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

[Raw N Low]

IMO, I belive you have to go out of your way to make a bad bass today vs. giving it the old college try back then. I think being a musician back in the day was more of a privedge and there was a need for tools to match talent. The budget segment back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's was much different back then than it was today. If you bought a cheap "vintage" bass back then it showed, and much hasn't changed for them today.

However, quality instruments back then were almost certain to have a hands on touch to them and tweaking to make sure they left with a company standard, and that quality is evident today. Do I think modern basses are better? To a degree, yes only because you can provide luxury features at an affordable cost with better CNC machine quality. Not to mention that over sea outsourcing has improved leaps and bounds fom 20 years ago. On the flip side of that, you are going to pay big money today to have a tech spend more hand time on your bass like quallity companies had to back in the day. So in that aspect you could say some vintage intruments are of great timeless qualtiy.

 

[Muddslide]

Well, their stuff still gets played on the radio 25 years hence, so yeah.

Good lord. Well, according to their discography, their first release was in 1990, so you are indeed correct. 25 years makes a classic, right?

Just doesn't seem like that long ago to me.

To be honest, I've never really been a Green Day fan, but I am somewhat happy that "classic rock" no longer consists of the same five Steve Miller Band and Bob Seger songs played ad infinitum.

 

[GretschWretch]

Don't blame it on the dealers. It takes two to tango, and if someone's willing to pay the price, why shouldn't the dealer sell it to them for that price? Would YOU sell a 62 Jazz for $600? Doubt it. Some stuff is priced out of our league. Not everyone is selling to us common folks, and that's how it's always going to be. Time to accept it.

I can blame whomever I choose. It does take two to tango, but the "sliding scale" of the market undermines the credibility of of the entire vintage mania IMO. For example, the once-despised seventies Fenders now command vintage prices. Garage-band start-up basses like Harmonies and Kays have been brought into the fold. It's purely a market-driven supply-and-demand scenario in which, as has been pointed out, as the truly quality old instruments diminish in number, lesser ones are canonized as vintage.
Got to keep feeding the machine. How 'bout we let an impartial, objective, disinterested panel of experts assess the value of "vintage" instruments, and not the people who sell them?

And for the OP, except for cold solder joints, REALLY bad guitar tuners put on a bass, and warped necks from flatwound strings, my pre-1980 basses are just as good as the
post-1980 ones.

Jimmy,

I went off on you man. It's not personal; you just touched one of my chafe points. You are completely entitled to fire a salvo across my bow in return.

 

[Son of Wobble]

It does take two to tango, but the "sliding scale" of the market undermines the credibility of of the entire vintage mania IMO. For example, the once-despised seventies Fenders now command vintage prices. Garage-band start-up basses like Harmonies and Kays have been brought into the fold. It's purely a market-driven supply-and-demand scenario in which, as has been pointed out, as the truly quality old instruments diminish in number, lesser ones are canonized as vintage.

I grasp and appreciate your general dismay, but like Jimmy, I'm not sure I understand your complaint about dealers. Do you contend they artificially inflated their prices by controlling appraisals? To me it seems a local specialty shop like "Norm's Rare Guitars," around since the 1980's, was launched by hardcore fans and enthusiasts rather than speculators.
They provided the guitars for "This Is Spinal Tap," a trove of guitar-collecting jokes from almost before guitar-collecting had found its stride.

Yes, Norm's Rare Guitars no doubt greatly enjoyed the speculative bubble that eventually sent their product into realms of value usually reserved for tulips; but guitar stores do not have the reach to be the cause of speculative rushes. Even titan international oil companies cannot keep their bubbles inflated indefinitely, as reflected in the current collapse of oil prices (anyone remember the BS press about post-peak oil being the cause of $150 barrels?); in the case of guitar dealers, I think the bubble was merely for them a happy and welcome occurrence, as opposed to some sort of collusion or manipulation.

 

[Tom Howland]

I'll lay this on everyone. I've owned maybe 15 Fenders from 1957-1966 in my lifetime. Almost all purchased between 1974-1990. Some were amazing, others better than average.
My main Precision for the last few years has been a 1970. ( Great Bass, no issues ) I just got a 1988 MIJ 50's P-Bass. Did some upgrades.
1- Older 80's -Dimarzio Pickup.
2-Switchcrafyer Jack.
3-Orange caps
4-New nut.
5-Fender High Mass Bridge. ( The fender version of a Badass II Like on the Geddy Lee Model )
6-New set of Musicman Cobalt Slinky Flats.
Mods done, bass strung up. Plug into a practice amp. Plays, feels, and sounds like a $2000.00. bass. This is the real mystery of Fender basses. Why does this $500.00. bass with $200.00. of upgrades. Now sound like a real 1950's bass ? ( OK almost )
I guess I'm changing my view. Does age really matter? Or is it luck.

