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

[LanEvo]

There was a time I thought it meant something to have a pre-CBS Fender, but that all ended once CBS sold and Fender upped their game.

Things are definitely better at Fender these days, especially when you get into Custom Shop stuff. The best Broadcaster/Telecaster/Esquire guitars I have played over the years were made in the early '50s. But just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine brought me his Custom Shop Esquire and it was every bit as good as the old blackguards I know and love. Then again, he paid something like $4k for it.

In other words: when Fender bothers to source good wood, dries it properly, and pays attention to detail, they can make something as good as their off-the-shelf production guitars from 60 years ago

They knew how to grow trees better back then.

You can joke as much as you want, but lumber quality has declined. If you do find pieces of old-growth hardwoods with good grain patterns in sizes big enough to make 1-piece guitar/bass bodies you'll pay through the nose.

For all the people who say "wood doesn't matter" there's a simple test: Go to GC and play a bunch of identical Fenders (or Gibsons or whatever). Do they all sound exactly the same, or do some sound better than others? Is the difference more likely to be due to manufacturing tolerances in the electronics/harware or differences in the wood?

 

[onda'bass]

To me vintage = old. No thanks

 

[Hopkins]

Cars are often used as a comparison with basses/guitars, and that comparison works here as well. A 2015 Dodge Challenger is faster, more reliable, more comfortable, and handles better than a 1970 Challenger, but which one would you rather have? Personally I would take the 1970 Challenger TA with a 340 6 pack all day.

 

[40Hz]

Things are definitely better at Fender these days, especially when you get into Custom Shop stuff. The best Broadcaster/Telecaster/Esquire guitars I have played over the years were made in the early '50s. But just a few weeks ago, a friend of mine brought me his Custom Shop Esquire and it was every bit as good as the old blackguards I know and love. Then again, he paid something like $4k for it.

In other words: when Fender bothers to source good wood, dries it properly, and pays attention to detail, they can make something as good as their off-the-shelf production guitars from 60 years ago

You can joke as much as you want, but lumber quality has declined. If you do find pieces of old-growth hardwoods with good grain patterns in sizes big enough to make 1-piece guitar/bass bodies you'll pay through the nose.

For all the people who say "wood doesn't matter" there's a simple test: Go to GC and play a bunch of identical Fenders (or Gibsons or whatever). Do they all sound exactly the same, or do some sound better than others? Is the difference more likely to be due to manufacturing tolerances in the electronics/harware or differences in the wood?

Different pieces of wood will exhibit different sustain characteristics due to normal variations in density and grain among any two pieces of wood. But there's no consistent superiority displayed by one dpecies of wood vs another.

If each piece of wood were individually examined and selected for use in a solid body guitar there might be something to the whole tonewood argument. But they're not. It comes in by the truckload, gets cut into blanks, and is examined for structural and cosmetic flaws. But most of it gets used. There's no master luthier that tone taps them and selct one after discarding twenty as happens when an acoustic guitar too or violin back is being made.

Maple, ash, mahogony, and alder are primarily used because they're readily available domestically and they're inexpensive to buy in bulk. Other factors contributing to their popularity are the ease in which they can be worked and given a finish.

So yes there are differences between one guitar and another due to the wood used. But it's a case of differences between individual pieces of wood rather than the type of wood itself.

 

[Shovelbone]

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?

I wish I had said this!

 

[brianrost]

are the vintage basses inherently better quality than newer stuff?

Since you specifically wrote quality my answer is:

Inherently? No, of course not.

Modern hardware in general is superior. Modern CNC techniques reduce the variation between instruments.

Was the wood better 50 years ago? Maybe.

 

[Old Fart]

I have an AVRI 63 P in my house, and I believe Fender is making brand new, mint, 1963 Precision basses. At least as high quality as the originals. IMHO.

 

[LanEvo]

But there's no consistent superiority displayed by one dpecies of wood vs another.

Who said anything about different species of wood? We were talking about old-growth wood that has been dried as long as it used to be in the '50s vs. new-growth wood that's rapidly dried as it is today.

If each piece of wood were individually examined and selected for use in a solid body guitar there might be something to the whole tonewood argument. But they're not. It comes in by the truckload, gets cut into blanks, and is examined for structural and cosmetic flaws. But most of it gets used. There's no master luthier that tone taps them and selct one after discarding twenty as happens when an acoustic guitar too or violin back is being made.

Exactly my point. Off-the-shelf Fenders and Gibsons used whatever wood was dropped off at the factory by the pallet-load. I think the quality of the wood itself was better in the early days. Pick up any solidbody Fender/Gibson from '52 to about '63-'64 ... chances are it's a featherweight. Now pick up any solidbody Fender/Gibson from '74 to '88. Chances are it weighs a ton. Same wood species and largely similar dimensions (slight differences, but nothing too major), yet massive change in weight. How do you explain that?

So yes there are differences between one guitar and another due to the wood used. But it's a case of differences between individual pieces of wood rather than the type of wood itself.

It's funny, but I spend teh afternoon at Empire Guitars in Seattle yesterday. Played a bunch of "golden era" Gibsons and Fenders:'52 Tele; '56 LP Junior; '57 P-Bass; '59 LP Junior; '59 LP Special; '60 LP Special; '63 SG Special; and '66 Tele. They were all ... and I mean ALL! ... incredibly light and resonant. Not one was over 7.5 lbs.

Different body woods (ash, alder, and mahogany). Different neck/fingerboard woods (maple, mahogany, rosewood). Different construction (set neck vs. bolt-on). Yet, they were all very light. They didn't all sound phenomenal...but they all had something in common.

