• 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.

Hey Fender- This is NOT cool!

#181
rogerbmiller said:
This is where we split hairs. It may not be a defect but in the view of many is IS a quality issue...
Click to expand...

Why? Building from multiple pieces of wood is the way it's typically done for structural reasons. Almost anyone that has an opaque finish could have uglier wood than this and no one would say that bass has a quality issue. There is nothing wrong with that bass from a quality standpoint. (Edited to add: I haven't played the bass so I suppose their could be other quality issues, I am just generalizing about the finish)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrRobert
#182
Here is a Fullerton I used to own. You can clearly see the 4 piece body. The quality during this era of Fender was top notch and this bass was an amazing player.

Shielding.jpg


This Fullerton reissue has visible pieces and a knot or mark in the wood near the top.

IMG_20160602_171454_zpswlbbswpp.jpg


Fender has had basses like this for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BritBass 2, StayLow and Dluxe
#183
rogerbmiller said:
I had a couple of hours to kill today and I was in the hood so I stopped in the local Sam Ash which features the Hartke bass lounge.

Now, I am a Fender MIJ and MIM guy. So much so that I sold all my USA P basses. But I never really logged much time on a USA jazz so I Gavr one a test drive. It felt great but when I hung it back up I noticed it looked like this:

View attachment 960641

I mean for $1200 this is the best Fender could do to match top woods?!

By way of comparison here is a $230 Squier:

View attachment 960649

And a $340 Squier

View attachment 960655

And a MIM jazz for $599

View attachment 960657

This is NOT ok Fender. If you are going to charge $1200 for a TSB Jazz you have to do a better job!!!
Click to expand...

The consumer's stance should always be: expect as much quality as possible for as little $$$ as possible. The manufacturer of course has that the other way around. The marketing guy's role is to try to make the consumer forget/overlook what the manufacturer is trying to do.

I am not fond of hearing: "Yeah, sure I can live with that fault, that's not a priority to me", because people saying this
a) are talking against their own best interest
b) will, when given a choice, always pick the attractive item over the faulty one everything being equal
c) tend to come from the "marketing guy" category

There is a saying: if it's gonna be a goose might as well be fat. Which is to say I am with Roger.

Dingwall makes the Lee Sklar sig. model bodies out of two different woods: the bass side is northern ash ("to accentuate the bass tones" and the treble side is alder ("to sweeten the treble tones"). Dingwall has the good sense to put a veneer over the resultant mess so the top looks beautiful.

My G&L's that have trans finish are very reluctant to show their seams. I have to get real up close and personal to get a sense of just where exactly it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tattooSAM and rogerbmiller
#184
I think you are not familiar with the value of today's dollar. The mismatch is right on the edge of what I'd consider 'acceptable'. I would have to see it in natural light to decide one way or the other. I have seen far worse on Japanese Fenders that were not veneer topped. If appearance is your prime concern, then by all means go with a 5,6,7 piece veneer topped body. Now if your complaint was about a $2500 bass, I would agree entirely.
 
#186
I guess the OP has the right to complain about anything, but I think it's silly to complain about mismatched wood. It's not like you are being forced to buy that exact bass because fender only made one. Just move on to a different bass. Somebody will probably pick that thing up and love it because of the mismatched wood. I would put that in the category of "unattractive but not inherently flawed."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luke19Boarder and gsgbass
#187
Johnny Alien said:
Why? Building from multiple pieces of wood is the way it's typically done for structural reasons. Almost anyone that has an opaque finish could have uglier wood than this and no one would say that bass has a quality issue. There is nothing wrong with that bass from a quality standpoint. (Edited to add: I haven't played the bass so I suppose their could be other quality issues, I am just generalizing about the finish)
Click to expand...

Quality in the aesthetics. If it were advertised as a Motley Fender I would say it achieved its objective.

Based on the fact that myriad instruments at varying price points turn out way better matched bodies (such as the examples I provided that were sitting in the same store), one would think these manufacturers strive to match well. So when they don't, the resulting product in of a lower quality.
 
#188
MrRobert said:
I guess the OP has the right to complain about anything, but I think it's silly to complain about mismatched wood. It's not like you are being forced to buy that exact bass because fender only made one. Just move on to a different bass. Somebody will probably pick that thing up and love it because of the mismatched wood. I would put that in the category of "unattractive but not inherently flawed."
Click to expand...

Fair, but I am not complaining. I am criticizing. The guy that buys this bass or one like it, and then realizes what he bought, complains. I personally would not purchase this bass. Because to my critical eye, and to my aesthetic standards, it is not up to snuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubicki Fan
#190
two fingers said:
There are people that will bother and people it won't. I honestly couldn't tell you if the wood on my burst 5 string MIA P bass matches up. I never looked all that closely. I can tell you there's a weird extra yellow "spot" on the tort guard. I only noticed that because a guitar player pointed it out. That bass speaks to me. Wood grain be darned.

