• 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.

Let's be completely honest here about vintage basses...

nerkoids

nerkoids

Jan 3, 2014
3,144
3,216
Montreal
#1
Let's put aside mojo, collectability, value, colour, quality of tort, etc...

Regardless if it's a Fender, Gibson, or a Rickenbacker... are the vintage basses inherently better quality than newer stuff?

Allow me to narrow down to this example (just to get things started, obviously we can talk about anything that's on a bass) Pre-CBS Kluson tuners, better, worse, equal to the Gotoh/Hipshot replacements?

How about Pre-CBS Klusons vs. In-house Fender tuners?

Discuss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeyjm2, blindrabbit, jd56hawk and 1 other person
#2
I don't think they're better, just older. That being said:

tumblr_ncow7kOlOE1smr45to1_500.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mind Eroded, Mikaelbass, AndrewTaran and 33 others
#3
Well my take is:
  • the machine heads are not a significant part of a vintage bass.
  • the originals were quite heavy, which is bad for neck dive
  • replacing with gotoh's res-o-lite tuners (or equivalent) should be forgiven!
I feel this way because that's exactly what I've done on a '64 Precision - and you know what, they're better!

Davo
 
#8
Davo-LON said:
Well my take is:
  • the machine heads are not a significant part of a vintage bass.
Davo
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Their look, weight, ability to keep tune.. I'd think they'd have quite the significant part in the overall quality of a vintage bass. The fact that you swapped out yours for something newer suggests the old Klusons weren't working for you... or was it simply a question of weight and neck dive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: blindrabbit, FlatwoundFunk, Jah Wobble Fan and 1 other person
#9
nerkoids said:
Regardless if it's a Fender, Gibson, or a Rickenbacker... are the vintage basses inherently better quality than newer stuff?
Click to expand...

No.

nerkoids said:
Allow me to narrow down to this example (just to get things started, obviously we can talk about anything that's on a bass) Pre-CBS Kluson tuners, better, worse, equal to the Gotoh/Hipshot replacements?

How about Pre-CBS Klusons vs. In-house Fender tuners?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Gotoh 350 Res-O-Lite tuners are my favorite tuners. I find they are much better than any other tuners I've used, modern or vintage.
 
#11
Doctor J said:
It all depends. Do you think humans get worse at something with practice or better?
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


But, here's my take:
There is probably not a significant different in the average "quality" of all vintage vs new instruments, or if there is, it favors new. However, given enough time, bad examples or abused instruments will be discarded/destroyed. It's a bit of natural selection that leaves the "best" genes to the next generation for those that we consider "vintage". New basses may be good, or bad, but there's a lot of them still around, some are bound to be removed from the gene pool before too long, and that's more likely if they're bad.

I'm wish I could title this post "On the origin of Basses"
 
  • Like
Reactions: lancimouspitt, Nic., FelixC and 23 others
#12
mrbell321 said:
giphy.gif


But, here's my take:
There is probably not a significant different in the average "quality" of all vintage vs new instruments, or if there is, it favors new. However, given enough time, bad examples or abused instruments will be discarded/destroyed. It's a bit of natural selection that leaves the "best" genes to the next generation for those that we consider "vintage". New basses may be good, or bad, but there's a lot of them still around, some are bound to be removed from the gene pool before too long, and that's more likely if they're bad.

I'm wish I could title this post "On the origin of Basses"
Click to expand...

The title you propose is cute, and your post well-argued. But similar assertions have been made here often and I'm not sure I subscribe to the core premise for the simple reason that I've seen any number of mediocre-playing vintage Fenders for sale at Guitar Center Hollywood. In this regard my experience contradicts your claim that only the strong survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke Damn, Doctor J and FlatwoundFunk
#13
Jah Wobble Fan said:
The title you propose is cute, and your post well-argued. But similar assertions have been made here often and I'm not sure I subscribe to the core premise for the simple reason that I've seen any number of mediocre-playing vintage Fenders for sale at Guitar Center Hollywood. In this regard my experience contradicts your claim that only the strong survive.
Click to expand...

