late 70's fender's

[Spinal Tapper]

my 62 jazz and 64 p have gaps in the neck pocket

LOL, I was just gonna say: my 1962 P is HEAVIER than my ash/maple 75.

My 62 also has a misaligned neck heel where the edge hangs over the neck pocket a little bit...but, who cares?

The bass is amazing, and I don't buy basses to measure out intricacies with a tiny ruler. The neck is straight as an arrow, and the PU's sound the thunder! I'll never get rid of it

Buy the late 70's P if that's what you desire. There are great ones out there.

 

[JTE]

The dig on the electronics is pretty much BS. I'm no big fan of late '70s Fender stuff, but that's one area where they did NOT cheapen things up. Yes, there was a time when someone at CBS authorized a buy of inferior wire, but according to Forrest White that snafu happened with pickups made in '67*​.

There are many aspects of this and there are unfortunately too many people on both sides of it who aren't objective- or who THINK they are based on one or two or a dozen instruments they've had contact with. Now the consensus among people with a lot of experience with a lot of Fenders over the decades is that the late '70s was a period where they often did not measure up to their own standards. By no means were they junk, but by no means would the average level of quality be considered world-class.

And a lot of this is highly subjective. The bullet truss rod is a great idea and they did it well. The Micro-tilt neck was a great idea but they did it really poorly. The heavy bodies were subjective, but given the times it made sense, though I think the logic was quite flawed. To me, the objective problems fall into two categories- those that can be fixed and those inherent in the design.

You can fix a bad fret job, even though it's expensive and shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can cut a new nut (heck, most mass produced instruments now still have at best only acceptable nuts, not correct ones). But you can't easily fix sloppy alignment of bridges, nor the neck/body joints that move. You can do something about the movement, but you can't fix that fact that they weren't made correctly to stay stable. And you can't fix bad wood in a neck that causes it to not adjust evenly along the truss rod.

So I'll debate reasonable and experienced people all day about whether the late '70s stuff in general is or is not well-made product. But there's no reason to defame the stuff they did right, and there's no valid reason to tell someone who's got an instrument that works great for them that it's crap.

John

*​ "Fender - The Inside Story" by Forrest White © 1994 by Forrest White, published by Miller Freeman books. Pages 163 and 164

 

[Lowbrow]

One other thing, I suspect there are more than a few TBers who are pissed that they sold their 70s basses for $300.00 back in the 90s and make themselves feel better by constantly criticizing an entire population of basses based on a few cliches from the same drugged brainwashed counterculture that thought it was a good idea to strip the finish off of preCBS Fenders!

Wha...?

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

If you need to believe that your AMC gremlin is a good car, then fine. That does not mean that it is a good car.

The simple fact is this: DiMarzio / Seymour Duncan / Bill Lawrence did not appear in the marketplace becausee they were not needed; Every person buying Fenders in the 1970s was replacing the pickups. I didn't know a single Fender player, myself included, who kept the stock pickups. Did they work? Sure. Was every replacement pickup out there better? Yes. Man, If I had known how much those old p'ups would be worth to "vintage cultists" I could have cleaned up by giving guys $5 for their old P/J/Strat p'ups...

 

[narud]

If you need to believe that your AMC gremlin is a good car, then fine. That does not mean that it is a good car.

The simple fact is this: DiMarzio / Seymour Duncan / Bill Lawrence did not appear in the marketplace becausee they were not needed; Every person buying Fenders in the 1970s was replacing the pickups. I didn't know a single Fender player, myself included, who kept the stock pickups. Did they work? Sure. Was every replacement pickup out there better? Yes. Man, If I had known how much those old p'ups would be worth to "vintage cultists" I could have cleaned up by giving guys $5 for their old P/J/Strat p'ups...

people put the same replacements in 60's fenders as well. is that stuff cheap too? tonal difference is not quality. seymour duncan likes the sound of a hotter/bassier pickup than an old fender pickup provides. that didnt mean the original was bad. its just preference.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

people put the same replacements in 60's fenders as well. is that stuff cheap too? tonal difference is not quality. seymour duncan likes the sound of a hotter/bassier pickup than an old fender pickup provides. that didnt mean the original was bad. its just preference.

Bad is not the same as "inferior". I contend that *yes*, those stock fender p'ups were indeed inferior. Futher, I'd say that folks have decided against all experience and logic, to embrace these CBS Fenders as "vintage", much as folks have done with '70s automobiles. I suspect most of the folks who have made this decision are too young to remember just how bad gear / cars were back then compared to now.

And yes, I've had this argument before...

