Fretless: Pau Ferro vs. Epoxy?

[kraftwer1]

When buying a new fretless bass, the wood (mostly Pau Ferro) is usually „clean“, while the basses that have been defretted seem to shine and almost look like plastic when I see them on pictures.

Since I‘ve never played an epoxied one and I‘m kind of in a Buy-New-vs.-Remove-Frets situation I wonder:
1) Is there a huge difference in both sound and playability?
2) Why do Fender, EBMM, and others not sell epoxied basses? Is epoxy-ing kind of a „homebrew/dyi“-thing?
3) does the wood even matter when putting Epoxy on it anyway?

 

[CTBassGuy]

Well, I can offer an in-the-neighborhood comparison, as I have a Carvin fretless (maple neck-through, alder body sides, ebony fretboard) and a Pedulla Buzz (maple neck-through, maple body sides, Polyester coated ebony fretboard).

1) Sound between the two is very different; the Carvin is “woody” while the Pedulla is “sharp” bordering on “clanky”. I don’t feel much difference between the 2 while playing, other than “mwah” is all over the Pedulla, and doesn’t happen a lot with the Carvin.

2) Not sure here, but Carvin used to offer a “Hard-As-Nails” coating which I think was epoxy. Squire offers an Ebonal fretboard that has a similar feel, IMO

3) Given the significant difference in sound and “mwah” from my Pedulla, I tend to think not; you’re not interacting with the wood at all on a coated fretless; it’s all about the coating at that point. Sample size of 1 though, so YMMV