G&L versus Fender questions

[Johnny Alien]

So asking if those are the only Fenders you've seen is now an insult? And why did you thank lug for mentioning a Fender bass with wider neck that has both a single coil mode AND comes in a four and five string?



Cool.

When did I say that asking me that was an insult. I said you insulted my "reading skills". To be honest I am not sure where this comment came from.

I thanked Lug because he was making suggestions in a nice way. Just because it wasn't what I was looking for doesn't mean I didn't appreciate the thought. Again I am not sure what you are questioning here.

 

[mike_v_s]

You know I never thought about that. At one point Lakland would swap necks on their Skylines but they are not as quick to do that anymore.

But it would be totally possible to get a G&L JB with a wider neck wouldn't it?

That may be exactly what I do. Thanks!

That might depend. I haven't done a lot of reading on it, but if I'm not mistaken the jb has a different neck than the rest of the line. I'd call/email guitar man (guitarmannyc.com) to see what's available for that particular model. I know the JB-2 has 4 neck options, if that's of any interest.

Mike

 

[Brad Johnson]

I guess that is my point. If they consider themselves successful and sell the amount they want then that's great. They are obviously at the point they want to be at. In many cases expansion can lead to lower quality too.

Considered. Again, this was awhile ago when I talked to them. I have no reason to believe G&L doesn't want to sell more basses. Do you? It goes against the very basics of business.

I am genuinely curious as to why you think G&L wants to stand pat vs. sell to a wider audience? Exclusivity? Don't want to deal with more customers/dealers/etc.?

I apologize for the douchy comment. It seems like lately anytime I state an opinion now I get jumped on and people imply I am not intelligent. It is starting to really bum me out with this place. I don't think you were trying to do anything like that so I am sorry I implied (or stated out right) that you were. I'm just touchy I guess.

Overly so. Apology accepted... just try to remember when you're talking to an individual you're not talking to everyone who's slighted you up to that point.


Making assumptions about what I wrote didn't help... what were you doing, joining the other side?

 

[Brad Johnson]

When did I say that asking me that was an insult. I said you insulted my "reading skills". To be honest I am not sure where this comment came from.

I thanked Lug because he was making suggestions in a nice way. Just because it wasn't what I was looking for doesn't mean I didn't appreciate the thought. Again I am not sure what you are questioning here.

Frankly at this point I have no idea what "insults' you. I truly don't. Where did I specifically do it... or is that another assumption?

Re-read this thread and better yet what you've INCORRECTLY quoted me as saying (multiple times) and give an honest assessment of your reading skills in this thread.

You wrote things that bore no resemblance to what I wrote. There's clearly a disconnect somewhere in your process. Disagree?

 

[Johnny Alien]

Considered. Again, this was awhile ago when I talked to them. I have no reason to believe G&L doesn't want to sell more basses. Do you? It goes against the very basics of business.

I am genuinely curious as to why you think G&L wants to stand pat vs. sell to a wider audience? Exclusivity? Don't want to deal with more customers/dealers/etc.?

Well for one thing, it is only an assumption that they will sell alot more if they added that feature.

Would they increase sales? Sure! Even if it's a niche option it would still yield some more sales. The question is how many and what would be the cost to add the option. If the answer is that it would cost very little then I agree it would be stupid not to add the option even for 100 sales a year. I have a feeling (but don't know) that it could potentially cost a great deal to get that up and running.

Take Ric for example. They have those necks that don't taper down the neck. I really don't find those comfortable. I love the Ric tone but can't get used to the neck. I still might get one at some point but I still wish that it had a different feeling neck.

Would they sell a few more if they offered different neck options? Probably...again any option would probably yield at least one or two niche sales. But at the same time they are happy where they are and have a back log on their basses so would it be worth their time and money?

 

[plankspanker13]

The curse of the G&L is always having to explain the G&L name and history.

That, along with explaining what the G&L doesn't stand for to non-musicians and ignorant yahoos alike. As far as Phyllis and the rest of the world know, Leo was straight, but that's the curse for ya.

I agree that G&L could make a killing with a mild expansion of sorts. A JB-25 would own any passive Fender 5er. I do think that wide string spacing options would be great, but what inhibits me from buying any active G&L is the fact that they are not using quick-change battery compartments. I don't wanna take a few minutes with a screwdriver; I wanna be able to change my battery over the course of 8 bars, if I have to. Even Fender got this detail right with the J24 a few years ago, and all of the other major builders have tool-less battery change capability.

A generation ago, the Fender employees took their company back. Look at where they are now. I almost feel that a similar revolution is needed on a smaller scale in Fullerton.

 

[Johnny Alien]

Frankly at this point I have no idea what "insults' you. I truly don't. Where did I specifically do it... or is that another assumption?

Re-read this thread and better yet what you've INCORRECTLY quoted me as saying (multiple times) and give an honest assessment of your reading skills in this thread.

You wrote things that bore no resemblance to what I wrote. There's clearly a disconnect somewhere in your process. Disagree?

Please take a step back. I apologzied and meant it. Since then you have jumped back into attack mode it seems.