How do you explain that if it's not the wood?

 

[bassfart]

I find the older 3 Point contact bridges on Gibson bass WAY better then the cheap ones Gibson uses today.

 

[engedi1]

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.

This is the best argument for a vintage bass right here. If you get 60 year wood and make a bass today using modern techniques it would be better. I have also read that the magnets in the pickups lose strength over time which mellows the tone out in a pleasing way.

 

[Coolhandjjl]

Every instrument maker has its good years and 'off' years as far a fit & finish, quality control, etc.

Also, just due to chance, some pickup versions seemed to work out better than others, or have better regard from certain folks, but only recognized in hindsight. But being vintage in and of itself is no guarantee of anything other than its advanced age.

 

[nerkoids]

This is the best argument for a vintage bass right here. If you get 60 year wood and make a bass today using modern techniques it would be better. I have also read that the magnets in the pickups lose strength over time which mellows the tone out in a pleasing way.

Doesn't Fender offer some old, re-purposed wood models on some of their guitars? As for the pups, couldn't someone simply wind up some Alnico 2s or 3s to get the same strength as 50 or 60 year old pups? These are genuine questions, BTW.

A lot of great information in this thread so far. Thanks, folks.

 

[socialleper]

Are "vintage" instruments inherently better or more valuable? No; absolutely not. Not only is the term "vintage" subjective, but sometimes old instruments are dogs.
Do vintage basses "sound better"? Given that what sounds better is completely subjective, this is a worthless statement. Personally I think old basses sound dull and lifeless. I'm not stuck in the 60s and 70s so an old P bass with flat wound strings sounds like muffled junk to me. An old Rick sounds just as mediocre to me as a new one. I grew up in the late 70s and early 80s and I'm not attached to those instruments either. Music moves forward, recording technology moves forward, and instruments should move forward as well.
Should "vintage" instruments be worth more. Because there are theoretically fewer of them in good shape, something that is older and in good condition should be worth more based on the simple economics of rarity. The value to the buyer is still subjective though. What is a pink P bass with a tort PG from 1965 worth to me? Damn little. I mean if you gave it to me I'd take it, but I'd never use it live. However I'd light a dozen of those on fire to get my hands on a Warwick, Lakland, or Mayones made exactly the way I want.
So vintage doesn't necessarily mean better to all people.

 

[Hopkins]

Different pieces of wood will exhibit different sustain characteristics due to normal variations in density and grain among any two pieces of wood. But there's no consistent superiority displayed by one dpecies of wood vs another.

If each piece of wood were individually examined and selected for use in a solid body guitar there might be something to the whole tonewood argument. But they're not. It comes in by the truckload, gets cut into blanks, and is examined for structural and cosmetic flaws. But most of it gets used. There's no master luthier that tone taps them and selct one after discarding twenty as happens when an acoustic guitar too or violin back is being made.

Maple, ash, mahogony, and alder are primarily used because they're readily available domestically and they're inexpensive to buy in bulk. Other factors contributing to their popularity are the ease in which they can be worked and given a finish.

So yes there are differences between one guitar and another due to the wood used. But it's a case of differences between individual pieces of wood rather than the type of wood itself.

Maybe because with a high end acoustic or violin tone tapping a piece of wood isn't a waste of time like it would be in a solid body electric. Resonance plays a much bigger factor in an acoustic and violin, especially in the top.

 

[engedi1]

Doesn't Fender offer some old, re-purposed wood models on some of their guitars? As for the pups, couldn't someone simply wind up some Alnico 2s or 3s to get the same strength as 50 or 60 year old pups? These are genuine questions, BTW.

A lot of great information in this thread so far. Thanks, folks.

I think the pickup winding could be done, I know Lindy Fralin specializes in this. I don't know about the re-purposed wood. I do know that you can buy kiln-seasoned 50 year old wood. IF you want to pay for it. This is what Alleva Coppola does and I would frankly be more interested in an Alleva than a vintage Fender. But I will say that some vintage Fender, not all, just have a magic about them that you have to pay a LOT for to get in a new bass.

 

[tomoya97]

Basses are like cars, sometimes they are better than newer ones, sometimes equal, or worse, their value are based on the historical background they have, for example, if they're Pre-CBS, if they have a 1 year or less only spec, etc...

 

[bombpop14]

Cars are often used as a comparison with basses/guitars, and that comparison works here as well. A 2015 Dodge Challenger is faster, more reliable, more comfortable, and handles better than a 1970 Challenger, but which one would you rather have? Personally I would take the 1970 Challenger TA with a 340 6 pack all day.

I agree... But you can tell the difference from a mile away. My AV 75 jazz bass from 1999 requires at least a lingering glance to determine that it might not be as old as it looks. I'm not trying to fool anybody, but I got the period look I wanted at half the price, and IMHO equal quality at least.

 

[engedi1]

Personally I have no interest in 'reliced' basses. I mean, some guys charge $500 to relic a perfectly good finish. I don't get it.

 

[Spinal Tapper]

Oh! I love this argument! It's been a while. Looks like we've already covered the cars vs. basses argument. And tone woods, hm? And the tuners argument! My vintage Fenders stay in tune for ever, so don't go talkin crap about the tuners, now!

 

[Corevalay]

Why do people care? If you want to spend big $$$ and get a vintage bass, go for it. If you want to play an expensive modern bass, go for it. If you want to play a cheap beater, go for it. What's the difference?