Musicman with a Birdseye Maple body- real?

[A-Step-Towards]

So the tuners are exactly right, and it's pretty hard to come by a set of four of those. The only things that don't look right to me are the fingerboard and the body wood, but all the details on the body (countersunk neck plate/battery cover/etc) are really hard to fake. Usually in the serial # database when it says "Bass [model] [color] Maple" it means maple fretboard--which it could have been at one point.

Well it does have a maple fretboard - the entire bass is solely birdseye maple. It's just in a dark transparent black. When I bought it I thought it was solid black , I didn't notice it was trans black until I took it outside - that's how dark it is.

 

[moon-bass]

The original MM SUB had a painted neck tho, so they have been known to do it. It wasn't translucent or gloss tho, kinda a weird textured flat black (it was awesome)

Yeah, but this has the fretboard painted black as well. You can see from the side of the frets. Looks like the paint wore off the top of the frets, but you can clearly see black paint on the sides of the frets.

 

[moon-bass]

Well it does have a maple fretboard - the entire bass is solely birdseye maple. It's just in a dark transparent black. When I bought it I thought it was solid black , I didn't notice it was trans black until I took it outside - that's how dark it is.

The entire fretboard was painted after the frets were installed. You can see the black paint on the side of the frets.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

The entire fretboard was painted after the frets were installed. You can see the black paint on the side of the frets.

Yes I can see that. This serial number coming back before the prototype I posted page 1 that was sold to an employee makes me think this one was sold to an employee as well. Seeing as how it has no logo it obviously wasn't intended for the regular market.

 

[mikeswals]

This bass is all Musicman parts. Any of us thats owned several dozen MM's can plainly see that every part is original MM.
Now, many of is that have been owning and buy/sell/trading em for decades have also seen pics of unusual models built for trade shows especially NAMM and Musikemesse. Yes they used birdseye on necks back then quite a bit. Yes we've seen bodies with non stanard timbers and non standard finishes for the one-off or trade show sample. There used to be pics of trade show basses and oddities on the mucimanbass page, and looks like it may have been streamlined more for serial data these days.

Since its an early serial, this bass may have started destined for a show. Maybe it was trans black too? Those first few Sterling serials seemes to be non-pickguard models.
But the current finish on it doesn't look like a factory applied finish.
The same paint dept, oven bake, and same buffing sequence would not have cut corners on a protoype. It looks goopy.

It's suprising that such a unique looking bass hasn't brought out any previous owner(s) forward to say what it is.
Did the person you bought it from have no info about it or where they got it from? It seems like that would have been the very first thing most would have asked.

 

[moon-bass]

Yes I can see that. This serial number coming back before the prototype I posted page 1 that was sold to an employee makes me think this one was sold to an employee as well. Seeing as how it has no logo it obviously wasn't intended for the regular market.

I see that, but unless this was a pure "let's just throw some parts together and see what we can make out of it" prototype, then I can't see it leaving the factory like this. Even the one that you linked to had a logo.

I could see this being an employee made parts bass, but again, it was either refinished, or it left the factory with a bad paint job. Even if it was refinished, the dimples and impressions make no sense as a factory finish would have smooth grain, wood filler, etc. That, and painting over the frets also makes no sense. The bass doesn't seem like it ever had a factory paint job, which is probably why some ppl think it's a Warmoth et al body (that and the fact that it's bird's eye maple).

Also, an older Stingray that I had was painted in transparent blue, and the serial number look up tool said that it was transparent blue - not blue.

I'm totally not saying that this isn't real, just pointing out what I see. Obviously the parts are real, but I can't see the bass ever having a factory paint job. Maybe someone put it together as a true prototype and before it was painted decided they wouldn't continue with it and some employee said "I'll take it" and did the paint job himself. But, like you said, it's listed as being black and maple, so it got far enough along in the process to get a serial number.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

This bass is all Musicman parts. Any of us thats owned several dozen MM's can plainly see that every part is original MM.
Now, many of is that have been owning and buy/sell/trading em for decades have also seen pics of unusual models built for trade shows especially NAMM and Musikemesse. Yes they used birdseye on necks back then quite a bit. Yes we've seen bodies with non stanard timbers and non standard finishes for the one-off or trade show sample. There used to be pics of trade show basses and oddities on the mucimanbass page, and looks like it may have been streamlined more for serial data these days.

