...so, I should stop PMing her?
Too bad. We were really close on a price this afternoon. Ah, well.
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.
Help understanding my 1966 Fender Bass
- Thread starter Zelda123
- Start date
...so, I should stop PMing her?
Too bad. We were really close on a price this afternoon. Ah, well.
I don't/can't see an "F" on the neck plate.
If it is an actual 60s neck with faux pearl dots, that would be around '65 (give or take a few months) - after clay dots, before binding, which I thought started pretty early in '66.
Cloverleaf buttons.
At the end of the day, hard to tell dates without pulling the neck and seeing what any date codes might reveal.
If it is an actual 60s neck with faux pearl dots, that would be around '65 (give or take a few months) - after clay dots, before binding, which I thought started pretty early in '66.
Cloverleaf buttons.
Curious why you think it has a "different body"?
At the end of the day, hard to tell dates without pulling the neck and seeing what any date codes might reveal.
Guess I need to look harder
. Interesting that Fender used pearl for the last dot necks. Also, I've seen late '65 jazzes (neck date) with binding & blocks, so even Fender doesn't have the lowdown on everything they made...
Last edited:
summing up ... '65/'66 original & worn transition neck on a modified late '60s body ... ? or possibly the body is an old refinish with a random neck plate? pot date codes would help also.
I have found mistakes in Fender timelines before. For example Fender insists they didn't release silverface amps until 1968, I have a mid '67 drip edge Silverface Bassman.
Last edited:
Compare to an actual '66. The lack of a router hump in the red circle area says post '73 to me.
op's:
66:
op's:
66:
Whatever it is, it sure looks like a nice bass. The redundant exterior ground is a mystery... the badass mod can be reversed.... It looks older than CBS to me- body- not sure, but you do realize, that bodies were hand sanded. Maybe the router 'hump' was sanded off, or it didn't get used on this body. I've worked on plenty of old Fender basses that did not have a router hump there. Many basses I've seen have over zealous polishing of decaled areas- sometimes resulting in those decals being partially removed/ flaked off if not lacquered over. Even age/drying alone can do it. A careful in-person inspection by a luthier/ repairman, can verify it's era, and perhaps its actual year of production. Attached is a 1966 P-bass that was here some years back for authentication prior to sale, sorry for the low res camera shot- it does not have a router hump.
Attachments
Last edited:
Denmark Street never lacked sharks swimming around it. Some things never change...
If you ever decide that the bass can be pulled apart for evaluation, Charlie Chandler is the man you should see.
Good luck.
While I can't be much help answering your question I do have a question of my own based on your username....
Ocarina or Majora?
Ocarina or Majora?
Just as a note, not about this bass specifically, but throughout the 70s and 80s, it was the conventional wisdom that production Fender basses of the time period were not heirlooms, but working tools. The stratospheric valuations came later. People would repair and modify them as needed. Parts of heavily damaged or improperly modified basses would be interchanged as needed to assemble a good working bass. Fender did us a favor by standardizing the fit of parts.
For this reason, while a pristine all-original bass is doubtlessly the most valuable to a collector, a bass of equal quality and but "interesting" provenance could be of equal value to the person who loves to play it. "Not meant to be sold" is just another way of saying "meant to be played." It looks like a gem to me, with no more wear and tear than would be expected of a bass that's meant to be played for many years.
For this reason, while a pristine all-original bass is doubtlessly the most valuable to a collector, a bass of equal quality and but "interesting" provenance could be of equal value to the person who loves to play it. "Not meant to be sold" is just another way of saying "meant to be played." It looks like a gem to me, with no more wear and tear than would be expected of a bass that's meant to be played for many years.
I'd help her out. Maybe she'll give me a great deal that I can't pass on
.
Its a very modified bass.
It looks like it started as a 65 Jazz, and one that was at least refinished and several changed parts. But the top shape of the headstock has been sanded and is now out of proper shape. Wrong pickguard. And that neckplate with no F logo and that serial range tells me its a bogus plate.
No screw holes under the pickguard for the finger rest...so is either a refin with plugged holes, or might not even be a 65/66 body at all.
It looks like it started as a 65 Jazz, and one that was at least refinished and several changed parts. But the top shape of the headstock has been sanded and is now out of proper shape. Wrong pickguard. And that neckplate with no F logo and that serial range tells me its a bogus plate.
No screw holes under the pickguard for the finger rest...so is either a refin with plugged holes, or might not even be a 65/66 body at all.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,627
- 222,207
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
I agree - the hs shape is not accurate (if authentic - as you say, rounded-off by over-sanding) - the lack of the 'hump' on the body is inaccurate, non-original pg, BA aftermarket bridge, who knows about the pu's/electronics as we've seen no pics... possibly a nice player, but not very valuable as a vintage Fender bass.