 

[hublocker]

I just can't imagine anything from the 1970s to be considered "vintage" or collectible.


vin·tage (vin′tij)

noun

1.
1. the crop or yield of a particular vineyard or grape-growing region in a single season, with reference either to the grapes or to the wine made from them
2. wine; specif., the wine, esp. a prized wine, of a particular region in a specified year
3. the region or year of a particular wine
2. the act or season of gathering grapes or of making wine
3. the type or model of a particular year or period: a car of prewar vintage

Origin: ME, earlier vendage < OFr vendange < L vindemia, vintage < vinum, wine (see vine) + demere, to remove < de-, off + emere, to take: see redeem

adjective

1. of or produced in a particular vintage: said of wine
2. of a good period, choice, representative of the best, etc.: vintage Hemingway
3. representative of or dating from a period long past: vintage clothes

 

[narud]

Bad is not the same as "inferior". I contend that *yes*, those stock fender p'ups were indeed inferior. Futher, I'd say that folks have decided against all experience and logic, to embrace these CBS Fenders as "vintage", much as folks have done with '70s automobiles. I suspect most of the folks who have made this decision are too young to remember just how bad gear / cars were back then compared to now.

And yes, I've had this argument before...

theyre production instruments. regardless of era. early 60's, late 70's, whatever. ski jumps,twisted necks,gaps in the neck pocket were not isolated to the 70's and those things still happen now.

a contention that fender pickups are inferior is only based on preference and not based on materials or construction. replacements are made with the same materials but with more wire. different sound. if thats better to you and some others....cool

ive got old stuff (62 jazz,64p,78 jazz) and modern (various ernie balls,nordstrand, f bass). and while some of the boutique is built to higher tolerances,its at a different price point, and the "improvements" dont necessarily add up to better tone. its different, but the really well built fenders dont sound like the old stuff does. even with the warts. if you dont like the fretwork on a production fender, you could get the fretboard trued and refretted and still would end up spending less than a boutique bass.

 

[Lowbrow]

TBers: The majority of posters who knocked 70s Fenders in this thread - myself included - were folks who themselves had contact with these instruments; further, many went on to qualify their statements by saying that good (or even great) examples exist. That's how adults construct an argument: Here's something I know for a fact, but I don't know everything and so I leave room for alternate possibilities.

They don't ALL suck. They're not ALL great. It was, though, a period in Fender's history that has a reputation for producing inconsistent and often sub-par instruments - or else it would not have that reputation. This judgment was not formed due to lack of information.

AND there is every less place for posts that make blanket personal attacks than there is for posts that make blanket attacks on instruments.

 

[narud]

TBers: The majority of posters who knocked 70s Fenders in this thread - myself included - were folks who themselves had contact with these instruments; further, many went on to qualify their statements by saying that good (or even great) examples exist. That's how adults construct an argument: Here's something I know for a fact, but I don't know everything and so I leave room for alternate possibilities.

They don't ALL suck. They're not ALL great. It was, though, a period in Fender's history that has a reputation for producing inconsistent and often sub-par instruments - or else it would not have that reputation. This judgment was not formed due to lack of information.

AND there is every less place for posts that make blanket personal attacks than there is for posts that make blanket attacks on instruments.

i think some of the issue comes from the fact that the opinion that they are sub-par comes partially from a tonal preference perspective rather than purely construction. from a construction standpoint, all the same issues mentioned occurred in precbs instruments as well. if someone doesnt like heavy ash, that doesnt make that particular guitar a p.o.s., it just means that person doesnt like heavy basses. ernie ball still puts out some near 11 pound basses but they dont get the same rep 70's fenders do.

 

[Fender4Me]

TBers: The majority of posters who knocked 70s Fenders in this thread - myself included - were folks who themselves had contact with these instruments; further, many went on to qualify their statements by saying that good (or even great) examples exist. That's how adults construct an argument: Here's something I know for a fact, but I don't know everything and so I leave room for alternate possibilities.

They don't ALL suck. They're not ALL great. It was, though, a period in Fender's history that has a reputation for producing inconsistent and often sub-par instruments - or else it would not have that reputation. This judgment was not formed due to lack of information.

AND there is every less place for posts that make blanket personal attacks than there is for posts that make blanket attacks on instruments.

Well said!

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

TBers: The majority of posters who knocked 70s Fenders in this thread - myself included - were folks who themselves had contact with these instruments; further, many went on to qualify their statements by saying that good (or even great) examples exist. That's how adults construct an argument: Here's something I know for a fact, but I don't know everything and so I leave room for alternate possibilities.

They don't ALL suck. They're not ALL great. It was, though, a period in Fender's history that has a reputation for producing inconsistent and often sub-par instruments - or else it would not have that reputation. This judgment was not formed due to lack of information.

AND there is every less place for posts that make blanket personal attacks than there is for posts that make blanket attacks on instruments.

Well said. Unlike so many 70's cultists, I owned '70's basses IN THE 1970s and knew what they were. I also several '70s cars that were all just awful... Looking back, I think the only think that came out of the 70's that I can stand is funk!

