Impressed with Warwick hardware!

[Revolver]

The Warwick hardware components allow a lot of tweaking...but:

1. the reason behind it is simple: their basses do need a lot of pampering and adjusting quite often; I've owned probably more than 30 basses during these past few years, from the cheapest models to the more expensive stuff - the only ones that need constant attention are my Wicks.

2. the quality of those components is nothing to write home about it: the paint peels off easily, the nut breaks often, and so on.

3. last, but not least: the whole system is not very user friendly, and if you're doing a set up for the first time, it will drive you crazy.

IMO the reason why most folks are either loving or hating the Wicks is that a player has to cope with a lot of particular features (from their neck dimensions, down to the body shapes, weight, hardware, or even the way those balance) in order to play a Warwick bass - some find the transition smooth, others end up hating it.

You are definitely generalizing here. It all depends on the year the bass was produced. I have 2 early thumbs and have never experienced any of the problems you mention here(Of course, I am well aware that these early production run warwicks got more attetion to detail). The Schaller hardware on these has been solid . . . solid brass, that is. But hey, I'm sure a LQ Badass bridge is just better built and more adjustable . . . "sure"

 

[Revolver]

+1 . . . but my Warwicks drove me crazy because of the constant adjusting and waxing. I don't really enjoy sitting around staring at an instrument that I own, at least not after the first week. It needs to be able to go long periods of time without attention outside of nothing but a string change. I might just be my experience, but that ain't a Warwick. YMMV

I certainly don't wax my Warwicks often (1-2/year, 3 tops), barely fiddle around with them and these have been my workhorses for years.

Sure, at first a lot of people have the dreaded "don't-scratch-the-pretty-furniture" syndrome and might not envision them in a day in-day out sweaty gigging situation, but that couldn't be further from the truth. These basses are definitely well made and road worthy.

 

[Eublet]

There have been horror stories though regarding Warwicks and not keeping them waxed and hydrated properly. Cracking and splitting etc. Makes you feel like you have to stay on top of them or risk a big issue.

 

[Ric5]

Warwick is light years ahead of everybody on design. Love the quick access control panel and just-a-nut.

Not sure why you'd say they have thick necks and are heavy...sounds like you've never really played one. My Streamer Jazzman is just the opposite of what you think Warwicks are like.

The 5 string models all have fat necks.

 

[IngerAlb]

You are definitely generalizing here. It all depends on the year the bass was produced. I have 2 early thumbs and have never experienced any of the problems you mention here(Of course, I am well aware that these early production run warwicks got more attetion to detail).

Mine are 2009 models - to keep a long story short: I will NEVER buy a new Warwick - enough said. Their QC really sucks these days.

 

[flipper_gv]

Warwick thick necks were on the basses between 1998 to 2008.

If you get something pre 98 or post 08, it'll have a slimmer neck profile.

 

[sotua]

Warwick is light years ahead of everybody on design. Love the quick access control panel and just-a-nut.

Not sure why you'd say they have thick necks and are heavy...sounds like you've never really played one. My Streamer Jazzman is just the opposite of what you think Warwicks are like.

I've owned two: Fortress I and Thumb Bolt-On, both four-stringers. Both with big thick wenge necks (which I LOVED, there's nothing like a wenge neck) and heavy as mother****ing hell. The warwicks are the reason I bought huge, wide straps to compensate.

The quick access panel was very cool. And I loved waxing them... it was a stage on my life when I was taking pretty much OCD-like care of them. I couldn't do that now...

Anyway, they're both gone now. I wish I still had the fortress, though. For that Hi-Fi sound, and it was beautiful, too (natural wax finish, solid flame maple)

 

[flipper_gv]

The Warwick hardware components allow a lot of tweaking...but:

1. the reason behind it is simple: their basses do need a lot of pampering and adjusting quite often; I've owned probably more than 30 basses during these past few years, from the cheapest models to the more expensive stuff - the only ones that need constant attention are my Wicks.

2. the quality of those components is nothing to write home about it: the paint peels off easily, the nut breaks often, and so on.

3. last, but not least: the whole system is not very user friendly, and if you're doing a set up for the first time, it will drive you crazy.

IMO the reason why most folks are either loving or hating the Wicks is that a player has to cope with a lot of particular features (from their neck dimensions, down to the body shapes, weight, hardware, or even the way those balance) in order to play a Warwick bass - some find the transition smooth, others end up hating it.

Just saying:

1. I cannot disagree more. I bought my thumb Bolt On in 2007 and I NEVER HAD TO TOUCH THE TRUSS ROD!! And I'm really bitch-y about my string height. I'm in Quebec and the winters are cold as hell and dry while the summers are very hot and humid.

2. I agree, the black paint on my buttons is peeling off too easily for my tastes. If you have the just a nut 2 on your bass, you just have to phone the warwick distributor in your area and fax/email them a proof of purchase and they're supposed to send you a free just a nut 3 (the one that doesn't break). But the bridge and tuners aren't problematic.

3. I agree. But once you know what you're doing, it's worth it.

 

[seungkoo]

Just to kill the idea that all warwicks have a baseball neck, Herr are pictures of my 2009 pnut and new blacktop p with a modern C neck. The p bass has a thicker neck even thought Warwick is a 5 string.
Don't let me start with the older fender B necks or the older stingrays...

 

[grendle]

Just to kill the idea that all warwicks have a baseball neck, Herr are pictures of my 2009 pnut and new blacktop p with a modern C neck. The p bass has a thicker neck even thought Warwick is a 5 string.
Don't let me start with the older fender B necks or the older stingrays...

That one dosent count, it's a PNUT spector copy

 

[Revolver]

There have been horror stories though regarding Warwicks and not keeping them waxed and hydrated properly. Cracking and splitting etc. Makes you feel like you have to stay on top of them or risk a big issue.

Well, my '88 thumb has been with me since 1994 and my '86 since 2004 and I have played the crap out of them, and guess what? No problems whatsoever . . . The necks on these basses are unlike the ones from the late 90's & early 2000's models (like someone pointed out). They are thin, fast (especially the '86), and have never moved under different weather conditions. Heavy, they are, though, but I don't mind.

And if the natural finish worries anyone so much, hey! get one with a 'hard' finish! Problem solved!

 

[IngerAlb]

Just to kill the idea that all warwicks have a baseball neck, Herr are pictures of my 2009 pnut and new blacktop p with a modern C neck.

Your bass is a 2009 model => it has the new thin neck profile.

 

[BioDriver]

The only complaint I have is with their old nuts. The Just-A-Nut III is amazing but the JAN II on my Thumb is, well, crap and needs to be replaced. Also, it's a 98 and its neck is just as thin as my J's was.