• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Is this really what they're worth?

Nobody is spending their last $11,000 on a bass. Somebody who has $11,000 to throw at a bass probably has a lot going for himself/herself. On the other hand, the people calling dumb.... they should look in the mirror.

Sorry, but there's not nearly as much correlation between intelligence and wealth as you seem to want to think there is.

Anyway, a given old bass could be great or it could be crap. Regardless, unless it's REALLY REALLY GREAT, I have a hard time believing it would be worth the silly prices MOST examples go for, regardless of playability and sound.

If you're not compensating for something and have the cash and want a nice bass, you go get an Alembic or Ken Smith or something. They cost $4k because there's 4k worth of bass in there.

Inherent value is something most people don't really understand. Yes, I could go spend a million dollars or whatever on a lamborghini miura from the 70s. OR, I could spend like 100-150 on a similarly fast and fun and cool car and have 8 or 900k to spend on all kinds of other stuff. Basses in terms of what you get for your money pretty much top out around 5k realistically. After that you're paying for a name, or age, or rarity, or something else intangible and largely meaningless. What you aren't getting in almost any case is something that's better at being a bass.
 
This goes for about $4K these days ... my mom threw mine out when I went off to college:
s-l1600 (8).jpg
This went for half a million ... mom threw this one out too:
xmen.jpg
 
I had the opportunity to play a 66 P-bass a few years ago at a very expensive vintage shop in Carmel California. I was surprised that they would even let me touch anything but they plugged the p bass into a 60's vintage Bassman amp and handed it to me. You really can't understand how good some vintage instruments are until you play one. This bass was obviously set up perfectly and it just played effortlessly. The 50+ year old wood fibers in the body just seem to vibrate more easily since a lot of the material bonding them together has probably decayed. Any wood experts feel free to chime in.

This bass was $6,500 at the time.

The price of these vintage basses is debatable but if you can afford the price of admission and don't want to just hang something on a wall they might be worth it.

I have a 2013 P-5 that is a good bass, sounds like a P-bass but it doesn't have that organic feel that the 66 did. Maybe it will by the time my grandson is 50.

Rick B.
I did the same thing at GC Hollywood last year, they had a few 60's Ps, and it was interesting. The 63 left me cold, and there were two 65's, and one of them was simply amazing. If I had $5k on me I would have flown home with it, but I was on vacation and it was toward the end, so no dice. Maybe next time I get a bonus at work I'll pick one up, but then again I just got another Blazer bass and that might just settle the jones. Viva la GAS!

I'd add that IMO that price is about double what I think it's worth. Given my love of mid-60's Ps, I keep an eye out on the vintage market, and $5k-$6k is the normal going rate for a stock Fender in VG shape (or better). I can imagine a mint condition might command a premium, but double the price would not be for me. Plus I'm not a jazz fan due to my fat, sausage-like fingers...
 
Last edited:
As others have noted, it's the combination of rarity and a a probably misguided mysticism that has driven up the price of most any 60's instruments. A lot of people think there is something magical about instruments from the 50s and 60s - there isn't. As a matter of fact, your chances of getting a really good one is ~ 10 - 15%. The only thing that instruments of that era had over newer versions of the same ones is that the wood was higher quality and better aged. The downside of 50+ year old instruments are that the build quality and the consistency of the parts isn't anywhere near the CNC precision that is available now.

Honestly, if you think about it, you can buy several really nice instruments for the cost of a collector's item and I haven't seen many cases where that isn't the smart choice.
 
You really can't understand how good some vintage instruments are until you play one. This bass was obviously set up perfectly and it just played effortlessly. The 50+ year old wood fibers in the body just seem to vibrate more easily since a lot of the material bonding them together has probably decayed.

I don’t mean to come off as confrontational but I’m 100% convinced that you experienced ‘vintage bias’. I’m quite confident that if a brand new P sounded exactly like that vintage P and that vintage P sounded exactly like a brand new P then your results would be exactly the same - you would have preferred the older P just because of it’s vintage-ness.