 

[Lowbrow]

i think some of the issue comes from the fact that the opinion that they are sub-par comes partially from a tonal preference perspective rather than purely construction. from a construction standpoint, all the same issues mentioned occurred in precbs instruments as well. if someone doesnt like heavy ash, that doesnt make that particular guitar a p.o.s., it just means that person doesnt like heavy basses. ernie ball still puts out some near 11 pound basses but they dont get the same rep 70's fenders do.

This reads as 'badly constructed pre-CBS Fenders and heavy MusicMans cancel out badly constructed or heavy 70s Fenders.'

 

[narud]

This reads as 'badly constructed pre-CBS Fenders and heavy MusicMans cancel out badly constructed or heavy 70s Fenders.'

no, it just means that the same standard should be held across the board. the same people that complain about 70's construction talk about the golden era of pre-cbs fenders. the same issues existed then. why is that era ok to be considered "vintage" or "collectible"?

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

no, it just means that the same standard should be held across the board. the same people that complain about 70's construction talk about the golden era of pre-cbs fenders. the same issues existed then. why is that era ok to be considered "vintage" or "collectible"?

Many years ago, a store owner told me his theory on why pre-CBS Fenders were so good: They were all sold so cheap that they were very nearly disposable, so the mediocre / bad examples of strats / basses were trashed and only the really nice examples survived. I don't know that I buy that, but it's a thought...

I know this: My buddy NoStatic had a parted together '57 strat that was junk; he had a '64 stock strat that was flat-out glorious. And the only really old bass I ever had a chance to buy, a '58 p-bass, played and sounded *great*. I just didn't have that $500 back in 1980... Yeah, yeah - I know...

 

[king_biscuit]

Well said. Unlike so many 70's cultists, I owned '70's basses IN THE 1970s and new what they were. I also several '70s cars that were all just awful... Looking back, I think the only think that came out of the 70's that I can stand is funk!

Harry, I've been around more 70s Fenders than you could shake a stick at. I worked at a medium sized music store in the 80s and we had a constant rotation of 70s Fenders -- basses and guitars. Most of the 70s stuff just needs a proper setup and it's fine. And I have just about zero confidence in opinions of others on this as I've seen it myself. If I listened to others I'd never buy a new Fender as they are reputed to be so inconsistently made as to be virtually unplayable. Having owned several new Fenders and having played many new Fenders I know that most people are judging nothing more than string height and string condition, and in fact most new Fenders are just fine with a good setup and new strings!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 70s fenders electronics, and indeed people are still replacing new Fender pickups with Duncans, Fralins, Norstrands, etc... Are new Fender pickups crap? I dig that you had a late 70s Jazz bass you didn't like -- you have posted about that in virtually every 70s Fender thread on TB since you became a member, but you have constantly made statements that are plainly factually incorrect about Fenders. Why can't individual instruments be judged as individuals, instead of judging the whole class by a few exaggerated cliches?

 

[narud]

Many years ago, a store owner told me his theory on why pre-CBS Fenders were so good: They were all sold so cheap that they were very nearly disposable, so the mediocre / bad examples of strats / basses were trashed and only the really nice examples survived. I don't know that I buy that, but it's a thought...

I know this: My buddy NoStatic had a parted together '57 strat that was junk; he had a '64 stock strat that was flat-out glorious. And the only really old bass I ever had a chance to buy, a '58 p-bass, played and sounded *great*. I just didn't have that $500 back in 1980... Yeah, yeah - I know...

i dont know man, if you got into a vintage shop, youre still likely to see a number of 60's fenders with ski jumps and neck gaps. the biggest problem fenders ive owned and come across were a 66 and a 69.

im sure the production numbers in the 70's were way higher than in the early 60's, so who knows if the ratio of bad to good was really any different.

if we take the construction faults out of it, a lot of the complaints i usually hear are-
heavy (and therefore non resonant)
finishes are too thick
neck profiles are too fat

those are all preferences and dont make an instrument bad or inferior. it just means you prefer lighter basses with thinner necks. hell, we have boutique guys making jazzes these days applying those same complaints in order to get a similar sound.

i think a more valid argument would be that we shouldnt consider ANY era of fender collectible due to construction issues that have always existed. theres a 61 jazz on ebay that the owner is expecting top dollar for with one of the most jacked up necks ive ever seen.

 

[bassbully]

Player's didnt make Fender's "Vintage" or collectible..collecters did. Do we really need to go to the 70's cars v.s. basses bitch again? There were some great cars built in the 70's, using an AMC Gremlin everytime is only going to the bottom of the barrel.

If you dont like Fenders..Fine. If you dont like 70's Fender's... Woopty doo. I'm going to keep on playing mine and living life man. I'm not going to crawl up in fetal position crying over buying a 70's P bass cuz there are TBer's dissing them all the time. Please!

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Believe what you like. I know what I know, and I know that the majority of Fender basses made in the late '70s are bad. Not all, but the majority.

And tell me - how exactly do you know what I have or have not owned/played? You assume a great deal, KB.

 

[engedi1]

Marcus Miller has done OK with his '77 J bass...