Old or new? What is the consensus?

[A-Step-Towards]

Get a G&L L1000, Leo believed it to be his masterpiece and it was handmade in a small shop by a handful of people.

Plus in single coil mode it sounds like a P-Bass, but I understand you point about the 51.

Here is mine.

I have always been intrigued by G&L and almost got one of those but someone did a hack job and added a 2nd pickup so i passes, that blue is nice BTW.

I think i will read up on those i actually am really diggin it, i need to expand from my Single coil P bass.

 

[Aspidites]

i agree that 60 years of use and different tooling styles cant be replicated to a perfect example but i think if you were to assemble a warmoth bass or allparts and had a grand yto spend you could get 90% of the feel of a bass you were trying to replicate.

But i actually am just guessing as i have never played any bass older then mid 80's. i dont know what its like to feel and play a real vinatge bass that has seen life.That seems like a good price for a 53 i would have been super tempted to spend my tuition on it

A buddy of mine has a 59 that originally belonged to his father and I have played it a few times as well as a 63 another friend used to own. The 59 is in good condition and plays very well, the 63, not so much. I have a 76 that I have had for about 25 years and everyone that has played it and the 59 say they actually play and sound almost identically, it is the best playing 70's P I have ever played.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

A buddy of mine has a 59 that originally belonged to his father and I have played it a few times as well as a 63 another friend used to own. The 59 is in good condition and plays very well, the 63, not so much. I have a 76 that I have had for about 25 years and everyone that has played it and the 59 say they actually play and sound almost identically, it is the best playing 70's P I have ever played.

That proves the stigma of 70's basses is wrong, there are good basses and bad just like there are good and bad Pre CBS.


i actually was reading about fender today, in a fender stratocaster book they were talking about how everyone freaked out in the 70's when 3 bolt necks were introduced and claimed it was another strike against fenders new management when in fact leo had came up with the 3bolt design and it allowed for microtilt so shimming would not have to take place, which has now become popular,


More instruments were made in the CBS era then the Pre CBS era leading to more quality issue's because of more guitars and rushed assembly but i bet that the same precentage of good verse bad are the same.

But what makes a bass good is subjective,

 

[Aspidites]

That proves the stigma of 70's basses is wrong, there are good basses and bad just like there are good and bad Pre CBS.


i actually was reading about fender today, in a fender stratocaster book they were talking about how everyone freaked out in the 70's when 3 bolt necks were introduced and claimed it was another strike against fenders new management when in fact leo had came up with the 3bolt design and it allowed for microtilt so shimming would not have to take place, which has now become popular,


More instruments were made in the CBS era then the Pre CBS era leading to more quality issue's because of more guitars and rushed assembly but i bet that the same precentage of good verse bad are the same.

But what makes a bass good is subjective,

In fact Leo put three bolt necks on all the G&L when he started the company and they never changed until ownership of the company changed.

Your last sentence is dead on.

 

[A-Step-Towards]

In fact Leo put three bolt necks on all the G&L when he started the company and they never changed until ownership of the company changed.

Your last sentence is dead on.

I never knew that very cool indeed.


Loving that trans blue

 

[Gibenbackerbass]

I hear and respect what you've shared.

I just wonder if time has lent a hand removing some of the positive attributes you once enjoyed in that Gibson '66 Thunderbird. We sometimes forget the details of things as the clock ticks forward.

I have a '64 Gibson Thunderbird, as well as a '76 and '04. I love them all. But they are each unique in thier own way, especially when in comes to tone, and even feel.

There's something quite magical about the tone, vibe, and playability of my '64 that the newer instrument cannot replicate. It's in a class all its own.

Always a heated discussion

Here's my view. Been playing now for about 35 years, and during that time I've gone through a series of #1's:

- a '66 Tbird
- a '63 Jazz
- a '66 Precision
- a '63 Precision
- a '69 Jazz

I was a dyed-in the wool "old wood" guy; not through any sort of misguided nostalgia or because of something I read on the internet. When my 1st #1 (the T-bird) was stolen in '83, I went looking at new basses to replace it, and discovered something interesting - there was something missing in the new stuff, and the old basses had it.

That was the case up until about a year ago, but every decade or so I get the urge to switch and last year I started looking at new basses again. And a funny thing happened; I found out the new stuff had gotten damned good. I'm using a Lakland 44-02 and an MTD KZ5 these days; just budget instruments, but I gotta say after playing these awhile it's hard going back to the old stuff again. For me, the tide has turned.