It’s kinda like audiophiles who prefer some super expensive cord because they believe the materials make all the difference, but there was a blind study done where audiophiles leaned toward a cord they thought was was premium, but as it turned out that ‘cord’ was just a series of metal coat hangers!
 
As others have noted, it's the combination of rarity and a a probably misguided mysticism that has driven up the price of most any 60's instruments. A lot of people think there is something magical about instruments from the 50s and 60s - there isn't. As a matter of fact, your chances of getting a really good one is ~ 10 - 15%. The only thing that instruments of that era had over newer versions of the same ones is that the wood was higher quality and better aged. The downside of 50+ year old instruments are that the build quality and the consistency of the parts isn't anywhere near the CNC precision that is available now.

Honestly, if you think about it, you can buy several really nice instruments for the cost of a collector's item and I haven't seen many cases where that isn't the smart choice.

My late uncle who played on the UK blues scene in the early 60s had an Olympic White Precision (I presume a 1962 or 1963). He never suggested to me it was anything special.

I have always, from the point I became aware that there was such a thing as bass guitar, a secret hankering for a white PB, but never got one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EatS1stBassist
I don’t mean to come off as confrontational but I’m 100% convinced that you experienced ‘vintage bias’. I’m quite confident that if a brand new P sounded exactly like that vintage P and that vintage P sounded exactly like a brand new P then your results would be exactly the same - you would have preferred the older P just because of it’s vintage-ness.

My experience of wood subject to admittedly extreme vibration, is that the resins contained in the wood seems to become hard and glassy, and meaning there would be less vibration. Vibration of the body is not what you want in an electric instrument, so that might be a positive, but the effect is likely be subtle, unless you repeatedly pound your bass against cow skin for hours on end. And if it is subtle, then given the range of properties of any given piece of a single species of wood, that would seem to outweigh anything related to age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EatS1stBassist
Somebody "dumb enough" to have the spare change to throw at it and get more money back down tbe road when its even more collectible. And in the meantime he/she can enjoy a owning a rarity that will become only rarer. I wonder why calling the successful "dumb" isn't a TOS violation. Everybody is protected from insult except successful people- it's always open season on them.
It was Martin Shkreli.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRA
Anyway, "smart" is not buying something that's already crazy expensive, hoping it will get even MORE crazy expensive, those people likely already missed the boat. Smart is buying something that's underrated but well regarded by people familiar with it, that comes up at a great price even for now. That's always been my strategy and I've broken even or made money way more often than not. If you have to ASK whether it might be worth it, it's definitely not. It should be blindingly obvious that it's such a great deal that you'd be an idiot to pass it up. Like, I bought a guitar tube combo that only 100 were ever made in that color scheme out of a total production of about 1000. For about $400. Now, as a 60w 1x12 tube combo that sounds pretty dang good, it's inherent value is at LEAST $300. So I would have to try pretty hard to lose money on it. It wasn't even what I went to buy, but the guy was a gear hoarder/seller and happened to have that piece and I asked about it and we made a package deal with something else. The deal presented itself, and even though it wasn't exactly what I was looking for, I recognized what it was and what it was likely worth (and the try out and actual purchase were a couple days apart as well so I had time to research). So I went for it. Some older bass stuff from the 90s are phenomenal deals right now. Everyone's already trying to squeeze every penny out of 60s Fenders (and 70s Fenders, and 80s Fenders).

