That body looks like a cutting board. I kinda doubt that a Smith would have that many pieces glued together(?)
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.
Looking at a Vintage Ken Smith...Questions...
- Thread starter Quadzilla
- Start date
I’ve admired Smith Basses since I started playing in the 80’s. That doesn’t really look like a Smith, but I’m waiting to see if Ken responds.
$3700 with shipping, maybe import fees on top of that? I'd pass. Too many red flags and the worst case is that it's a fake, the best case is that it's real and highly modified making it in most eyes, no longer a Ken Smith. It could be the camera angle, but the S logo on the headstock doesn't appear to be centered. The other red flag in the description - "I have never turned the truss rod".
I believe Kent Armstrong made and still makes the pickups for Ken Smith, so in addition to going to Ken, you can also go to Kent if this body was carved to accomodate the G and L shape. Kent can mold any pickup shape so you could just do a drop in.
I want it to be real / no issues, but I think with this one I would want to see it in person. Too much money on the line and it would cost about as much in airfare to go kick someone's butt if it turned out to be fake as the original sale price. That said, my selfish side wants you to buy it so I can see how it turns out. And I passed on a Smith 10-15 years ago that I should have grabbed at a really nice price.
Last edited:
Having owned a 1985 Ken Smith bass I can assure you those are not orriginal PU's and bridge. Not sure about the tuners but they are suspect.
I have a very old Smith Burner and even if it is a bolt on, different from the neckthru models, the body bottom at the center has the characteristic Smith small "v" volute that is not shown on this bass, instead. In addition, the back of all the tuners on my bass show the "Smith - S" signature, where here they are simply marked Gotoh. I would add also on a personal note that the wood sandwich is not so pleasant to be seen, to really be a Smith!
Last edited:
In my opinion some of that started life as a Ken Smith bass. The general neck looks legit for that era bass. I was going to say headstock joint looks wrong or like a repair however I did see another early bass with same joint (SN 108). Obviously pickups are G&L. Bridge could be correct for an early bass but it is too clean and most I have seen are engraved “Smith” The Pas-II bass was passive so everything with wires is not original as stated in the ad. Also most Pas-II have volume, (sometimes a blend also), bass, treble and two toggle switches and a top mounted input Jack. Hole layout looks wrong but who knows. Most I have seen have had Schaller tuners. I don’t believe there were any standard basses early on. Each was built a little different and the design evolved.
Finish looks like someone rubbed a dark stain all over the bass and did a poor job. I won’t comment on wood pattern or type other than saying it looks odd.
If it were a thousand dollars or so and local I would definitely check it out. Could be an awesome playing bass. For asking price I would pass on it.
Just my take on it.
Finish looks like someone rubbed a dark stain all over the bass and did a poor job. I won’t comment on wood pattern or type other than saying it looks odd.
If it were a thousand dollars or so and local I would definitely check it out. Could be an awesome playing bass. For asking price I would pass on it.
Just my take on it.
Last edited:
Would it be a good advice not to mention talkbass when you reach out to Ken?
I like his insights on the double bass (upright)
I like his insights on the double bass (upright)
So much wrong with this one. The nut looks pretty good, and the body shape is close, but no way would that wood combination make it out of their shop. The scarf joint and the missing volute, and the haphazard approach to wood selection makes me suspect that it's a (poor) clone from the far east. Add to it the fact that it's got G&L pickups and that's a strange bass all together... if I could play it and it plays AMAZING I might consider paying $500, but not a penny more. Just my thought here.
As far as I have seen not all the early basses have the volute . Mine does not. I have seen that scarf joint before. I agree with everything else you stated.
i dunno, i think its a smith with aftermarket hardware.
here's a smith with a dovetail and a scarf joint
https://www.lowendbassshop.com/node/22014
here's a smith with a dovetail and a scarf joint
https://www.lowendbassshop.com/node/22014
Ken might be gruff and will certainly walk someone out the door if they have a crap attitude but his insight on that bass would be the absolute best thing in figuring out what happened with this one. Ken is no Leo fender, especially back when that bass was supposed to be built Ken was still a very small basement operation and more of a custom shop hand making every bass for each specific customer. Sort of like how Carl Thompson started out. So don't be scared, be cordial and ask what you want to know and he'll probably have some great answers.
im going to bet that the bass itself is smith bones that someone modded. early smith body shapes were also all over the map. he changed them quite a bit while he was trying things out. i'd feel comfortable that its a solid bass, but if the preamp and pickups are not smith, i would not pay full smith prices
The problem is that dovetail is the only thing that looks right on it!
(Ok, the nut and inlays look right too
)
Last edited:
This looks a LOT more like OP’s bass than the model mentioned.
Well, well, well; price has dropped by nearly $1k from the Reverb listing. Interesting.
Ebay auction
Ebay auction
As an eBay Associate, TalkBass may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.
