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

[Bodeanly]

If it's older, it has "stood the test of time" without "falling apart." The only way to test a newer bass is to wait until it's older and, therefore, vintage. That said, I don't own any vintage stuff. Don't like the way their cases smell.

 

[Eilif]

Vintage is not inherently better, but if (and it's a big if) there is something to the aging of wood or the use of old-growth wood that is no longer available then, I think Vintage instruments may have a bit of an advantage from the gate. Not to say they will be better in all ways, but it's a point in their favor.

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"

I disagree. Unlike the evolutionary process, good quality instruments do not breed. Instead, they are played, and being played they get worn, and eventually often broken. On the other hand, mediocre quality instruments of a reliable breed (like Fender, Gibson, etc.) don't usually get thrown out, rather they just sit in closets or are transferred from one person to the next. At best I'd say that "selection" is random, at worst, I'd say it favors the less-great instruments.

I've got no proof, but I suspect that in many cases the pristine vintage instruments that are available in many cases are the worst of the breed. Fortunately for vintage dealers and buyers, most of these will not see much use at this point because of fear of damage and collectibility.

 

[PortlandBass77]

The vintage basses are:
1. heavier
2. have more mojo

They may or may not be better than the modern equivalent, it depends on the specific bass.

 

[InnerBass]

I have a couple of 60's Fenders ( 69-J 66-P) and a couple of Lulls, and I there is something about old wood that I really like for certain applications.

But then again I like older guys too : )

 

[MatronMother]

I say let the new basses and the old basses....fight to the death!

 

[40Hz]

All I know is that I'm quite happy with this...not vintage, not expensive, merely an entry-level bass that is often looked upon with raised eyebrows and sometimes the rote "Why didn't you just buy a Fender?" response.

One more thing I know...every time I plug it in I'm amazed by how incredible it sounds.

Makes two of us. I've got the exact same model, and I'm amazed every time I plug it in. Which has become increasingly often.

 

[Flaked Beans]

My 8 year old evan williams is way better than the new stuff!

 

[Flaked Beans]

For me...each bass is individual. Old or new.

I haven't been around long but I can just imagine the post that have come from this! Having said that you guys don't hold a candle to saxophonists. I once sold a vintage mouthpiece for $1000! Yes, the little part that goes on the end of the instrument.

Yeah, i once sold dexter gordon's saxophone for $47,566.95.
and i didn't hold a candle to saxophonists.

 

[geddy402]

I would say having owned both vintage and new basses is that neither is "better" than another. If a bass speaks to you and inspires you to play than it is a great bass. Some people prefer the feel of an old bass over a shiny new one. Some just the opposite. There are no absolutes in this world, well except for the dying thing. That got dark.

 

[4andnomore]

IMHO, 70s Fenders in particular are highly over rated.

 

[bluesblaster]

There are some that sound and play great, most are just so so. I have a 2006 Jazz bass that plays and sounds as great as any vintage fender I've ever played, so there ya go

 

[bombpop14]

The fact that there is a large market for instruments that are "aged" artificially tells me people like old stuff for aesthetic reasons alone...

 

[000_Unknown]

An Aria Pro II SB bass that was made in 1982 by the famous Matsumoku plant and sold for $250 (new) now costs about 5 times as much, just to produce. So it currently costs around 7-10 times as much (retail) to buy the same guitar if the makers intend to make a profit. Of course, we are not taking inflation into account. The price of the raw materials that they used back in the day has skyrocketed, along with the cost of the "skilled labor" that is also needed. That is why the re-issues are currently starting near the $2K mark and can run up to about $5K+ for the more exotic models. As for my choice between the two, I will always choose vintage. Because even at that current high price point, the original versions just sound better, provided everything is still in working order.

Plus vintage mystique just cant be reproduced. Some woods are no longer available because the tree species has become endangered, so trade is limited as they are now protected by law. Like they say, they just dont make them like they used to.. Because they cant.

 

[40Hz]

My 8 year old evan williams is way better than the new stuff!

As long as you're just having one or two or (maybe) three. After that you could be sipping almost any whiskey and not notice much difference.

(I learned that with the single malts I dearly love. Never do more than one every few hours if you don't want to miss out on most of the pleasure you'll get drinking something really superb.)

 

[40Hz]

An Aria Pro II SB bass that was made in 1982 by the famous Matsumoku plant and sold for $250 (new) now costs about 5 times as much, just to produce. So it currently costs around 7-10 times as much (retail) to buy the same guitar if the makers intend to make a profit. Of course, we are not taking inflation into account. The price of the raw materials that they used back in the day has skyrocketed, along with the cost of the "skilled labor" that is also needed. That is why the re-issues are currently starting near the $2K mark and can run up to about $5K+ for the more exotic models. As for my choice between the two, I will always choose vintage. Because even at that current high price point, the original versions just sound better, provided everything is still in working order.

Just out of curiosity, why is that? (I'm a big fan of those old Arias so I'm very interested in any info I can get about them.)

 

[bassbully]

Better? Depends. Different? Absolutely!

 

[Mantis Tobaggan]

Evan Williams is the worst whiskey ever made.

 

[Flaked Beans]

As long as you're just having one or two or (maybe) three. After that you could be sipping almost any whiskey and not notice much difference.

(I learned that with the single malts I dearly love. Never do more than one every few hours if you don't want to miss out on most of the pleasure you'll get drinking something really superb.)

You are 100% correct sir!

 

[Flaked Beans]

Evan Williams is the worst whiskey ever made.

i know, but that EW 8 year is quite drinkable. the regular EW is horrible indeed!

 

[40Hz]

The fact that there is a large market for instruments that are "aged" artificially tells me people like old stuff for aesthetic reasons alone...

I agree.

But that whole "relic-ed" thing is something I'll personally never understand.
To me they always stuck me the same way as some little kid who paints on a moustache because he thinks it'll make himself look "older."