You asked me this: "So asking if those are the only Fenders you've seen is now an insult? "

And I asked you this: "When did I say that asking me that was an insult?"

So...when did I say that? That is all I wanted to know.

 

[mike_v_s]

Take Ric for example. They have those necks that don't taper down the neck. I really don't find those comfortable. I live the Ric tone but can't get used to the neck. I still might get one at some point but I still wish that it had a different feeling neck.

Would they sell a few more if they offered different neck options? Probably...again any option would probably yield at least one or two niche sales. But at the same time they are happy where they are and have a back log on their basses so would it be worth their time and money?

Not to pop off again but....the Rickenbacker 4004L and 4004Cii models have a more traditional neck taper. They also share very little with the 4003, so that might be a deal killer for you, I dunno.

Mike

 

[Brad Johnson]

Well for one thing, it is only an assumption that they will sell alot more if they added that feature.

You're right. The people who've made this point again and again over the years and the people who've made a decision against them based on what they currently sell probably wouldn't have bought a bass anyway.

Would they increase sales? Sure! Even if it's a niche option it would still yield some more sales. The question is how many and what would be the cost to add the option. If the answer is that it would cost very little then I agree it would be stupid not to add the option even for 100 sales a year. I have a feeling (but don't know) that it could potentially cost a great deal to get that up and running.

And there's the key... you really don't know. But let's go with what we do know... they did come up with a new bass. It just happened to be a Fender jazz copy instead of building on their own original model and the one thing that's been bugging many who otherwise like G&L basses but need more than a four string.

How much more would a wider L2500 cost to tool up over making Fender copies?

Take Ric for example. They have those necks that don't taper down the neck. I really don't find those comfortable. I live the Ric tone but can't get used to the neck. I still might get one at some point but I still wish that it had a different feeling neck.

Would they sell a few more if they offered different neck options? Probably...again any option would probably yield at least one or two niche sales. But at the same time they are happy where they are and have a back log on their basses so would it be worth their time and money?

G&L have a backlog?

 

[Johnny Alien]

Not to pop off again but....the Rickenbacker 4004L and 4004Cii models have a more traditional neck taper. They also share very little with the 4003, so that might be a deal killer for you, I dunno.

Mike

OK, so Ric may be a poor example then. I had no idea that the 4004L had a different taper. But then again there are hardly every any Rics in stock near me.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Please take a step back. I apologzied and meant it. Since then you have jumped back into attack mode it seems.

You asked me this: "So asking if those are the only Fenders you've seen is now an insult? "

And I asked you this: "When did I say that asking me that was an insult?"

So...when did I say that? That is all I wanted to know.

Attack mode? I addressed your question.


You said I insulted your reading. You've yet to point out exactly what you were talking about. So I went with what was in the same post.

You still haven't pointed out otherwise. Go ahead. Where was the insult?

 

[Johnny Alien]

You're right. The people who've made this point again and again over the years and the people who've made a decision against them based on what they currently sell probably wouldn't have bought a bass anyway.

They very well might or they might not. I am not sure what type of data you have collected. Talkbass is a small portion of the bass community that are also very vocal. Did you get your opinion off of people here? I am honestly asking.

And there's the key... you really don't know. But let's go with what we do know... they did come up with a new bass. It just happened to be a Fender jazz copy instead of building on their own original model and the one thing that's been bugging many who otherwise like G&L basses but need more than a four string.

But you don't really know either. This is specualtion on both parts. In fact my original point was only that I saw where they were coming from. I am not sure why that is such a big issue.

I am not sure I understand the second point here it reads a little confusing.

How much more would a wider L2500 cost to tool up over making Fender copies?

In regards to the jazz copy the body would be the main cost. A jazz copy is a really safe bet in fact it's one that many companies choice to copy. I assume that although the body is different the neck options are the same for this model as all the others, right? I am not sure if that is true or not.

In regards to tooling up for a neck. Again, I have no idea. It could be not much it could be a great deal. Are you assuming it would be low cost?

G&L have a backlog?

I said that Ric had a backlog not G&L.

 

[Brad Johnson]

They very well might or they might not. I am not sure what type of data you have collected. Talkbass is a small portion of the bass community that are also very vocal. Did you get your opinion off of people here? I am honestly asking.

No. My experience in the bass world is not limited to Talkbass. I've talked to lots of people lots of times over the years about G&L.

And Talkbass is a much larger portion of the bass community than you seem to think. Any idea how many successful builders basically got their start here on these forums?

This place is a great resource for any bass related business that actually pays attention to the market. This reminds me of a builder who built basses the way he wanted vs. the way customers did. He failed. Surprise.

But you don't really know either. This is specualtion on both parts. In fact my original point was only that I saw where they were coming from. I am not sure why that is such a big issue.

You'd have to ask yourself that... I didn't make you participate in this tangent. You took issue with my opinion. Remember?

Bottom line, the idea that a business like G&L wouldn't want to be more successful flies in the face of reality. If that were true, why did they come up with new models... they were selling enough of the other ones. Right?

I am not sure I understand the second point here it reads a little confusing.

Not sure if you're referring to what's above or below that.

The body would be the main cost. A jazz copy is a really safe bet in fact it's one that many companies choice to copy. I assume that although the body is different the neck options are the same for this model as all the others, right? I am not sure if that is true or not.

How is a jazz copy a really safe bet, particularly from G&L? The market's already crowded. OTOH they could've owned the wide spaced L2500 market.

The idea that doing a jazz would be a safer bet that taking the same tooling and making a G&L is another thing I don't get. Were people asking them to mak etheir version of a Fender staple?

Anyway, they'd need a bigger neck pocket (not sure why you'd think the body itself would have to change) and likely different pickups to make a wider spaced L2500, maybe a slightly wider neck.

I asid that Ric had a backlog not G&L.

Yes, which is an indication of building up to their potential. Which is why I asked if G&L had a backlog too. Otherwise you're talking apples and oranges.

 

[Johnny Alien]

You'd have to ask yourself that... I didn't make you participate in this tangent. You took issue with my opinion. Remember?

Nope I never "took issue" all I did was say I could see their point and to be honest I still do.

This was my original statement:

"If they are meeting their production demands and have no problems selling stock then why tool up to make a change? If most bassists hate tight spacing then they would cease to sell basses and probably have to make changes to bring the sales back. Since they are having no issues with sales that suggests that they don't really need to make changes."

I don't see that as taking issue just stating an opinion.

Have a good one, I am through with it. Sorry that the conversation turned out porrly.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Nope I never "took issue" all I did was say I could see their point and to be honest I still do.

You didn't disagree with me? That makes your originally responding to me all the more odd.

This was my original statement:

"If they are meeting their production demands and have no problems selling stock then why tool up to make a change? If most bassists hate tight spacing then they would cease to sell basses and probably have to make changes to bring the sales back. Since they are having no issues with sales that suggests that they don't really need to make changes."

You talked about the present when I was clearly talking about the past. In response to me.

I don't see that as taking issue just stating an opinion.

The difference being...? Take issue merely means to disagree. You did disagree, didn't you? Otherwise this is even more awkward than it originally seemed.


And you're still hanging onto assumptions about sales based on what I clearly said was a decade old conversation. This is apparently much harder to follow than I thought.

AND they made other changes in the meantime.


Wow.

Have a good one, I am through with it. Sorry that the conversation turned out porrly.

If you didn't "see" me stating my opinion as being far more negative than my actual words...


It went from being an opinion to you rewording what I said to make it all but recognizable. THAT is where the problems lie in this exchange. In my opinion.

Later.

 

[thmsjordan]

+1 on making a Jazz bass with a thicker neck. I have owned 4 Jazz basses. 67 (stolen), MIJ fretless, and two 90's 62 RI's and with the exception of the 67, none of them held an adjustment well, they were disasters to keep in proper battle trim. My 78 Precision which I have had since new (31 years and loving it) has never had these problems. I think I'll make my own Jazz with a Warmoth B series style neck...sorry for the hijack.

 

[Brad Johnson]

My 1978 all original Fender Jazz has been rock solid for well over ten years. Set up nice and low, 3 bolt neck, blocks and binding.

And these were supposedly the bad years.

 

[jfh2424]

Concerning G&L vs Fender...

I own several of both companies. While I like them all, there is no doubt that the L series and the SB series offer a lot more different tonal options than anything Fender puts out.

Not a slam on Fender. Lots of people like them. But if you need a bass that can produce several usable tones, G&Ls are great.

John

 

[BadJazz]

Consider me converted. Once I went black (L-2000 fretless) I could never go back.
Love my sunburst L-2k Fretted every ounce as much. Sold my Stingray, Sterling,
and Pedulla Rapture 5 shortly after.

 

[JohnnyB53]

Anyway, they'd need a bigger neck pocket (not sure why you'd think the body itself would have to change) and likely different pickups to make a wider spaced L2500, maybe a slightly wider neck.

It's more complicated than that with G&L. G&L distinguishes their products with patented exclusive parts such as their bridges and pickups. They aren't like so many makers out there who can change spacing by outsourcing pickups and bridges with different spacing. They'd have to make their own from scratch and that's probably what keeps them in their current zone.

With these new monorail bridges and extra wide covered Bartolinis and EMGs, other makers (e.g., Ibanez, Schecter) can change their spacing all they want just by changing where they drill the holes for the monorail bridges. G&L would have to design and cast a brand new bridge. Cost per unit would be significantly higher than for their current 4- and 5-string Saddle Lock bridges because the sales potential would be low and startup costs high. Ditto for pickups. They make their own, which have exposed adjustable pole pieces. They would have to design new neck and bridge pickups from scratch with new tooling, again with a long expensive amortization period and low expectations on return on investment. G&L isn't known as a 5-string thumb-popper's bass maker the way Warwick, Ibanez, and other brands are.

And there's always the chance that by the time they develop the new designs and parts and spend the money, the trend for wider spaced strings could die out. Look at how many guitar companies boomed during the shred period (Hamer, Kramer, BC Rich, Dean, Charvel, Jackson) and have had to regroup when shred lost its market share.