 

[boristhespider9]

Here is the problem I have with vintage instruments. They were once working-class-accessible music tools bought by young rockers who used them to craft the rebellious youth movement known as rock'n'roll. Now these same instruments are being bought by rich old dudes as music room trophies and financial status symbols. Guitars are faked as relics to give them a false sense of authenticity. That is so un-rock'n'roll it hurts, and the whole scenario is a cultural travesty. So keep your romanticized, mythologized, price-inflated vintage basses and guitars, old wealthy dudes. Those cool old guitars are all tainted by your money and lies now. They're dead to me.

I think many of those young rebellious rockers ARE the old wealthy dudes now!

 

[reddesert]

OK, there's something to the value of pre CBS instruments, I get it, but when you go beyond that and say that the 1970s stuff is "vintage" it becomes a hard pill to swallow. Equating quality with advancing age is a misstep and one that costs an ever increasing wad of cash... And let me finish with this question... what comes next? If a 1975 Fender is a very valuable vintage piece, you have to be prepared to accept all those pointy headstock neon things into the fold sooner than later. Or perhaps even more mind numbing, the vintage 1987 1957 Fender Stratocaster American Vintage Reissue...

Just wait for the 2017 reissue of the 1987 AVRI '57 Strat.

The 1980s weren't a great period for Fender (partly management, partly because they didn't leap full-on into the pointy neon market), but there are a limited number of 80s instruments and aren't going to be any more, so at some point those will start to be seen as their own desirable thing. That's already happened with the 80s made in Japan instruments, I believe.

I don't think it's reasonable to blame all of this on predatory dealers. There are some aspects of the vintage market that are a little ridiculous, like playing up minor in-line changes as collectible rarities, or calling every Japanese Strat or Les Paul shaped guitar a lawsuit copy, but ultimately customers seem to be willing to pay for some of it; blame their disposable income. GAS is part of the problem and most of us are participating. The good news is, quality playable instruments are much cheaper in adjusted dollars than they were 30 years ago.

 

[Bass Viking]

.

And vintage basses were never "intended" to be anything except tools to play music. A lot of predator dealers have manipulated them into some sort of Grail, with apparently no shortage of acolytes.

I used to check out Bass Northwest's (RIP) web site regularly and saw the adjectives used to described the sound of the basses: "great", "GREAT", "absolutely great", "Excellent". But only a vintage Fender received the description "magical". I'm not calling Bass Northwest predators but I do think they were hyping it up a bit.

 

[20db pad]

I used to check out Bass Northwest's (RIP) web site regularly and saw the adjectives used to described the sound of the basses: "great", "GREAT", "absolutely great", "Excellent". But only a vintage Fender received the description "magical". I'm not calling Bass Northwest predators but I do think they were hyping it up a bit.

To Bass Northwest's credit, they described every bass they had, regardless of age, price, or condition as having a "real sleek, fast, feel". Wasn't quite as annoying as The Boutique Bass Guitar Retailer That Capitalizes Every Single Word In a Sentence That Shall Remain Unnamed.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I used to check out Bass Northwest's (RIP) web site regularly and saw the adjectives used to described the sound of the basses: "great", "GREAT", "absolutely great", "Excellent". But only a vintage Fender received the description "magical". I'm not calling Bass Northwest predators but I do think they were hyping it up a bit.

"Sell the sizzle not the steak" is business 101. Calling something "magical" in a sales description is only effective when confronted with a buyer keen to suspend reality. As Jimmy M said, it takes two to tango.

As I look for a correlation, it occurs to me as an aside that menus in cheap restaurants tend to contain many more adjectives and much more glittering generality than hi-priced menus, which are often so minimalist-chic as to be reductive ("seared halibut with greens $28").

 

[king_biscuit]

Just wait for the 2017 reissue of the 1987 AVRI '57 Strat.

The 1980s weren't a great period for Fender (partly management, partly because they didn't leap full-on into the pointy neon market), but there are a limited number of 80s instruments and aren't going to be any more, so at some point those will start to be seen as their own desirable thing. That's already happened with the 80s made in Japan instruments, I believe.

The 82-84 "Fullerton" era reissues some of the best Fenders ever made.

 

[chadds]

My actual experience is when in high school we played used Fenders etc. They were 3-7 years old which means they were sold new in the '50s and were at the newest sold in 1966. When the CBS Fenders came out we ran up to Chuck Levins and tried them. We went home disappointed. They sounded dead, the pickups were weak, they were covered with thick plastic like finish. We were ready to buy the new stuff and went home not satisfied and continued to play our used gear. Whether they were made from planks they were resonant, musical, musical instruments. I knew them when they only a few years old. Any theories that they sound better with age are here nor there. They sounded good then so they sound good now.

 

[GretschWretch]

I grasp and appreciate your general dismay, but like Jimmy, I'm not sure I understand your complaint about dealers. Do you contend they artificially inflated their prices by controlling appraisals? To me it seems a local specialty shop like "Norm's Rare Guitars," around since the 1980's, was launched by hardcore fans and enthusiasts rather than speculators.
They provided the guitars for "This Is Spinal Tap," a trove of guitar-collecting jokes from almost before guitar-collecting had found its stride.