I can understand if it puts you off. They aren't all like that, ya know?

Never mind that the USA and Mexi factories are about 500 yards from each other and swap parts all the time. So.....whatever.
Click to expand...

But, they charge extra for the wood grain. Perhaps not across the same price point, but they do charge more for the better grain at the higher price point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubicki Fan
#192
SanDiegoHarry said:
And yet shoddy work like this sell because of the F word.

Hence, I don't buy Fenders.
Click to expand...

I will probably never buy Fender. I always try some on my obligatory music store visits and I never get the urge to take one home.
However, one could make the case that I own mostly Fenders, yiikes. :woot:
- My G&L's are actually Fenders in disguise.
- My warmoth builds are all from Fender copied/licensed parts.
- My Fender Custom Shop Kubicki may have some Fender parts and it was perhaps assembled by FCS
Maybe, I am really a Fender Fan in denial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePresident777
#193
Gabe Foltz said:
I apologize, to you and everyone else in the thread, for the discourteous tone of my post. It certainly wasn't directed at you, your post was just the most recent.

Whether the mismatched wood matters to someone or not, I don't like that Fender gets a pass on silly crap like this. But I responded before my brain kicked in. Sorry. :([/QUOTE
I accept your apology.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: azfatboy
#196
Kubicki Fan said:
I will probably never buy Fender. I always try some on my obligatory music store visits and I never get the urge to take one home.
However, one could make the case that I own mostly Fenders, yiikes. :woot:
- My G&L's are actually Fenders in disguise.
- My warmoth builds are all from Fender copied/licensed parts.
- My Fender Custom Shop Kubicki may have some Fender parts and it was perhaps assembled by FCS
Maybe, I am really a Fender Fan in denial.
Click to expand...

I own a couple of FCS era Kubicki ex-Factors. Phil (may he rest in peace) never approved of Fender's quality. He told me so himself. He actually bought back his license from Fender and resumed production in his Santa Barbara shop in 1996.

I think they are fantastic basses. Not the same as the ones Phil made, but Fender got them in the hands of a lot of players at an affordable price and they were still great.

Interestingly, the FCS era bodies were made in Japan, IIRC.
 
#197
Kubicki Fan said:
Dingwall makes the Lee Sklar sig. model bodies out of two different woods: the bass side is northern ash ("to accentuate the bass tones" and the treble side is alder ("to sweeten the treble tones"). Dingwall has the good sense to put a veneer over the resultant mess so the top looks beautiful.
Click to expand...

I much prefer mismatched woods than the comedic insult of halves of a body that are glued solidly together supposedly accentuating different frequencies of the particular strings that are over the respective wood.

The thing about esthetics is that some people not only are fine with, but perhaps *prefer* the mis-matched look. They may even greatly prefer it.

I post this link again. My old friend is back again! To me this is one of the most beautiful basses I've ever seen, and FWIW I've paid full price for high-end boutiques with gaudy tops or visible grain. It'd look drab if the wood was uniform.
 
#198
Kubicki Fan said:
I will probably never buy Fender. I always try some on my obligatory music store visits and I never get the urge to take one home.
However, one could make the case that I own mostly Fenders, yiikes. :woot:
- My G&L's are actually Fenders in disguise.
- My warmoth builds are all from Fender copied/licensed parts.
- My Fender Custom Shop Kubicki may have some Fender parts and it was perhaps assembled by FCS
Maybe, I am really a Fender Fan in denial.
Click to expand...

Oh we all are Fender fans - but let's be honest: While his designs are clearly the standard, the construction was surpassed by others *decades* ago. That said, if I had to play a gig tonight and had to go to a GC that carried more than a few MIA Fenders (good luck with THAT), I could find one that would do the trick. They are solid instruments - maybe the best that they have ever made - but they still don't compare to their betters using their designs (Lakland, Sadowsky, Lull, etc)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rojo412 and Kubicki Fan
#199
rogerbmiller said:
I own a couple of FCS era Kubicki ex-Factors. Phil (may he rest in peace) never approved of Fender's quality. He told me so himself. He actually bought back his license from Fender and resumed production in his Santa Barbara shop in 1996.

I think they are fantastic basses. Not the same as the ones Phil made, but Fender got them in the hands of a lot of players at an affordable price and they were still great.

Interestingly, the FCS era bodies were made in Japan, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sounds like Phil was a swell guy. I wish he were around.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back