Well, your experience is really anecdotal evidence rather than scientific evidence. However, what I said barely counts as a hypothesis, which is an educated guess. The key word there being educated, and mine is only a wild potential rationale for why people pay so much for a beat up hunk of wood. :)

Perhaps it's less about "survival" and more about individuals holding on to what works for them. Best illustrated as an a hypothetical story:
I want a good bass
I buy a new one and sell it because it's not what I'm looking for.
I do this 50 times.
I finally find the one which I hold onto it for the next 50 years.
It is vintage, and it is excellent. Therefore 1/1 vintage instruments are great, while only 1/50 new ones were good enough to keep for 50 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic., JackANSI, troy mcclure and 9 others
#14
I have been playing a long time and have owned several pre-CBS Fenders including a matching trio of '64s--all burst/tort--two Js (one fretless) and a P. Owned a few other early Fender basses and several Strats and Teles as well. Nothing wrong with any of them, but they didn't make me into a "vintage guy."

Also owned some early- to mid-70s Gibson stuff...a '76 Ripper bass, a '73 SG...

It's nice to have stuff with some age on it like that (mojo for rizzle...) but meh...I'm not that into it. I've played lots of newer instruments that were as good or better and I really don't even WANT to own things that are considered to have such value that I have to worry about them.

The way prices have gone, if I owned a 1964 Fender P now, I'd be afraid to gig it or even have much fun with it. It'd just be "worth" so much I'd be thinking "Oh no! What if something happens!"

My family lost 98% of our possessions in a flood a few years back, so I'm pretty antsy about "stuff" in general. I typically try to not acquire much, and when I do, it's not something that would kill me to lose.

My one functioning electric guitar cost me $40. It plays and sounds fine.

My most expensive bass cost me $130 new, shipped. My next most expensive one cost $125. My only other bass cost me $40. And I'll likely be selling a bass soon, bringing me back down to two.

Now, I do mod/upgrade stuff on my cheapo basses, but I don't have a whole lot sunk into any of them. What I end up with doing it this way is inexpensive basses that are modded with components I personally like, and they are perfectly giggable and recordable, but not a big loss if they got damaged. Or stolen. Or just spontaneously combusted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronbeast, N. Kentucky Bass, AndrewTaran and 7 others
#18
From a hardware standpoint, I would agree any mid priced modern bass is vastly superior to my 63 P Bass. The fretwork on my 63 (which has original frets owing to a lifetime of flatwounds) is passable, but it is not on par with most modern basses. The big advantage to a vintage instrument, in my opinion, is the wood. My 63's body is a lightweight resonant old growth alder and the neck is straight-grained maple with a Brazilian rosewood fingerboard. Those woods are virtually impossible to obtain today, especially with the benefit of fifty years of aging. Wood is the one reason why old instruments will always be special.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Juicyanalog, Mastermold, N. Kentucky Bass and 23 others
#19
The way the question is worded, it's pretty apparent the OP already has his mind made up, IMHO. I don't know if my vintage basses are better quality, but I prefer the ones I own ('66 Tele Bass, '75 P Bass) to most of the modern ones I've played. To me they look, sound and feel better, to my eyes, ears and hands. It doesn't mean that someone who prefers modern basses is wrong, it just means they have different criteria.

Let's be completely honest and admit that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. If you think they are better you are right, if you think they aren't, you are right. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: No Malarky, Dennis Smith, Binary1 and 18 others
#20
lfmn16 said:
The way the question is worded, it's pretty apparent the OP already has his mind made up, IMHO. I don't know if my vintage basses are better quality, but I prefer the ones I own ('66 Tele Bass, '75 P Bass) to most of the modern ones I've played. To me they look, sound and feel better, to my eyes, ears and hands. It doesn't mean that someone who prefers modern basses is wrong, it just means they have different criteria.

Let's be completely honest and admit that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. If you think they are better you are right, if you think they aren't, you are right. ;)
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's just some good click bait ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AltGrendel, TMARK, matthewbrown and 2 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back