I was just going to note the same.
Movshon' got groove for days. He also plays a Ripper(and a Mustang).
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.
I was just going to note the same.
Movshon' got groove for days. He also plays a Ripper(and a Mustang).
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 version of the other lo-Z pickup used on the other LP basses:
View attachment 2776443
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
One such pre-series production specimen, and who knows how many there were, recently surfaced here:
A lot may have had to do with the lead times for magazine ads back in the day. Many publications had their press galleys done up two or three months in advance. So if your product was hitting shelves in April, you'd need to submit your ad in January. Which could be why Gibson might have been using pre-production protos in some of their photography and copy. Not unusal back then, and why the "actual product and specs may differ from photograph and copy shown" disclaimer showed up in magazine ads every so often.
In the case of the clear LP pickup covers and the Ripper pickguard and pups, the final changes reflected some fairly obvious last minute minor cost cutting on Gibson's part I think.
Here's something interesting…plastic saddle pieces in the bridge plus a lightweight bent metal design I've never seen before:
Individual saddle heights are not adjustable, but the base they're resting in is radiused to match the neck's radius. And there's height adjustment screws on both sides for overall string height.
Intonation is quite good. And the action is set comfortably low. Maybe a little lower than I normally use, but no buzzes or other issues, so all is fine on that score. I think I'll leave the string height as is.
As far as intonation goes, I don't think I'd want to tweak it with the strings tuned to pitch due to the plastic saddle pieces. And the adjustment screws look to have been positioned in such a way as to discourage you from trying to since they're directly under the strings.
Kinda strange for Gibson. But so is the bass, so at least it maintains consistency with the overall theme.
Individual saddle heights are not adjustable, but the base they're resting in is radiused to match the neck's radius. And there's height adjustment screws on both sides for overall string height.
Intonation is quite good. And the action is set comfortably low. Maybe a little lower than I normally use, but no buzzes or other issues, so all is fine on that score. I think I'll leave the string height as is.
As far as intonation goes, I don't think I'd want to tweak it with the strings tuned to pitch due to the plastic saddle pieces. And the adjustment screws look to have been positioned in such a way as to discourage you from trying to since they're directly under the strings.
Kinda strange for Gibson. But so is the bass, so at least it maintains consistency with the overall theme.
Last edited:
I had one of these that had been stripped to natural (with flats) and it was the only Gibson bass I ever really liked. I shouldn't have let it go. Congratulations.
Thx! It was a lucky break being able to get one in this good a condition. It was obviously somebody's baby and well cared for. There's absolutely minimal wear and tear on it for a bass this age.
If you can find a G-3 in original condition, the "buck and a half" setting sounds very similar to the SB-300 at times. Although if you had to pick, I think you might prefer the extra versatility the G-3 offers.
A G-3 in decent playable condition that's worth owning is definitely gonna be a lot easier to get your hands on.
I have one exactly like the one in the Lawman video except that mine has the original bridge still on it. The original bridge was not adjustable enough on mine. I had mine as low as it would go and still could get a Mack truck between the strings and neck. Since it's been over two years, I don't remember exactly what I did, but I spent a ton of time reworking that bridge and it's now super low and looks totally original. I love the way this thing plays and sounds and hope that you enjoy yours as much as I do mine.
I have an SB-450 that I need to replace the truss rod on. That and find a bridge cover. I'm thinking it'll be a keeper.
I like these mutant basses that run kind of counter to where the company's gone. My 1978 Guild B-302 is like that. It's Gibson-ish with the mahogany body, terrible bridge, set neck, and 2x2 tuners. The pickups, though, are single coils and it doesn't sound like a Gibson at all—and the pickup location ensures that the harmonics are kind of strangled. Personally, I really like it—like I like the single coils on OP's nifty new Gibson.
I've read here and elsewhere that these basses were an economy line for Gibson, and I wonder if they didn't want to just leave the door open to use the body wood which kept their costs in line.
+ 1.
Guilds are - apart from their acoustics - an acquired taste IME. I was absolutely blown away by the first B302 I played some 35 years ago, and that was the very instrument that made me re-think my own sound in a completely different way. From that point on, it was mostly Weird Street through and through...
I'm guessing the bulk of the cost cuttting came more from eliminating some minor frills and getting more efficient with their manufacturing.
Putting all the electronics on a plate let them assemble the control stack separately from the instrument and just drop it in. The Gibby logo was a transfer instead of an inlay. No neck binding or fancy position markers. Less expensive bridge. Single coil pickups. Two dirt cheap slide switches instead of the heavy duty 3-way toggle Gibson usually uses. All nothing that would affect the sound or playability.
But the bodywork is spot on. The wood is bookmatched. There's a set neck. Very nice tuners. Good fret job. Rosewood fingerboard. Nitro finish.
I'm surprised how nice it is for their entry model. But it's also important to note that the $289.50 (1971) price tag would be equivalent to $1780 worth of buying power in today's dollars. So while it might have been Gibson's least expensive bass, it was still far from cheap to buy.
I have 4 gibbys but none are shortys. I want a shorty.
- Sep 14, 2012
- 1,560
- 1,198
- 40
- Disclosures
- Reverend Guitars ; SIT Strings ; Trickfish Amplifiers ; LK Straps ; Rattlesnake Cables
I just got a Gibson as well. My first Gibson bass. We'll see how she goes. The picture isn't mine, but mine
is identical. I am deployed, so I can't get to it for another few weeks.
EdwardofHuncote
I Still Dream of Jeannie
- Aug 21, 2013
- 6,649
- 2
- 16,417
- Disclosures
- I privately own and operate a local musical instument repair shop.
Well shucky-ducky...I never knew these were alder bodies. Learn something new every day.
Nice catch on a cool vintage Gibson @40Hz.
Jury is still out on the wood. Rather than speculate I emailed Gibson and asked.
If they reply I'll share it.
If it's your first, try playing with a light touch, pay attention to your technique, and be aware of your right hand position and where you play between the neck and the bridge. All of those will have a big effect on t he sound you get. Gibsons benefit from being played a little differently than you would some basses. They're fussier about how they're being played.
- Sep 14, 2012
- 1,560
- 1,198
- 40
- Disclosures
- Reverend Guitars ; SIT Strings ; Trickfish Amplifiers ; LK Straps ; Rattlesnake Cables
That is perfect. I already play with a really light touch and move my right hand position around. I'm a big Lee Sklar guy