Yes, Norm's Rare Guitars no doubt greatly enjoyed the speculative bubble that eventually sent their product into realms of value usually reserved for tulips; but guitar stores do not have the reach to be the cause of speculative rushes. Even titan international oil companies cannot keep their bubbles inflated indefinitely, as reflected in the current collapse of oil prices (anyone remember the BS press about post-peak oil being the cause of $150 barrels?); in the case of guitar dealers, I think the bubble was merely for them a happy and welcome occurrence, as opposed to some sort of collusion or manipulation.

Okay; I'm full of pizza now and more mellow. Nope, no collusion or conspiracy innuendos intended by me, and "predator" overstates the case. Probably I should have used the word "mercenary." I was receiving catalogs from Elderly Instruments when Nixon still was president, and their prices were not crazy high for their time. I was getting Gruhn's smaller-than-newsprint sales lists twenty years ago, and basses that now run in the thousands were listed for $400 to $600. But they are the same class of instruments. Vintage Guitar magazine had listings for instruments that I thought were wildly overpriced, and this was when I was a subscriber just before the turn of the millenium.

How can ground chuck in 1994 become top-grade sirloin in 2015? I know inflation plays a role in this, but still . . . . And the folks declaring it sirloin are the same ones who run the butcher shop.
Who are the same ones who would low-ball me if I brought in a vintage bass, which they then would sell for a huge markup.

I know; it's business, it's there, it's real. But it still has a malodorous reek about it.

 

[JimmyM]

On the other hand, music stores are in business to make money, if you want top dollar for your used gear, never sell it to a music store, the market pays what it will bear and the only way to make prices come down is if people stop buying, nobody owes it to you to price what they have for sale to your liking when they have other buyers interested, and if you don't like the prices, you are free to move on and buy something else.

BAM! Salvo that

 

[96tbird]

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.

Said by a fellow that doesn't own any vintage basses maybe?

My 62 Jazz sounds and plays like a dream. Not that every one of them were great but this one certainly would blow your mind. Even after the refin from the horrific first one from way back when it was young. Even then I could tell it was terrific.

 

[MrRobert]

Okay; I'm full of pizza now and more mellow. Nope, no collusion or conspiracy innuendos intended by me, and "predator" overstates the case. Probably I should have used the word "mercenary." I was receiving catalogs from Elderly Instruments when Nixon still was president, and their prices were not crazy high for their time. I was getting Gruhn's smaller-than-newsprint sales lists twenty years ago, and basses that now run in the thousands were listed for $400 to $600. But they are the same class of instruments. Vintage Guitar magazine had listings for instruments that I thought were wildly overpriced, and this was when I was a subscriber just before the turn of the millenium.

How can ground chuck in 1994 become top-grade sirloin in 2015? I know inflation plays a role in this, but still . . . . And the folks declaring it sirloin are the same ones who run the butcher shop.
Who are the same ones who would low-ball me if I brought in a vintage bass, which they then would sell for a huge markup.

I know; it's business, it's there, it's real. But it still has a malodorous reek about it.

So you're upset that what was once cheap is now expensive? I'm not sure I understand your point. The once cheap instruments are obviously worth more to other people than they are to you... But you still want them to be cheap because they are the same instruments they were back when they were cheap? I honestly can't figure out what you mean.

 

[Showdown]

Low end basses are definitely better than vintage low end basses were - some of the old ones were barely playable. Now you can get a Squier that is very good for very little money.

It is really a matter of perspective. I own two '76 Gibson Thunderbirds. I bought one new in '76. At the time no one thought new basses were as good as what were made in the 50s and 60s. Now that bass and all those "inferior" 70s basses are vintage and people think they are better than new ones. I'm pretty sure 40 years from now people will be debating about whether basses from the 2010s are better than new ones.

My personal opinion is that vintage basses, made without CNC machines and with a lot more stuff done by hand - including neck shaping, are much more inconsistent than new basses. Some are great basses, some are dogs. New basses are more consistently good.

I love my '76 Tbirds, and I also have an '86 G&L that I love, but I mostly play my 2014 MIA P. It is better than any of them.

In the end it is all subjective opinion, so your mileage may vary.

 

[Corevalay]

The original question was about whether the old stuff is better quality than the new stuff. It’s a valid question for someone considering a purchase because there are many modern vintage-style instruments available that cost less $$$.

It was, but it was also posed in a way of saying "Why would you buy a vintage bass, it's not worth it." At least that's what I got from it.

 

[Danomo]

14 pages in less than 48 hours... Nothing resolved...

Except maybe... the entry/low end is miles better now than vintage entry/low.

Maybe the question should be:
Has decades of experience, research, and new technology succeeded in making a better bass?

 

[nerkoids]

It was, but it was also posed in a way of saying "Why would you buy a vintage bass, it's not worth it." At least that's what I got from it.

It wasn't. The question I asked was in the spirit of " putting aside collectability,mojo, value, price -- if vintage was inherently better than modern."

If one reads the entire thread, there have been plenty of satisfactory answers, if, of course, we can take out the countless references once again to collectability, price and mojo (although a couple of folks explained mojo is a legitimate and applicable quality).