It's hard for an old-school vintage guy to admit, but I think it's true. The new stuff plays and sounds better. And you don't need a lot of $$$ to get a great instrument. It's a good time to be a bass player.

/rick

 

[M.R. Ogle]

HEY!!!

Shhhhhhh! about the G&L's...

I haven't got enough of them yet, they're REAL Leo pieces, and they outplay 90% of the FMIC stuff...

Be quiet before you start tipping people off to these incredible American instruments and the prices skyrocket!!!

 

[ljazz]

As said previously, it comes down to finding the instrument that speaks to you..... as well as some other things.....

I went on a vintage Fender (60's) hunt back in the early '90's, after playing and owning some sorry early 70's P's and a J. I found a ton of great basses, and they were much more affordable than today. But I kept running into a lot of issues.... I could never find the "one". First, enormously varying degrees of condition and, believe it or not, workmanship, even in the pre-CBS stuff. Second, enormously varying degrees of playability. Third, enormously varying degrees of tone.

I got sick of looking for that perfect bass. Hell, I already had a '87 G&L SB1 that I adored (and still do), and a '92 MIA Jazz (new at the time). The J required new pups and bridge, but once done with that, I had a bass that nailed the vintage J tone, and was a superb player. I could no longer justify the "hunt". I also liked some of the design aspects of the newer basses..... like being able to adjust the truss rod without removing the neck. I also liked the fact that I knew how the basses were being taken care of..... from the factory to the store, to my house..... I knew that once in my hands, there would be no question as to how the intruments were being taken care of.

But that's my story.... you have to get out and make up your own.

 

[smcd]

If you are a physicist as you claim then you should certainly know that the vast majority of modern physics was not based on experiential evidence. The biggest breakthroughs in modern physics were based on logistical extensions and new equations, much of which was eventually verified as modern technology progressed to be able to accurately measure what was already known.

Also, it cannot be refuted that wood takes decades to dry (this can be measured by weight over the years). As the moisture level is reduced, the wood itself vibrates more readily and the tone gains harmonic complexity as the wood is not dampened by the moisture (and I mean sonically dampened, not wet).

As far as the settling of the fibers in the wood (as well as the breakdown of the interconnecting fibers WITHIN the wood), that is, as I said above, a logistical conclusion that is based on the observations of hundreds of years of luthiery. As it is improbable that someone is going to cut apart an instrument over the course of 200 years and molecularly analyze the wood as it ages, I will cede the issue to you and agree that it is not feasible to take on such a task.

But if you want to argue with what has been learned over the millenia that people have been making carved instruments (and particularly the last 600 years or so) then go right ahead.

@deedub

I think the conversation is more aimed at comparing the best of the old to the best of the new. A new bass at the low end is obviously never going to outplay a quality instrument of any age.

I never said I was a physicist. I'm a mechanical engineer, and have studied basic physics.

Whether dry wood produces a good bass tone is completely subjective. As others have pointed out earlier, all of the classic bass sounds from the 50's and 60's were performed on new instruments. As those sounds are the benchmarks that most players use in determining what a "good tone" is, that in itself disqualifies the "old wood" theory.

Unless you use a very powerful microscope and inspect the wood grain of specific basses in 40 year intervals, the idea that wood fibers "settle" or "break down" is a myth. It doesn't matter how many luthiers jump on that bandwagon. There's absolutely no proof that this happens.


Note that we're discussing electric basses here, not delicate carved acoustic instruments.

 

[BobWestbrook]

The consensus is: I'm old.

 

[smcd]

That proves the stigma of 70's basses is wrong, there are good basses and bad just like there are good and bad Pre CBS.

No. It merely rubber stamps what pretty much everyone says. That is, Fender produced some instruments in the 70's that were good. But it is an undeniable fact that Fenders in the 70's were of a much poorer quality than those produced in the prior decades.


As a collector, I passed over a lot of basses in the last 20 years. Some I regret not buying. But I can say with confidence that I have no regrets over any mid-late 70's Fender bass I passed on buying.

 

[RickC]

I hear and respect what you've shared.

I just wonder if time has lent a hand removing some of the positive attributes you once enjoyed in that Gibson '66 Thunderbird. We sometimes forget the details of things as the clock ticks forward.

