Ovankol through-neck Warwick thumbs

[Jordy]

Forgive me if this topic has already been covered.

I've been hearing quite a bit of bad rep about the post 97 Warick Thumb neck throughs (Ovankol laminate) compared to pre 97 (Wenge).

So.....
Who here can share some experience re: this issue.
Is there that much of a diff?
And give examples i.e Stability, Tone, Reliability

 

[LowEndLobster]

Wasn't the wenge to ovangkol change in 98?

Mine is bubinga/ovangkol and I love it. I wouldn't mind picking up a wenge though. The difference isn't that great, but some people can really notice it.

 

[MattLplaysBass]

besides the difference in woods, the post 95 (i believe is when they moved to a bigger factory) warwicks are more machine produced and notas "hand made" as they were. as to if this is better or worse, i don't know, but a lot of people don't seem as excited about this.

 

[Jordy]

It might just be the rantings of a very select few.

I spoke to one guy in particular called Michael who purchased 2 new Warwick Thumb neck-throughs and had problems on both with wood swell on the ovankol-laminate necks, on which he was instructed by Warwick on how to sand them back.

While I think that is pretty poor considering the enormous amount these basses cost I think for two basses to have this same prob he would have to have done something dumbass like leave them in a hot car for an extended period of time.

 

[Frank Martin]

besides the difference in woods, the post 95 (i believe is when they moved to a bigger factory)

IIRC, they moved to Markneukirchen in 1996

 

[Frank Martin]

While I think that is pretty poor considering the enormous amount these basses cost I think for two basses to have this same prob he would have to have done something dumbass like leave them in a hot car for an extended period of time.

Yeah, that can be an issue. And humidity changes, too.

also, IMO, it's not just the ratings of a few. The older ones had better neck profiles (thinner and rounder), which is also a big factor in playability and feel

 

[maxbass]

besides the difference in woods, the post 95 (i believe is when they moved to a bigger factory) warwicks are more machine produced and notas "hand made" as they were. as to if this is better or worse, i don't know, but a lot of people don't seem as excited about this.

The real difference is among eighties Thumbs vs nineties Thumbs.

There's more difference among a 1989 and a 1991 Warwick than the difference existing among a 1991 and a 1997 Warwick.

 

[bassteban]

It might just be the rantings of a very select few.

I spoke to one guy in particular called Michael who purchased 2 new Warwick Thumb neck-throughs and had problems on both with wood swell on the ovankol-laminate necks, on which he was instructed by Warwick on how to sand them back.

While I think that is pretty poor considering the enormous amount these basses cost I think for two basses to have this same prob he would have to have done something dumbass like leave them in a hot car for an extended period of time.

I went through over a dozen Warwicks before swearing them off completely. String spacing on 5+ strings is the major issue, but I had several glue seams become progressively more noticeable due to adjoining wood shifting/expanding/contracting at different rates. I did not keep these basses in a hermetically sealed oxygen chamber, but they didn't see much direct sunlight, either. Dana B. Goods told me it was not a structural issue, which is likely true, but I'm pretty nit-picky. Also, quality was definitely down on EVERY post-98 model I've seen. My 2 1/2 cents.

 

[deathbloomslife]

Is this an issue with other big W basses like Corvettes' or Streamers'? Or is this just Thumbs?

Any Warwick owners in Florida??? Im thinking of getting a 'Vette, year I do not know yet(4 str. Bubinga & Ovangkol w/ Wenge), but now I'm a little scared of the body and neck shifting around on me in the humidty... I only play indoors in the ac, or in a garage with a BIG ASS fan if that makes a difference.

Curious and Concerned,
~Ryan

 

[bassteban]

I had this problem w/Thumbs(bolt-on 4 & 5)& Corvette 5 & 6. I think the issue here is that when you chop down a tree in Africa, build a bass out of it in Germany, ship it to a store in the U.S. & then sell & ship it to yet another location(all within a year or so), things are going to move. Ken Smith ages his wood before & after cutting, after gluing up neck & body blanks I believe, letting the wood 'settle' & relax. Although I have only owned 2 KS basses, they were both very stable. All this being said, the(Warwick)basses all played well, stayed in tune & sounded fine. My reasons for 'swearing off' W's was due mostly to string spacing & neck front-to-back thickness, also poor balance(Thumb)& sheer weight(Corvette 6-12 lbs!).

Edit: The weight, balance & neck proportion gripes were not there w/the first Warwick I owned, a Thumb bolt-on 4.

 

[oddio]

The real difference is among eighties Thumbs vs nineties Thumbs.

There's more difference among a 1989 and a 1991 Warwick than the difference existing among a 1991 and a 1997 Warwick.

Not to split hairs, but there is little if any difference between a bass produced in 1989 and one produced prior to September 1990, which was when Warwick first started using CNC in production. After that point there was indeed a big difference in the instruments. I agree with your point, but this is the precise date.

 

[maxbass]

Not to split hairs, but there is little if any difference between a bass produced in 1989 and one produced prior to September 1990, which was when Warwick first started using CNC in production. After that point there was indeed a big difference in the instruments. I agree with your point, but this is the precise date.

You're 100% right.

I knew that the first big change happened in 1990, but I didn't remember the exact month.
All 1990's Warwick prior to September were built just as their older brothers