• 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!

#242
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...
FWIW, those Squiers have a veneer top, whereas the USA does not.
 
#244
I think Fender guitars are a great value, period. My american standard jazz has a beautiful finish (to me) even though I can tell on the back it's two pieces. The newer ones at my local GC are quite a bit different. I don't think the finish is as nice, but they weigh a lot less. I'd have a hard time choosing between the two. It's all about tradeoffs and what you value (as others have said). If the original bass has something someone values enough, someone will buy it (and they should). If it's just a dog, it'll end up selling for less. Most fenders I've seen have something that makes them worth what they ask for them, although it might not be the something you value most.
 
#248
Luke19Boarder said:
Maybe it's just me ... but I have a jazz bass sitting at home (natural finish; have had it for about 3 years), that I couldn't even tell you how well the grain matches from memory.
Click to expand...

Same here, from boutique to budget basses with trans or natural finishes, including the one I play hours per week and have seen hundreds of gig pics of, from memory I can't begin to guess the grain pattern, how many pieces of wood, or how well matched the pieces are.

I often think this site should've been called Gawkbass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iridescentone, TMARK, Kubicki Fan and 1 other person
#249
StayLow said:
Same here, from boutique to budget basses with trans or natural finishes, including the one I play hours per week and have seen hundreds of gig pics of, from memory I can't begin to guess the grain pattern, how many pieces of wood, or how well matched the pieces are.

I often think this site should've been called Gawkbass.
Click to expand...

Trust me, when you are shopping for a bass and you see a $1200 price tag, you tend to notice things like sub-optimal wood matching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubicki Fan
#253
rogerbmiller said:
Based on the myriad replies to this thread, it is not only myself that I am speaking for...
Click to expand...

Well, you kinda phrased it like anyone who spends over a certain amount of money will care about it. Trust me, that isn't the case.

There are obviously people on both sides of the issue. Those who find mismatched grain to be "unacceptable QC" by Fender are fine to think that way ... but if that's the case, just find one you do like and move on.
 
#255
staccatogrowl said:
Bob Taylor of Taylor Guitars once made some acoustic guitars from shipping pallets. They had crappy pallet wood, nail holes, knots, etc. Their tone was great, and their fancy ornamental counterparts could not be distinguished in blind comparisons. He built those guitars exactly as a response to the biases displayed in a thread like this.
Click to expand...

While there's no doubt that Mr. Taylor has forgotten more than I'll ever know about building guitars - and I know just about enough to be dangerous ;) - given what some of his pieces from early-to-mid 90s sound like, may be he should've stuck with the pallets for a bit longer.

On the topic...there's some truth to both sides of the argument. My take is that the instrument has to speak to me when I pick it up, long before I even contemplate plugging it in. I've owned some really abused ugly ducklings which worked - for my needs - a lot better than certain beauties I've come across. Obviously, YMMV.

Having said that, if the bass in the picture spoke to me when picked up, I'd still haggle - out of sheer principle - because of the mismatched top and do my absolute best in order not to pay the full price for it. Yes, I do see it as a QC issue and something that could very easily bring the value of the bass down if I ever got bored with it and tried to sell it.

My $0.02 only...
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzohn, Sunset Shalom, Kubicki Fan and 1 other person
#256
Batmensch said:
My '78 was a 3 -piece. The grain was well matched, but not perfect, it was noticeable. It was an awesome bass, regardless.
Click to expand...
My '78 jazz bass has a 3 piece ash body too and the wood grain is perfectly matched, it's almost unnoticeable. (that terrible radiator burn on the back is pretty noticeable though)

78jazzbassnatural.jpg


78jbback.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogerbmiller, tzohn and Kubicki Fan

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back