LAKLAND OWNERS GROUP #31

[GregC]

At this point, it's going to be a 55-10 if that pickup doesn't get here soon from Nordstrand!

I don't know what to call it. I barely understand the Lakland numbering code as it is. I'm wide open to suggestions!

Hehe. I'll go in a different direction than Denis. The second pair of numbers, when models have such a name, indicates the date the particular pickup or pickup arrangement first came out. Thus...

4-94: When Lakland first designed the MM/J setup.
44-07: Chi-sonics designed.
4-76: The year Music Man designed the Stingray 'bucker.

I think 55-01 and 55-02 were the years those basses were introduced. Either that or Lakland just wanted to have the 01 be the lowest model and 02 the step up.

Note that these model numbers are all used with the 44/55 body style. That's why I was thinking 55-57, for the 55-body with a split-coil P pickup.

 

[G On Bass]

1) It will be 55 for sure.

Yep. Figured that much.

2) I think active "optional" versions of serial basses tend to have numbers, passive ones - letters (E.g., the 55-63 vs. 55-JJ or, Dual J as Leo put it and, IIRC, the 2006 Shoreline catalogue tells). Thus, the 55-P (as opposed to the BG5, BG5PJ based on other basic model).

What is a 55-63?

3) Also, basses modified with pickups sometimes have the letters to describe that (E.g., the 44-02 CS tells us it is a Skyline with Chis*

Yep. I have a JO5 CS and a DJ5 CS

you want to include the idea of land of origin, and that would normally make it a 55-01P. But this would confuse it with, firstly, a double pickup design bass; secondly, an active version of the bass.

Plus, it's based on a 55 body, but the electronics (and it's routs) are what differentiates the 01 from the 02, and the electronics are no longer there in any capacity. Plus, as you said, it's passive.

So maybe it's just a Gustomized P55-Indoplek.

Good Lord. That sounds like an incorrect answer on a Medical exam.

Maybe I'll just call it Barbara.

 

[G On Bass]

That's why I was thinking 55-57, for the 55-body with a split-coil P pickup.

If that fits the pattern, then I guess that's what it should be. Even though it's not active?

 

[GregC]

If that fits the pattern, then I guess that's what it should be. Even though it's not active?

That's my take. I think the 55-63 is the same thing as a (passive) dual J like Matty has; '63 supposedly being the first year the Fender Jazz was made without stack knob controls. (Although I think '62 may actually be correct.)

 

[denchiq]

That's my take. I think the 55-63 is the same thing as a (passive) dual J like Matty has; '63 supposedly being the first year the Fender Jazz was made without stack knob controls. (Although I think '62 may actually be correct.)

me too; I always referred to an alder/rosewood with dots 60-ies jazz bass as to '62. I think I remember reading that JO's "donor" FJB was an actual '62. Nevertheless, the catalogue puts the 55-63 as an active variant of a '62 bass, and 55 Dual J as the passive one. I bet my tie it does; I don't think it correct, but I am sure because I cross-checked like a week ago

 

[denchiq]

Hehe. I'll go in a different direction than Denis. The second pair of numbers, when models have such a name, indicates the date the particular pickup or pickup arrangement first came out. Thus...

4-94: When Lakland first designed the MM/J setup.
44-07: Chi-sonics designed.
4-76: The year Music Man designed the Stingray 'bucker.

I think 55-01 and 55-02 were the years those basses were introduced. Either that or Lakland just wanted to have the 01 be the lowest model and 02 the step up.

Note that these model numbers are all used with the 44/55 body style. That's why I was thinking 55-57, for the 55-body with a split-coil P pickup.

I also think the -01 stands for the year of the Skyline series introduction

 

[Hoover]

The third and fourth numbers indicate the month it was made--so check that serial number again, hehe.

I edited my post with the correct s/n, so now this makes sen... wait a minute, no it doesn't!

 

[Johnny Alien]

I also think the -01 stands for the year of the Skyline series introduction

The 55-01 and the 55-02 were both introduced in 2001. The 44-02 showed up in 2002 and the 44-01 did not make an appearance until late 202 or possibly 2003.

 

[E-Mac]

i thought a -63 was a dual j, but active. maybe someone already said that

 

[E-Mac]

Osborn's bass was a 1960 Fender J

 

[bamabass]

We'll soon find out. You gonna burst the headstock too? If not, maybe a vintage tint lacquer... yum yum

That is the one dilema I am trying to work through....not sure.

a.) Natural
b.) matching burst
c.) black
d.) vintage tint

not sure.....I actually had never thought of a vintage tint until you mentioned it. Right now I am thinking burst. I would love to have this effect....and then have the Glaub neck done to match.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=598100&highlight=vortex

 

[mattygbass]

Just got through giving the LPB bass it's run through. I can actually get the action lower on this bass than my other Skyline Glaubs. Short and sweet....I love it.

Hope you guys that owned it enjoyed it as it will not be going anywhere. I have other Skylines that can go over time but LPB is too tough to come by for me to ever unload it.

Now...as I was playing tonight I decided what I would like to see even more than a custom color Skyline Glaub. An ALDER BODY Skyline Glaub.

How comes they don't make those. I would definitely get one immediately if it was offered.

it may get lower because my tech filed the nut slots on it.

glad you are enjoying it, although i am a little bummed to hear you will never part with it

 

[mattygbass]

i thought a -63 was a dual j, but active. maybe someone already said that

you are correct,

there is a 4-63 and a 4-94 jj

it seams that it should be the outher way around, huh??

im wondering if they called it a 63 because that is the first year with the 3 knob setup, until then they had stacked knobs.

 

[JEDI BASS]

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8227953&postcount=6
:scowl:

 

[bamabass]

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8227953&postcount=6
:scowl:

thanks Mr. Pedulla....NARC!

 

[Luke.Walton]

Great choice!

That is, until a BGPJ5 comes out in a Skyline of course.

Here's hoping.

Actually, I was thinking earlier on today, could the reason that Lakland has not yet released a SkyBGPJ5 be that they don't have their P5 pup figured out yet?
I imagine if I was Dan that I would much rather have my own inhouse pickup over another company's.

Just a thought

 

[Luke.Walton]

do it!

Haha, it's all a matter of gathering funds

 

[MarkusBass]

I like th eidea of vintage tint, but it might look funny without the whole neck being vintage tint. Just the headstock face...not sure about that.

That is the one dilema I am trying to work through....not sure.

a.) Natural
b.) matching burst
c.) black
d.) vintage tint

not sure.....I actually had never thought of a vintage tint until you mentioned it. Right now I am thinking burst. I would love to have this effect....and then have the Glaub neck done to match.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=598100&highlight=vortex

 

[MarkusBass]

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8227953&postcount=6
:scowl:

thanks Mr. Pedulla....NARC!

:scowl:

 

[MarkusBass]

That is, until a BGPJ5 comes out in a Skyline of course.

Here's hoping.

Actually, I was thinking earlier on today, could the reason that Lakland has not yet released a SkyBGPJ5 be that they don't have their P5 pup figured out yet?
I imagine if I was Dan that I would much rather have my own inhouse pickup over another company's.

Just a thought

Not sure they would hold up production on a model they think would sell over that, but I don't know for sure.