Yeah! Gibson since forever for me. And more recently Peaveys too. Nothing wrong with the classic PB and JB sounds. But there's already so much of it out there. I'm in the mood for something completely different.
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.
Yeah! Gibson since forever for me. And more recently Peaveys too. Nothing wrong with the classic PB and JB sounds. But there's already so much of it out there. I'm in the mood for something completely different.
Does it sound like a tubby Ric with the pickups in those positions?
Last edited:
Underrated instruments. One of my favourite bassplayers (Nick Movshon) uses them quite frequently.
Coolio! Wondering about the wood. Lawman doing the video demo said the body was mahogany, but the light colour of the wood where there were some chips out of the surface of his instrument didn't look like mahogany to me. I've seen some conflicting information, for instance here. Anybody got a good source re: wood use in making these basses?
Also from the link I posted above (terrific source for all bass things Gibson):
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
"All models have a rosewood fingerboard, dot inlays, maple neck and transfer instead of inlaid logo. Body wood is most likely alder (although this was never specified for the 300/400). This is the first Gibson bass with a maple neck (the EB series went maple-necked in '72), and the first sold-body not made of mahogany." (Emphasis mine.)
In the publicity sheet
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
body wood info is indeed glaringly omitted - Gibson must have decided to leave it undisclosed for some reason:
EDIT: Mr. @Basvarken, sir? Have you got any info as to the body wood?
Last edited:
My understanding is the wood was never officially stated for the 300/400. I'll have to email Gibson and see if somebody there might be willing to say one way or another - assuming there's anybody left there who would know. 1969-1975 were pretty crazy years at Gibson with all the management abd operational changes going on.
Here's the thing though. Gibson's catalog says a one piece neck. But my 300 and the other two I've seen in the past all had two piece necks. So I don't think even the official catalog write ups from that period are to be completely trusted. Even the early published adds for the Gibson Ripper showed a different looking bass than the Rippers that were eventually sold.
Dat you? Hey…I always wanted to ask what you were laughing your butt off about in that picture.
You got a smile on your face like you just scored the photographer's fashion model GF.
I'm not surprised.
There was a brochure for the then upcoming Les Paul Signature bass (now known as the Jack Casady Sig. in its current Epiphone incarnation) that showed it with a clear-covered [EDIT - and possibly a touch smaller?] version of the other lo-Z pickup used on the other LP basses:[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
One such pre-series production specimen, and who knows how many there were, recently surfaced here:
Last edited:
Not quite. But it does get a little of that "coming from the other end of a tube" kinda thing you'd associate with a Ric with just the bridge engaged. With both init gets more of that G-3 superwide aperture faux-humbucker vibe.
I'll know better what it can really do once I change the strings.
Last edited:
