Pre-1990 Warwick thumb bass....?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by Mad Subwoofer, Mar 21, 2002.

  1. My local music store has one of these and what a bass. I personally own a '00 Thumb 5 and a '90 Dolphin5 and notice a big differnce in workmanship. But this Thumb...?! It is so polished and beautiful. The headstock is sort of concave..the back of it has a wild sort of "fin" down the centre groove with the tuning heads set in a sort of deep pocket? all the edges are smooth and obviously handmade. Electronics are original EMG''s a four string. I am a five string guy; I love the big flat and shalow neck of my Dolphin5 in a big way.
    Should i buy this bass anyway?? It is a total score and the price is good....anybody on TB need one of these?
    Here is a pic of my Thumb...I am sure yer all getting real bored of looking at this but hey! It's pretty! don't hate me cause it's beautiful....Very interesting comparing the two Thumbs..such a difference.

    My 2000 Thumb5, sounds great but is definitely a little "sharper" around the edges than the '88 I've found;

  2. Check out that headstock! I just have never seen anything like that?

  3. So...should I score one of these or no? I don't need another bass but if it's such a rarity(?) shouldn't I grab it for somebody anyway??


  4. dmaki


    Apr 29, 2000
    I've heard '80s Warwicks are prime. I'd pick one up if I had the cash. I think the "concave" headstock is just extra support for the tilt-back... I've seen that on a few different guitars and basses... more sturdy than without it (i.e. Gibsons)

  5. I guess I'd be interested in scooping it with the thought of re-selling it. I know that may sound opportunistic or something but it's a rare find IMO and I know somebody would really appreciate it. I already enjoy two ' many basses can a guy play at the same time anyway? Not so much for the profit as It seems like a bitch of a way to make cash; quite the hassle really with all the packing and shipping and all...? I just know what a score this is...
  6. Amoilbasso


    Apr 22, 2000
    You don't need it,from my pint of view.I agree with you,that this '87 Thumb is a great one,but it's always a thumb!It would be your 3rd warwick,wouldn't it?At least sell one of the others,if your GAS is so strong...
    All Warwick basses are so similar,so why to have 3 of them.
    Just my 2 cents;)
  7. Amoilbasso


    Apr 22, 2000
    I say this because I had 2 warwicks:an'89 Streamer4 with EMGs,and a'91 Thumb5.They were diferent,but still Warwicks,with that sound of wood,and I ended to stop playing the Thumb at all,because the Streamer gave me the same features,the same sound of wood,only a little bit more versatile than the Thumb.
    The only real reason,why you would notice a serious difference from this '87 Thumb,and yours other two Warwicks,is that it is 4 string instead of 5.But from my point of view,if you need a four stringer,it would be more usefull and more funny to get something a little bit diferent from another warwick.
    Somethin' like a Spector,a Fodera,you know....

    or Jazz /Jazz style.....but may be you don't like them too much,beeing such a Warwick guy...
  8. :confused: I think you might go try some of those "new" Warwicks...they aren't even close to what the pre '90 models were. I have owned a '88 Streamer as well. My Thumb5 '00 is a dandy bass but lacks the fine workmanship and "hands-on" detailing that the older Warwicks have. This difference in quite dramatic.
    I don't want another Thumb..I just thought this one to be rare and fine, that maybe somebody out there would want it.
  9. kirbywrx

    kirbywrx formerly James Hetfield

    Jul 27, 2000
    Melbourne, Australia.!
  10. Amoilbasso


    Apr 22, 2000
    Hi Mad subwofer,
    this morning I've tryed an'87 Thumb 5.
    Well it was diferent of from a '90s model er even more from a new one.
    First of all it was much lighter,the body wood was much much clear(I 'm not sure it was bubinga....)
    The neck shape was much better than evey other warwick I've tryed:it was asymetric and much more flat.It had some uknown J style pick-yps called OBL(may be they were raplaced from the original owner...).The bridge was beautifull.
    when I tryed it I 've found that it was still a Warwick,as I told you.It's trhe sound of wood stuff.
    The only differences from '91 Thumb5 were a little bit better B string,and a little more stronger change of sounds when I turned the pan knob.
    So I confirm my previous coniderations.
  11. JMX

    JMX Vorsprung durch Technik

    Sep 4, 2000
    Cologne, Germany
    OBL = (Original) Bill Lawrence

  12. Interesting. The main differences are still the quality of craftsmanship and attention to detail. Older models are obviously hand made while the newer ones aren't....My new '00 Thumb5 is a wicked bass, just a little tight on the string spacing.
  13. pedro


    Apr 5, 2000
    Madison, WI.
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. If I couldn't have a Fender I'd have a Warwick Thumb. Maybe the sexiest bass I've ever seen. The other Warwick's don't do a thing for me.