Since its an early serial, this bass may have started destined for a show. Maybe it was trans black too? Those first few Sterling serials seemes to be non-pickguard models.
But the current finish on it doesn't look like a factory applied finish.
The same paint dept, oven bake, and same buffing sequence would not have cut corners on a protoype. It looks goopy.

It's suprising that such a unique looking bass hasn't brought out any previous owner(s) forward to say what it is.
Did the person you bought it from have no info about it or where they got it from? It seems like that would have been the very first thing most would have asked.

The person I bought it from was in Orange County California. I'm not sure when the musicman factory left that area if they were still there in 1993 then this bass didn't travel far. Can't remember the city as I bought it many years ago. He was an older gentleman, he told me he had traded for it years back. Beyond that I received no other information. I was in contact with musicman a number of years ago and they had no idea what it was beyond just repeating to me what the serial data base shows. I found my old emails and they were simply confused as well.

As for the finish - I can tell it's not rattle can. It's simply too thick. The bass also had some costume jewelry glued to it. I used acetone to remove this. As most know acetone is harsh and would destroy most finishes. Especially a rattle can finish. However musicman uses a finish that can withstand acetone. This didnt damage the finish at all but removed thick glue.

 

[-Stingray]

I agree with Fluff.

I hope you didn't spend a lot on this.

Edit: I worked with Acetone for years in the military. No finish can withstand it.

 

[Wood and Wire]

I may be an outlier here, but everything about this says 100% (OK, 96%) legit 1993 EBMM Sterling.

What is unusual is :

Birdseye Maple body

Painted Maple fretboard

Small side dots, and diamond shaped fret markers

No decals at all


I've also never seen fret ends that terrible on an EBMM, but I live in a climate where fret sprout isn't an issue, so that could be part of the problem here.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that, much like Sterling Ball (and several others) acted as "test pilots" for the StingRay, prior to it becoming a production model - it's conceivable that they may have had a few unique Sterlings out on gigs with staff members, prior to the model being unveiled.

If the fingerboard inlays, and black panther are part of the original finish, that's another reason for EBMM to say to their "test pilot" have at it, but no decals.

There is something of a precedent here, both in terms of finishes, and finger board inlays) although all of the ones I can think of involved a model that was already available to the public (such as the Cutlass finished in Willys Jeep green, the Cutlass' with roasted birdseye maple necks and green / orange M&M coloured bodies, or the Dargie Delight with the Martini glass inlays).

 

[mikeswals]

Musicman was sold in 1984 with no facility. the Ernie Ball folks had to open a new facility elsewhere, so that predates anything to do with the Sterling.

And of course these are not Warmoth parts. Warmoth could only dream of making and shaping bodies and necks this good. And this has the EB spoke truss wheel. All the same fixture holes as the production bass.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

I agree with Fluff.

I hope you didn't spend a lot on this.

Edit: I worked with Acetone for years in the military. No finish can withstand it.

Fluff has actually since said he was able to get a factory invoice for it - he wrote this on my Instagram where a lot of the discussion of this bass has happened in video form. I've asked musicman twice for more information on it but I guess I don't have the same pull - even as the owner of said bass. He has not shared what the invoice says.

You are saying no guitar finishes can withstand acetone ? Many poly ones can- including this ones finish.

The finish on this isn't that bad- sure if it was to be sold to the public it wouldn't be allowed to leave the factory like this. However this doesn't even have a headstock logo so perhaps they didn't care. I guess the photos make it look bad, sure it's got a wavy look in light but it's well adhered. It appears like any other musicman finish I've had. The neck does not have any of the wavy look to it. The body yes does but you don't really notice it unless you angle it. As others said they probably skipped grain filling but I believe it is a factory finish. I've had the bass entirely apart and there are no signs of another finish. Also musicman notes it was born a black bass. It would be odd to me it would of left the factory black and someone would have stripped it natural saw the beautiful wood and then covered it back up with black paint - but hey crazier things have happened.


As for it being a legit musicman - it is indeed.

 

[DaveParker39]

do you like the bass

 

[_One//Man//Mutiny_]

Not a fan of the cat, otherwise this Sterling is awesome, I'd rock it! I like the fretboard and the inlays, gives it Status/Alembic vibes!

 

[A-Step-Towards]

do you like the bass

Yep I've had it years but I was in the process of selling it - I had it on reverb and that's when it was featured on a YouTubers channel who called it fake. I've been solidifying it's authentic before reposting it.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

Not a fan of the cat, otherwise this Sterling is awesome, I'd rock it! I like the fretboard and the inlays, gives it Status/Alembic vibes!

I agree- I like the neck, inlays, how it sounds/plays and I dislike the cat I debated many times stripping the body natural. I think it would look awesome with a natural birdseye body and black neck.

 

[_One//Man//Mutiny_]

I agree- I like the neck, inlays, how it sounds/plays and I dislike the cat I debated many times stripping the body natural. I think it would look awesome with a natural birdseye body and black neck.

Oh yeah, that would awesome!

 

[JPJ]

I'm no EBMM expert and would never be hired to authenticate a bass, but I own several early EMBB basses and am an early Sterling enthusiast. When the bass was posted on Reverb, I had several discussions about the bass with the owner at that time. If I recall, EBMM was able to confirm, based on the serial number, that the bass was fairly early in the Sterling run (early-mid '90s if I recall). The body, neck, pickups, bridge, truss rod, tuners, etc. all appear to be correct, and I'm not aware of any source for dead-on EBMM heel plates, spoke truss rods, etc. that would have been easily available in "parts bass world" 30 years ago.

EBMM was into using fairly heavily figured birdseye in the early days for necks (which this bass has), so it stands to reason that they may have tried using it for a body. If I recall, this bass (as with most maple bodied instruments) was extremely heavy (why I passed on a purchase)...something in the 10.5-11.5 lb range if I remember correctly.

Further, the trans black used for the body was, as far as I could tell from photos, the same as was used for the EBMM EVH guitar model that would have been made at the same time....'93-94-ish. I remember seeing a photo of this bass's neck pocket and you could see that the trans black stain was an original color application. EVH models in trans black had the same look, which is best revealed by pics in natural light/sunshine, where the body is black, but is still opaque to where you can see the wood figuring beneath the stain and clear coats.

My guess at the time was the this was maybe an employee project, a trial project that was deemed unsuitable and unworthy of production, or was made as a donation for a local school (or some combination of those things). I'd guess that there is no shortage of grade schools, junior high schools, high schools or community colleges (not to mention smaller, regional colleges or universities) in CA that have a black cat as their mascot- this bass could have been a custom project or donation for any such school. It could have been made with no logo and with the heavy paint on the fingerboard with weird inlays, or this could have been done after the fact - really impossible to say. Ever spent any time on TB? People do weird things to beautiful basses.

Based on what I've seen, I tend to think that it is legit. I have no interest in super heavy basses with weird neck inlays and no clear provenance, but if it hadn't weighted so much (from the birdseye body), I had seriously considered buying it and seeing if I could restore it back to a more traditional early 90's look.

Or...all of that could be completely wrong.

 

[Marc DLarosa]

My AVATAR... 2 1979 Pre EBMM Sabre's. The Green one is a refin. The burst one is a closet queen. Actually had the original strings on it, after sitting in a closet for 30+ years. My refin KILLS the OG. No joke.

Is there a point to my reply? YEP.

I think that too much "value" is regarded to an instrument via resell value. What about playability/sound?

I sold the OG burst '79 to my Nephew (cheap). The green one kills it. No joke.

This Sterling may be the baddest sterling ever. Ugly as it may be... it may be THE ONE.

Who cares about "pedigree.?" The TB community. That's who...

 

[Nek07]

Yep I've had it years but I was in the process of selling it - I had it on reverb and that's when it was featured on a YouTubers channel who called it fake. I've been solidifying it's authentic before reposting it.

I think the only way to autenticate it for sure is to bring it in person to music man and have them do that, otherwise, if you want to sell it, that youtuber's video will kill your sale. If I was in the market for this bass and I see a video telling it is a fake, you will only get fake bass money from me.
Plus if MM can make you a certificate that this bass is legit, you can even ask that youtuber to take down his video for negativly impacting you without reasons.
If there is any doubt, and I dont think that a talkbass forum will remove that to a potential buyer, people will avoid it or ask heavy discount.

 

[FenderOli]

Just would like to add. In 1994 in the German Catalog was Contest: You could win a Sterling Prototype Bass, fretless, pearl white, without the Sterling logo. No picture unfortunately.

Those prototypes hit the streets. Mostly without Sterling logo and no pickguard.

1993 Ernie Ball Music Man Sterling Prototype | Reverb