I have a '64 Gibson Thunderbird, as well as a '76 and '04. I love them all. But they are each unique in thier own way, especially when in comes to tone, and even feel.

There's something quite magical about the tone, vibe, and playability of my '64 that the newer instrument cannot replicate. It's in a class all its own.

Herr Gibenbacker...

I hear you. My story actually has a happy ending; the T-bird was recovered and I own it to this day. It is in fact the one instrument I will take to my grave; it is very special, and when I pick it up it feels like a missing limb has been re-attached.

That said, the Lakland is mostly what I'm gigging these days.

/rick

 

[funk generator]

personally Id rather buy a fodera and pino paladino signature bass than an old old wooden fender from the civil war era

 

[eggfan]

No. It merely rubber stamps what pretty much everyone says. That is, Fender produced some instruments in the 70's that were good. But it is an undeniable fact that Fenders in the 70's were of a much poorer quality than those produced in the prior decades.


As a collector, I passed over a lot of basses in the last 20 years. Some I regret not buying. But I can say with confidence that I have no regrets over any mid-late 70's Fender bass I passed on buying.

And the 3-bolt necks are an issue not so much because of the design, but because the QC was sufficiently poor that many of the necks simply don't fit very well ...

 

[omnimutant]

This has been an interesting thread. The way I see it is you can buy someone else's old memories and bask in the glory of their old days by using a bunch of Used Overpriced in many cases Vintage gear... OR
You can buy something new that feels good and fits right and Make your own memories. One day when that bass becomes Vintage on it's own right it's because of the blood sweat and tears you gave to it. Then you can bask in oyur own glory day's. I think the Vintage craze is all about instant gratification. Some kind of subconscious cool vibe that your somehow channeling this greatness of whatever from "back in the day". When actually you're probably using someones trash that managed to survive all those years in a basement behind a pile of boxes or whatever.

Were not talking about Handmade Acoustic instruments that actually have huge deviation in tonal qualities based on wood age or patina...Were talking about Hunks of scrap wood (in most cases) slapped together and fitted with wires and crappy electronics to produce some really bad noise at best, to be amplified through some even crappier electronics and Horrible speaker technology. That "cool" vintage sound is the sound of inferior technology straining like hell to handle the pulse pounding riffs your throwing at it. It's almost 2010 people lets start Looking forward again and seeing how much better we can do by embracing what we have now instead of trying to re create some past era of crap.

 

[grifff]

New, I would never pay the ridiculous prices that vintage Fender's are going for.

 

[The Big Chief]

Being a lucky owner of a '65 P Bass I always enjoy these threads. As I was reading some of the debates regarding the aged wood, I remembered an old review comparing a '62 Jazz reissue to an original 1960 jazz.
The review is from the 1991 Jan/Feb issue of Bass Player magazine with Jaco on the cover. The the person doing the review was none other than the highly respected Roger Sadowsky. I managed to dig out the mag and since I don't have a scanner I thought I would paraphrase a small section that some may find interesting.

Roger says about the sound;

"However, the '60 bass does have the superior sound - it's louder and more vibrant than the reissue. This is especially noticeable when comparing the instruments unamplified, indicating that the wood is most likely responsible. In a reproduction such as this, one thing can't be reproduced: 30 years of wood aging, which is why the old basses will always be special."

 

[your idol]

i like my basses like i like my women:

slightly used in like new condition, younger than me and a big bottom end

 

[Gibenbackerbass]

I'm happy you recovered the T-Bird!!

They are great instruments - my very favorite.

How about posting a picture in the T-Bird Club or Gibson Club Thread. All of us Gibson Lovers would love to see it. There's never a time when we have too many T-Bird photos!

I had a late 60s T-Bird back in the mid 70s, and like a fool, sold it because I got away from playing for a few years. I've always regretted it.

Herr Gibenbacker...

I hear you. My story actually has a happy ending; the T-bird was recovered and I own it to this day. It is in fact the one instrument I will take to my grave; it is very special, and when I pick it up it feels like a missing limb has been re-attached.

That said, the Lakland is mostly what I'm gigging these days.

/rick

 

[Gibenbackerbass]

i like my basses like i like my women:

slightly used in like new condition, younger than me and a big bottom end

Are you related to Bill Clintxx?

Monica, move over!