Collecting for profit is a long game. You have to know when something is at it's absolute bottom, and is likely to go up soon enough that you can sell it before you die (if your goal is to make money). Jumping on a bandwagon is always going to be a losing proposition unless you manage to identify it REALLY early. The people who bought Minimoogs in like 1989 for a few hundred bucks and still have them now, they're worth about 10x what they paid for them. Which doesn't make ANY sense. We have really damn good software emulations of basically all the big analog synths from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Many of which you can get for free. I have free vst versions of Minimoog, EMS Synthi-A, Oberheim OBXa, Roland Juno, Roland JX8P, ARP 2600, Wasp, etc... Now, I wish I had been able to pull the trigger on the OBXa or OB8 I found at guitar center back around 2002 for $800, because now they are $4k or more. But if I buy one now, just hoping it will go up to $8k, I'm an idiot and would almost certainly lose money. So if I bought one, it would be to have and enjoy because I like that kind of stuff. Because technologically I could have something too close to tell the difference for free (plus the associated costs of a good laptop and decent interface, etc...), and something's gotta give there. MOST people faced with spending $8k on ONE big heavy semi-reliable 40 year old synth vs a free piece of software that essentially weighs 5 pounds and can never break (just get a new laptop), would go with the latter.

So no, buying an expensive vintage instrument is not always or even mostly a wise move financially. 50s and 60s instruments have likely topped out or come close. Because even though their numbers will gradually dwindle (they're not getting abused by teenagers any more, so most of the ones out there will probably stick around a while), their cache has a lot to do with the nostalgia of people who were young when they were new, and who currently are in the moneyed classes in large numbers. Once that generation dies off, there's not likely to be as big an attachment to it, and prices will likely deflate, because the NEW moneyed classes will be looking more at 70s and 80s stuff from when THEY were young. And on and on it goes.
 
My experience of wood subject to admittedly extreme vibration, is that the resins contained in the wood seems to become hard and glassy, and meaning there would be less vibration. Vibration of the body is not what you want in an electric instrument, so that might be a positive, but the effect is likely be subtle, unless you repeatedly pound your bass against cow skin for hours on end. And if it is subtle, then given the range of properties of any given piece of a single species of wood, that would seem to outweigh anything related to age.

Thanks for the note. What I was referring to is that the wood that was commonly available in the 50s and 60s was simply better quality - more grains, more uniform layering, etc. The wood was cured better, not quite so "green" and certainly not commercially harvested like woods are now.

Whether those properties were worth anything and could have possibly added something to the sound of an instrument is up for debate. In any case, the instruments that collectors seem to covet don't warrant their sky-high price tags in my opinion. I can remember when this $11,000 bass was about $200 brand new.
 
Well said. It’s worth is what somebody else is willing to pay for it. Not a penny more. And guess what? After the transaction takes place, the value is not what was paid for , but what the next guy is willing to pay, and when they are willing to pay for it, not a day sooner and not a penny more.

Risking a derail, but price is not the same as value: a good, engaging 4th grade Science teacher's services are worth more than what the teacher is paid. In addition, inefficient markets & the full costs & value of a product/good/service not being measured at the right time complicates the Free Market model: classic example is pollution (let the people downstream pay the health care & cleanup costs), and education - how many of the above Science teachers' students decide to get into high-paying Science jobs? Wasn't a factor in the teachers' bonus. According to grad school admissions officers, many Physicists in the past 2 generations were inspired into the field after reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time". There will be a lot learned from research because of that undervalued book.

I agree the price is what the market will bear, but a sucker's born every minute. Don't understand a vintage instrument collector? People can value things differently - makes a market.
 
Once that generation dies off, there's not likely to be as big an attachment to it, and prices will likely deflate, because the NEW moneyed classes will be looking more at 70s and 80s stuff from when THEY were young. And on and on it goes.
I agree with a lot of what you've said here, and as I mentioned, I see the same things happening in the rare coin markets.

I have to wonder about this last part of your post though. If this were true, no antiques would have currency after the generation that grew up with them dies off. We know that's not true.

I think there are a lot of people that will never get their money out of the instruments they bought just before the top of the market around 2009- 2009. But just like in the rare coin market, the absolute cream of the crop will probably retain value. I'm talking about basses now. Whether a $300K Les Paul is going to retain its value, I'm not sure. If I had $10MM in cash, I wouldn't buy a $300K '59 Les Paul. But if I had $100MM? Maybe, just for the hell of it.

Do you own anything that you keep just because you like having it around?