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.
I finally got it - MY HOLY GRAIL!
- Thread starter Tonegasm
- Start date
I'll just drop this here, from another thread:
--------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by JellinWellen
The sooner you realize old wood and nitro doesn't sound better than a new poly covered bass. The better.
--------------------------------------------------------
Given this context, the above quote seems even more rediculous than it did in the other thread...
- georgestrings
--------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by JellinWellen
The sooner you realize old wood and nitro doesn't sound better than a new poly covered bass. The better.
--------------------------------------------------------
Given this context, the above quote seems even more rediculous than it did in the other thread...
- georgestrings
No one thinks so; I'd hope anyways. The thing about mojo is the idea and the aesthetics.
That is unreal. I think you edged me out!
Indeed.Its all about the MOJO...
I won't debate this in my thread, but I prefer the feel of nitro and will stand tall in believing that old, dried out wood does translate to a tone which I prefer.
This is a true Texas bar warrior. I can't get enough of this thing. I am fortunate enough to own A LOT of great basses but I still smile the most when I play this one.
All this bickering about old vs new.
We ALL really need a side by side clip of two basses.
Maybe a poll of multiple new basses, along with a poll of multiple vintage basses.
Then compare the two most voted, and see how they stack up.
Seems this is the only real way to settle this debate.
We ALL really need a side by side clip of two basses.
Maybe a poll of multiple new basses, along with a poll of multiple vintage basses.
Then compare the two most voted, and see how they stack up.
Seems this is the only real way to settle this debate.
Congratulations - that bass is a beauty! I am fortunate enough to own a 59 that I've had and played since I was 12 (that's alot of years - almost 50). To this day, its the only bass that I really play. I have others, but somehow its always the one.
Enjoy the heck out of it, and someday you'll have the chance to pass it down to the next person.
Enjoy the heck out of it, and someday you'll have the chance to pass it down to the next person.
All that Brazilian Rosewood to boot. Yummy. The bass looks beyond fab to my eyes. Enjoy it every time you use it.
I have a '64 so I know the feeling.
Davo
I have a '64 so I know the feeling.
Davo
I would love to hear side by sides. That being said, I just want to hear this one!
There is no debate. Some people, including the OP are into the aesthetic of older, worn-in classic instruments. That's what makes it worth having in their eyes. And that's enough.
The "debate" is simply some people trying to tell some other people that their subjective opinion and tastes are definably wrong.
It's like telling someone that their preference for vacationing at the beach instead of the mountains is wrong. It's just silly.
Oh my! Fantastic. Sincere congrats, Lublin!
theres nothing to debate, a new fender parts bass thats been gone over with a grinder to "look" old is not going to sound or feel like an instrument thats fifty plus years old and has been played on, it just isnt. You can to give the appearance of age or use, but you cant replicate the passing of time and the effects it has on wood and metal. Go to a vintage guitar store where they have verifiable great playing old fender basses, and compare it to a new fender roadworn bass, the differences should be obvious, that being said not ALL old basses are great players, some are complete junk and should not be used as a reasonable comparison, there are varying conditions that these old instruments may have been subjected to, but anything decent will set itself apart from a newer bass, its something you will know when you play one.
Beautiful! But in these days of "relics", how can one ever be sure that what you see is really what it appears to be? It's got to the point that I avoid old-looking Fenders in particular, since every Tom, Dick and Harry seems to have become a relicing "artist"...I hate fake "wear and tear", it's like lying when the truth will do. But that's another thread...CONGRATS ON A BEAUTIFUL BASS!
Someone just getting into vintage Fenders should definitely have a bass checked out by an expert before laying cash down, and know what you're buying. Because there are a lot of fakes out there. However, there aren't a lot of good fakes and the vast majority are pretty easy to spot. You have to have serious balls and mad skills to fake a pre-CBS.
And once you've been playing and owning vintage Fenders for a long time, you know what to look for. It's just knowledge. And with the internet, it's even easier to get expert opinions and such. Lublin knows his way around old P basses, so I'm confident he knew what he was buying. And sometimes you just can't fake a bass like this particular one. In fact, if you were that skilled of a luthier that you could build a replica that close, you wouldn't need to fake it, people would be lining up to buy your copies - and pay good money! Look what the CS gets for their replicas nowadays. Some people pay more for a CS than they could have paid for the real bass that theirs is replicating!
