. So, back onto the MIA Standard they went.
If I ever had a bass with that kind of body again, I'd stick with bridge-thru stringing.
I've only ever had one string-thru bodied bass, a Fender American Standard Jazz. Having had another bass with the same pickups...in this case, Fender Custom Shop '60s...I couldn't hear any notable difference between the two. One thing for sure, though, when I had to sell it, I had to keep the strings I put on there. The break angle left a kink in the strings that wouldn't resolve when I tried moving them to another bass. So, back onto the MIA Standard they went.
If I ever had a bass with that kind of body again, I'd stick with bridge-thru stringing.
