• 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.

Opinions on Warwick Thumb

#21
Sergius Durante said:
Ive heard

I have heard because of the short horn that their can be a weird stretch at times to the frets closest to the headstock, is this true from your experience or did it fit like a glove (somewhat)?
Click to expand...

Yes. Between the short upper horn and the bridge being fairly high on the body, the stretch to the first frets can be quite a bit more then on other 34” scale basses. This can also lead to neck dive issues (particularly when combined with a heavy neck). I’ve played several Thumbs- while I would never get one due to the ergonomics, the sound on them is really great.

I’d like to try one of the single cut Thumbs sometime to see how much better the ergonomics on them are.
 
#22
I remember the old neck-through body shape was nice looking. This is now changed imo to a worse style (albeit subtly) due to ehh must be CNC requirements. Also the bolt-on body shape is no where near as attrative at the classic neck-througs of the 80's early 90's Thumbs :) All imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swamp_Ronin
#23
I bought one (thumb neck through) new in the mid-90s. It sounded great, well built, and looked great. As said above, it was very VERY heavy and was prone to neck dive. I did hundreds of gigs with it over the years without issue. I ultimately couldn't take the weight and sold it and replaced it with an MTD. I have had zero regrets making the change. I own 4 MTDs now.
 
#24
I have a German NT4. 2013. I’ve also got Fenders, EBMMs, Rick, T-Bird. Nothing sounds like the Thumb.

It is neck heavy. It’s just plain heavy. :) It’s a long reach to the lower frets. I think it’s a little longer reach than my T-Bird. The neck is the thinnest of all my basses, thinner than my US Geddy Jazz. Thinner than I like. It probably lost more than half the value compared to what I paid new. I don’t care. I love it.

There were a lot of changes over the years, especially neck profiles. When you read a post saying “they’re all”, or “most are”, take it with a grain of salt.

Some great info in the earlier responses. Beware of inaccurate generalizations still being perpetuated.

If you see on you’re going to buy, post back with questions about the particular year. That would increase the likelihood of getting accurate responses.

Cpt Obvious: Best case scenario is that you get to play one before you buy it, of course. :)
 
#25
The thumb... the quintessential Warwick bass. The model that they pretty much made their reputation on.
I’ve owned mid 90s era thumb, Streamer stage 2, and Dolphin pro 1
I bonded with the Streamer.
The thumb was so individualistic in its sound and feel, that I couldn’t justify using it as my bass.
The Dolphin was excellent but still less comfortable and versatile as the streamer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gigas444
#27
I have a bolt on 4...2013... tad heavier than my other basses....nice wide strap, no neck dive issues ....incredible sound, I can bring all kinds of basses to rehearsal, but always get compliments on the Thumb.....There are couple of samples a recent thread, on the 2 instrumentals/ groove tunes...the other tunes with vocals is a Fender CS Journeyman
 
#28
i’ve owned several. multiple four strings all bolt-on, one neck through five string. A five string sounded great but it was heavy as a boat anchor. all of the fours sounded great and were very easy for me to play. they do suffer from neck dive but that hasn’t been a too much of a problem for me using a wide strap. I still have one bolt on 4 that I’ve been using with my new group, it sounds fantastic. They aren’t for everyone but they have their unique character and charm that if they fit you is like nothing else
 
Last edited:
#29
I had a ‘94 NT. Unbelievable tone, fantastic construction, lovely to play (while seated). Standing was a completely different story - incredible fatigue, long reach (I’m 5’5”) and just simply too much work to not be distracted by the instrument. If I did more studio work I would have kept it but I sold it to fund a different Warwick that I find much more comfortable to play. YMMV
 
#30
I've got a 2002 German Thumb BO 5 string. I used to work at GC back around 2004, and at the time never liked the Warwicks they had in stock there (including the Thumbs). The necks felt too clunky. Two years ago, i played a Corvette that was in a Music Go Round and loved it. I came back to pick it up the next day and it was already gone. A week later, I found a Thumb on CL, tried it out, and bought it. Apparently 14 years was enough time for me to appreciate the thicker necks.

Of all the basses I own, nothing cuts through the mix quite like my Thumb. It's very aggressive and mid rangey, and sounds a lot like a fretless (even though it's fretted) sitting in the mix. It's heavy, but I use an extra wide strap and don't see the same fatigue issues others have mentioned. This also helps with the neck dive, that is more prominent than my other basses but not terrible. I tune it to A standard, and so i've had to switch to pretty beefy Kalium strings to get the tension I like, and even then it still feels a little loose overall due to the 34" scale.

All that being said, I love it. It feels kinda tiny (i'm 6'0 and 220lbs), but it sounds amazing.
 
#31
I owned three Warwicks: a '91 Streamer Stage I, a 2002 Thumb 5 NT and a 2003 Thumb 4 BO.

Some observations:

- The reach to first position was long on all of them - even the Streamer. None of the 35" basses I've owned have felt as long as those Warwicks;

- The Thumbs were both heavy. At the time I could manage the weight but these days, no thanks.

- The necks on the Thumbs I owned were both of the baseball bat variety. Not my cup of tea. The necks on the Thumb 5 BOs were even worse (I actually bought two Thumb 5 BOs on separate occasions but returned them both within 24 hours due to a combination of the necks and neck dive);

- The Thumb 4 BO was the best sounding and best built of the Warwicks I owned.

