I bought a Gibson Grabber in 1975, the one with the sliding pickup. It was a decent bass (I really wanted the Ripper but couldn't afford it) but I chuckled when Gibson reissued them recently for big $$. They were never that great!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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...
- Thread starter nerkoids
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vintage bass
I never got that impression. There was nothing in the original post that would suggest some kind negativity. On TB, it doesn't matter how carefully you phrase something there is always someone who interprets differently.
In 1957 a P-Bass would set you back $220 (over $1800 inflation-adjusted). According to US Census data, average household income was $3600 in 1957 (about $31,000 inflation-adjusted). Make no mistake: these were very much luxury items.
The cost of an American Standard P-Bass today is $1350 with average household income of $53,600. So, in both absolute terms and relative to income, the cost of an American-made P-Bass is quite a bit lower today. If that's too much for you, there's the Road Worn '50s for $1000, Classic Series '50s for $900, Standard Series for $600, or a variety of Squiers for just $300.
Today they are working-class-accessible tools...not back then!
Sorry, but that just sounds like sour grapes.
Besides, there are plenty of vintage instruments that can be had for reasonable prices. I bought my '56 Les Paul Junior for $2000 a couple of years ago. It had been refinished and refretted, but still played and sounded great. I fell in love with the '63 SG Junior I played in Seattle on Tuesday. It had a professionally repaired headstock crack. They're asking $2200. Both of these guitars are within reach to the average "young rocker" if they want them.
I'm not sure how this is relevant since we were talking about real vintage instruments...not modern relics. But since you've brought it up, the first relic guitar made by the Fender Custom Shop was done at the special request of Keith Richards. Is he "so un-rock'n'roll it hurts" in your book?
Now that's just silly
I'm talking about the lack of absolutes and the Humpty-Dumpty world we seem to have fallen into where a word (or instrument quality/value) when used means what Humpty
(or some demographic) wants it to mean. It's like, "This bass is worth this much because *I* say it is," and most of the "I's" in question have a profit-based conflict of interest. It's not a question of cheap vs. expensive; it's more like a questioning of the "evaluating" process whereby formerly marginal product now is desirable/collectible . . . based on what? Anybody know of a checklist whereby vintage value of an instrument is assessed? Not referencing condition of a specific instrument, but what makes
that make and model collectible (especially now, if it was not before.
To try to parse out your last sentence: it is of no concern to me whether they are cheap now, or expensive, since I am not in the market for any of them. I'm out of buying mode. I want to know the underlying rationale for the elevation of status in instruments which for long were not even blips on the radar screen. (Whether the long-term
labeled "vintage" instruments are worth the prices being asked for them now is another question I'm not addressing here.)
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
Everybody, even service providers, is in business to make money. But some businesses deal fairly, and others do not. But I did decide to move on, which is why I lapsed my subscription to Vintage Guitar. The articles were great, very informative; but the dealer ads 1) rarely listed any instrument I was remotely interested in and 2) I thought badly overpriced what they did list. I did not and still do not like the direction the industry was taking.
Then you might want to limit your sample to certain brands. Given the number of really bad entry-level instruments in the sixties as compared to the entry instruments today, I don't think any case can be made that vintage is inherently better. It certainly is not more consistent.
Yeah, I hear you. I think it's impossible to have clear, absolute guidelines when dealing with objects that people put emotions into. The opposite effect can be seen in 70s Fenders, where people's hatred of Fender in that era have caused many to overlook very fine instruments on their belief that all 70s Fenders are crap. Since we're not dealing with commodities but with instruments that people love/hate/fantasize about, there is no rational way to quantify actual value or worthiness of musical instruments.
If we're discussing vintage basses, doesn't that automatically 'limit' the samples?
+1 on the non-rationality. I'm Exhibit A on that. I've got some very fine basses, when considered purely as musical instruments, from the Japanese "golden era" circa 1978-85. And I've got several mojo'd, muttified, basses with issues from the fifties and sixties. I was born mid-1949. Guess which group I bonded with and seem more connected to when I pick one up? And it's all boomer nostalgia and personal history. No way can I justify it based purely on reason.
Eye of the beholder. Judging by the jump in opening bids on eBay over the last couple of years, even for junkers, it doesn't. "Old" appears to have become a synonym for
"vintage." Which it is in a purely denotative sense, I guess, if the bass is more than twenty-five years old.
All being said I prefer vintage or a well worn used bass over new. I do believe in mojo after all.
FWIW, the market on refinished basses is super low right now.
I've seen early to mid 60's P basses going for $2500-3500 all day.
I've seen early to mid 60's P basses going for $2500-3500 all day.
Gaolee
Official leathers tester and crash dummy
15 pages in 48 hours. The original post was an epic troll! Intentional or otherwise, it was a winner!
The Warwick Corvette $$ that I bought from Bass NW was described as having that "sleek fast feel". It actually does have it! (wenge neck)
I bought a couple basses there. The ones I bought were all advertised as having a "sleek fast feel" and they weren't lying !!
In 1957 a P-Bass would set you back $220 (over $1800 inflation-adjusted). According to US Census data, average household income was $3600 in 1957 (about $31,000 inflation-adjusted). Make no mistake: these were very much luxury items.
The cost of an American Standard P-Bass today is $1350 with average household income of $53,600. So, in both absolute terms and relative to income, the cost of an American-made P-Bass is quite a bit lower today. If that's too much for you, there's the Road Worn '50s for $1000, Classic Series '50s for $900, Standard Series for $600, or a variety of Squiers for just $300.
Today they are working-class-accessible tools...not back then!
Sorry, but that just sounds like sour grapes.
Besides, there are plenty of vintage instruments that can be had for reasonable prices. I bought my '56 Les Paul Junior for $2000 a couple of years ago. It had been refinished and refretted, but still played and sounded great. I fell in love with the '63 SG Junior I played in Seattle on Tuesday. It had a professionally repaired headstock crack. They're asking $2200. Both of these guitars are within reach to the average "young rocker" if they want them.
I'm not sure how this is relevant since we were talking about real vintage instruments...not modern relics. But since you've brought it up, the first relic guitar made by the Fender Custom Shop was done at the special request of Keith Richards. Is he "so un-rock'n'roll it hurts" in your book?
Now that's just silly
Meh, I have owned everything from vintage to boutique (and currently have 2 Zons and a '67 Fender Bass V among my arsenal), so whatever my problem is, it isn't sour grapes!
People should buy what they want and play what they want. For me, personally, it's a perception issue. Vintage gear is so expensive, over-hyped and romanticized it represents conspicuous consumption and nostalgic self-delusion to me. That is an image I don't wish to project, so I mostly leave it alone (and even when I have it, I rarely play it out). If I thought vintage gear was "better" I'd get over that issue quickly, but I don't.
Whatever the case, enjoy your cool old guitars, vintage guitar collectors! I'll admire them from afar (except the Bass V, bought cheap in the 90s, which I'm admiring right now!).
To the OP's original question, I don't think you can compare vintage and new basses to each other, as they really are different things and people have all sorts of reasons for preferring one over another. Given the fact that two of the same model, year, and construction can be wildly different from each other, I don't think there's any way to say vintage or new is definitely better or worse than the other.
I disagree with use of vintage instruments being some sort of conspicuous consumption. My vintage basses are just the basses I have and have played for decades. All of my vintage basses have been exactly what they are for 40 years at the very least and were purchased at far under market value and for considerably less than a new Zon, which I think are wonderful instruments. The only thing conspicuous about my instruments is they are old, and anyone who notices them enough to judge me isn't there to hear me play and should look within for what is bothering them.
Last edited:
