• 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.

Lakland Owners Group #69

#16,422
JEDI BASS said:
Best of luck to Dan. I have no reason to not wish him well.

But, will somebody please tell him to stop with the other brand name dropping… the "I've fixed (insert non-existent and never heard of) LĀKLAND flaw" and the way he implies his era was superior to the Pirruccelli's. And the my headstock is a mash up of Fender and Musicman blah blah blah. Make a bass and talk about what makes it special, not how you copied Lākland stuff or made a variation of other people's ideas. The past is gone, move on. And those god-awful knobs!!
Click to expand...

I agree that Dan sometimes plays on the anti-Lakland thing a bit hard BUT in this case he did design the bass he is talking about so saying "I am improving on my design which I always had problems with" is not really speaking ill of Lakland. And he never says "this is better than current Laklands" he is just saying he improved on his own design. G&L's whole marketing is that same exact thing.

I like his new headstock design but only on 4 strings. The Lakland 5 string headstock looks way better than this one.
 
#16,424
Johnny Alien said:
I agree that Dan sometimes plays on the anti-Lakland thing a bit hard BUT in this case he did design the bass he is talking about so saying "I am improving on my design which I always had problems with" is not really speaking ill of Lakland. And he never says "this is better than current Laklands" he is just saying he improved on his own design. G&L's whole marketing is that same exact thing.

I like his new headstock design but only on 4 strings. The Lakland 5 string headstock looks way better than this one.
Click to expand...
Well, I did a search and found absolutely nothing about the balance issue he spoke of… not one mention of it anywhere. I would think there would have been plenty of time in his era to correct that, if it had existed. But, it didn't.

There's a more tasteful way to word things that would come across way better… something like "I feel my bass designs have evolved and this one balances far better than any of its predecessors."
 
  • Like
Reactions: lomo and GregC
#16,425
The lower horn is what I dislike most...I'm used to the Lakland body so it just seems oddly shaped. I've never experienced any balance issues on my 5594 when sitting.

I don't mind the headstock shape, but it does set off my pet peeve of all the strings not being exactly parallel coming out of the nut to the tuners. I see it on most brands from time to time though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDI BASS, basspraiser and Fred312b
#16,427
I agree that Dan's wording could be more tasteful when comparing his new designs to Laklands. He was the owner of the company. If there were issues of any kind with the designs it's not much of a stretch to think he could have changed them back then. I guess he's just trying to justify changes in an already great design that doesn't really need any changes, to make it his and slightly different. I had great dealings with Dan personally when I ordered my shorty Decade (#5). At that time it was just a rumor. I had a 34" Decade on order. I sent an email asking about the rumor and Dan called me back directly. We spoke at length a couple of times about the design, the new ss neck etc. He was really excited about it. It was a great bass buying experience. It's the only Lakie I have now in my small 4 bass collection. I've been playing the hell out of it lately. It plays and sounds so good. It's a lifer for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lomo, JEDI BASS and basspraiser
#16,430
JEDI BASS said:
One good thing about looking at Dan's reverb listing… I quickly found myself clicking on all the lovely Laklands. I had not been on reverb in quite a while! Gosh!! So many beautiful 55 and 44-94s!!! Got me looking at my collection and wondering what I could sell to buy one!
Click to expand...


Getting into flipping again!???

I thought you were " happy". ... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxSpinrun and JEDI BASS
#16,435
Real Soon said:
Gotta agree, while that Lakin 5-string is purdy, the headstock on it is... lakluster
Click to expand...
If he moved the D and G tuners a smidge more toward the end of the headstock, and downsized his logo a bit, the strings would come off the nut in a straight line.

It's the little things…

On second thought, and after looking at it again, space is an issue. You can't have clovers that are too close to one another. He may be stuck with the current layout/design. Unless… maybe move the D and G tuners in toward the headstock centerline. The long tuner posts would still ensure that the clovers clear the wood.
 
Last edited:
#16,436
JEDI BASS said:
Haha!! Well, good ol' number 11 is not going anywhere! I wish everyone could feel the neck on it! No other 4-94, or any US Lākland I've owned, has had a neck like this one. Maybe I'll measure all the specs and post them so y'all can compare McFarland to non.
Click to expand...
I have played JJ's #11, it is very special. I do have a point of reference, as I HAD #19, which is now gone! Don't even want to think about why it is gone. JJ's #11 has ridiculously low action!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregC, basspraiser and JEDI BASS
#16,437
MaxSpinrun said:
I have played JJ's #11, it is very special. I do have a point of reference, as I HAD #19, which is now gone! Don't even want to think about why it is gone. JJ's #11 has ridiculously low action!
Click to expand...
And right now it's strung BEAD with EBMM Cobalt flats, using a mixed set that is 130-95-70-60. Tensions are perfect, and the B is unreal, especially for 34" scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: basspraiser, MaxSpinrun and Fred312b
#16,438
Neck measurements on my SN 11 4-94 with McFarland neck:
Nut width - 1.593"
Neck thickness just behind 1st fret - 0.76"
Neck thickness just behind 7th fret - 0.797"
Neck thickness just behind 12th fret - 0.859"

And some pics, cause the lighting is good right now.
74D06500-B258-4780-892E-39CF96AA1D03.jpeg
44112FD9-EFB3-4DEE-AD37-EBA471804A6B.jpeg
924F7D20-C887-40D8-870B-BC94B52B7434.jpeg
7A190508-3492-4174-87BC-28FC06264F22.jpeg
6816087F-CF0A-44E2-98FC-AA355CF8C257.jpeg
C51D6139-6A61-4CF3-BDFF-A72B722F8659.jpeg
56C851E2-D41E-45D7-BFFD-A533F6B8583E.jpeg
B8DAFFA0-38D5-4D46-B6CE-AFC6C6BBB00D.jpeg
7E427774-A5C6-43DD-ACA6-B669ADEA9780.jpeg
5481D6E8-09B7-4C50-8AEE-737080BDF547.jpeg
D6D25559-59E1-4107-B4A7-57223229F694.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlountEdge, GregC, Johnny Alien and 7 others
#16,440
Thom Fioriglio said:
I am also using EB Cobalt flats on a 44-64. I run the strings through the bridge, not the body. Have you noticed any issues running the flats through the body?
Click to expand...
On #11, I have no choice. The early bridges were thru-body only.

If a set of flats is nice and flexible, I know they'll be fine run thru the body. EBMM Cobalts are plenty flexible, even the 130 B. No issues at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaxSpinrun, Fred312b, Jeff Roller and 1 other person

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back