Even though I ultimately didn't like the ergonomics of my Thumb BO I played it as my main bass for around two-and-a-half years. I got used to it, chunky neck and all, but after picking up a Fender Jazz there was no going back to the Thumb.

As for the Thumb 5 NT - it was a total lemon. Quite aside from the crack in the body resulting from an improperly mounted screw in the control cavity, the thing sounded terrible. Super thin up top and mud down low. It was basically unusable to me in live settings. I sent it back to Warwick after a long dispute with the company's local distributor and was totally dissatisfied with the service I received from Warwick. I tried to follow up via email and was ignored until I finally wrote to Hans-Peter himself (HP didn't sound very happy that I'd asked how one says "kiss my @ss in German"), but by then it was too little too late. I will say that Warwicks can sound great, but I don't see myself ever going that route again. But, hey, if they tickle your fancy and you can get one used (meaning that HP won't see any of your money) then by all means... :D
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Swamp_Ronin
#32
Goatrope said:
I have a German NT4. 2013. I’ve also got Fenders, EBMMs, Rick, T-Bird. Nothing sounds like the Thumb.

It is neck heavy. It’s just plain heavy. :) It’s a long reach to the lower frets. I think it’s a little longer reach than my T-Bird. The neck is the thinnest of all my basses, thinner than my US Geddy Jazz. Thinner than I like. It probably lost more than half the value compared to what I paid new. I don’t care. I love it.

There were a lot of changes over the years, especially neck profiles. When you read a post saying “they’re all”, or “most are”, take it with a grain of salt.

Some great info in the earlier responses. Beware of inaccurate generalizations still being perpetuated.

If you see on you’re going to buy, post back with questions about the particular year. That would increase the likelihood of getting accurate responses.

Cpt Obvious: Best case scenario is that you get to play one before you buy it, of course. :)
Click to expand...


That’s why the term “most are” is being used by me and not “every single one”. Because thats the reputation that the warwick thumb has. Just like how surely there are thin necked precision basses and thicker necked jazz basses out there (ala your thin necked thumb), but people don’t generally know them or refer to them as such, and in so, could be considered a rarity among the instrument and not thought to be representative of the entire model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goatrope
#34
I can’t get beyond its aesthetic, which to me matches its name quite well. The bass possesses the stylistic properties of a thumb.

The body’s shape screams “blob” to me- with those tiny horns that look like someone just forgot to trim off the excess material from what was meant to be a hornless body. I’m sure they sound wonderful, but I’ll never own one, unless it’s given to me for free. At which point I’d probably sell it.
 
#35
Well as I figured on this thread there would be love/hate.

I’ve owned the following:
1988 NT 4
1988 NT 5
1994 NT 6
1993 BO 5
2000 BO 5
2001 BO 5 frettless

I still own two. The 2000 I bought new in 2001 and played it so much I had to refrett it! It’s the first Bass I’d choose in a bass battle. Each was very different. I actually prefer the tone of the Bolt-On, way more punch! The 1993 has a wenge neck which is killer! Get a wide strap and a gym membership! #1 complaint weight followed by neck dive (although I never noticed the neck dive I guess I got used to it after 18 years :) I’ve owned several basses over the years including some expensive boutique basses. Still love the Thumb!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gigas444, TheMaynorD and Goatrope
#36
I’ve had a few different flavors. Bolt on, bolt on broad neck, neck through with wedge and neck through with ovangkol. I prefer the sound of the NT variety and didn’t find the neck wood to make a huge difference although, from what I recall, the wenge was a bit more focused.

They have a very baked in tone that’s very middy and nasal and there’s not much you can do to change that. It’s not a bad thing per se but don’t think you’re gonna cop a p-bass vibe with one. The body shape and short upper horn makes them hang very horizontally and puts the headstock farther away compared to basses with longer upper horns, this makes first position feel like a mile away and killed my wrist. Not so bad when sitting. I don’t remember them being disgustingly heavy except for the Broad neck 5 I had which had an aircraft carrier deck for a neck... ridiculous.

I’d probably buy another one because they are so unique sounding but for most situations I prefer a more traditional bass. I currently have a Dingwall NG3 with 3 pickup configuration and Darkglass pre and find that to do the rude nasal thing and still cop more usable tones.
 
#38
I never owned or played one, but as a Warwick guy I do know some early bolt on models with a two piece body could split in the middle where the neck bolts on.

So Warwick has since made their two piece bodies with an off center connection, to avoid this, OR they use one piece bodies. I also know that they stopped making the one piece Bubinga body because the wood became scarce.

The sound is unique as many have said, very clear and definitely not a bass for a really round smooth sound like a rolled off tone P-bass.
 
#39
I have a Thumb BO6 from 2017 and I have a fretless version on order.

Love the neck, love the small (but heavy) body.

That neck shape isn't for everyone for sure but I like it.

Every notes are clear and nothing sounds like a Thumb.

If you are going to play standing, put some money on a good strap that will counter the neck dive ... well it isn't really neck dive since it just want to be horizontal to the floor which isn't the case of the Tbird.

Check out Ryan Martini
 
  • Like
Reactions: Interspace Station, gepettus, TolerancEJ and 1 other person

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back