I wish I did. But I’m gonna make do with the pair I have right now. Classic P with flats and a Century 5 covers a lot of sonic ground.
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.
Roscoe Club
- Thread starter JOME77
- Start date
Here’s a really nice Roscoe at a great price!
For sale **PRICE DROP**Roscoe Custom SKB 3005, 2021 - Redwood, High Gloss
Selling my 2021 Roscoe Custom SKB 3005. Redwood top, spanish cedar body. Birdseye maple fingerboard, maple neck with purpleheart stringers. Weighs 9.2.lbs. 35" scale, 18mm string spacing. Acrion is low. Comes with Bart pickups and electronics. Equipped with Hipshot tuners and bridge. Brand new...
- jimmyfwl (+18 /0 /-0)
- Updated
- Expired
- Views: 673
- Reaction score: 15
- Comments: 1
- Category: For Sale: Bass Guitars
$2,650.005 watching
I think I owned that one. It was excellent.
Bring your bass to work day triptych
Last edited:
I have been second-guessing my choices on this build over my four years of ownership but I've come to trust my original decisions around string spacing, fingerboard species, and pickup orientation. I went with a wide neck, Ebony board, and reverse slant pickups and I've often wondered what it would've been like to have ordered regular spacing, a Pau Ferro board, and straight pickups. But I've really come to love it. I did study with Jimmy H for a while and while his bass was a clear inspiration, I did want to put some of my personal touches on it.
I have always gravitated towards wider spacing even though my hands aren't huge so I kept that going with the specs on this one but as soon as I got it I was wondering if I had made a mistake. Many players today are going for narrower spacing for ergonomic reasons, rightfully so, and I did have some concern when I first took delivery, but since all of my other basses have 18-20mm spacing at the bridge, it's actually been a comfortable transition and this bass now feels like home.
I have always gravitated towards wider spacing even though my hands aren't huge so I kept that going with the specs on this one but as soon as I got it I was wondering if I had made a mistake. Many players today are going for narrower spacing for ergonomic reasons, rightfully so, and I did have some concern when I first took delivery, but since all of my other basses have 18-20mm spacing at the bridge, it's actually been a comfortable transition and this bass now feels like home.
That’s the Roscoe to beat all other Roscoes…just a brilliant bass
Is it an ash body?
Im considering a Roscoe, and while I in the past have hated ash, I saw a tonal response graph where it has the most lows...but the dip in midrange isnt my thing.
So i wonder if pau ferro or wenge f/b brings back the mids.
My gut tells me mahogany body, wenge f/b, reverse slant.
I like warm, punchy, and dont like clank
Anywho, heres the graph
These are the dimensions I captured from my bass. I don't have these same figures in Keith's normal spacing to compare, though.
Overall nut width: 55.5 mm
String spacing at nut: 9.0 mm
Neck width at 12th fret: 80.0 mm
Neck width at 24th fret: 92.5 mm
End of fingerboard: 92.6 mm
String spacing at bridge: 18.0 mm
String width B-to-C at bridge: 93.5 mm
Bridge plate width: 124.0 mm
Comparing it to my memory of the Roscoe 6s I've played as well as pictures of his regular-spaced basses, the wide neck option looks to have more width both at the nut and at the end of the neck. It also looks and feels to me like there's less of a taper down the neck than the standard spacing. His regular spacing seems to have quite a lot of taper as it goes from the nut to the bridge.
Last edited:
Oh thanks! It certainly has been a wonderful bass to own and has been a great companion and tool for everything from theater to jazz to MPB. Hope you're doing well, friend!
Very interesting graph, one that I have not seen before. What's the source?
My bass has a Mahogany body and a substantially-thick Maple top so if we are to trust this graph, the combination of the two should theoretically provide a nice even response across a wide range of frequencies, with a little low-mid hump. The actual result in this instrument seems to hold true with the suggestion here.
I have come to like Ash a great deal since it is in two of my favorite basses, one a chambered Sadowsky NYC and the other a 1988 Fodera Emperor. Neither are lacking in midrange. I also like the Alder in my Fenders. I chose Mahogany for this build because I wanted to ensure it had a solid low end despite it using the quite compact LG body shape, plus I chose a 34" scale length instead of Keith's normal 35".
The final result is a very acoustically-resonant body and neck that has a very solid fundamental. I feel that I am missing nothing on the low B with the 34" scale. The Ebony board provides a very quick front to the note and the reverse slant pickups really take the edge off and sweeten the high G and C strings nicely. Over the years I have gotten used to moving my hand ever so slightly towards the neck as I play up to those strings but with this bass I don't really have to do that at all. I can play across in the same spot and it has the same effect of reducing that zing and giving you a more full, round tone on the highest strings. I imagine a Pau Ferro or Wenge board would provide more mids for sure if that's what you like, with Pau Ferro being a bit lower in frequency and Wenge being a bit higher (in my experience).
I kind of like how much top end is provided by the Ebony board and I can roll it back with the tone control as needed. It would be so interesting to hear this bass with different boards. So many choices!
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed reply @Brad Maestas
After i posted my question, i searched your profile for you NBD post for your roscoe and found it was mahogany.
The sound files you posted are exactly the sound im looking for, so I'll definitely go with a mahogany body.
Im not sure I'll be able to afford having a top, but i would pick maple if I could, to, like you said, even lut the frequency response.
I found that graph on youtube when searching "mahogany vs alder" because I found a used Alder Roscoe at a decent price, but wasnt sure if its what im looking for.
Sorry that I misread your description - i thought you had pau ferro, but i see its ebony.
Ive always loved ebony, but my bandmates hate the clacky sound.
I find fingerboards to dictate to attack / front-end of the note, which is why im leaning towards wenge or rosewood/pauferro
After i posted my question, i searched your profile for you NBD post for your roscoe and found it was mahogany.
The sound files you posted are exactly the sound im looking for, so I'll definitely go with a mahogany body.
Im not sure I'll be able to afford having a top, but i would pick maple if I could, to, like you said, even lut the frequency response.
I found that graph on youtube when searching "mahogany vs alder" because I found a used Alder Roscoe at a decent price, but wasnt sure if its what im looking for.
Sorry that I misread your description - i thought you had pau ferro, but i see its ebony.
Ive always loved ebony, but my bandmates hate the clacky sound.
I find fingerboards to dictate to attack / front-end of the note, which is why im leaning towards wenge or rosewood/pauferro
Im not sure where the guy got this info, he has more descriptions in the comments, but, again, no sources
Nice top on that one. At first I thought it was an oldie with those oval inlays but it's a 2026 and you can order it with that option still today.
Regarding stereotyping wood species? Big mistake. Every board within a species can sound different. Some luthiers use a tap test for tone. Some, like Ken Smith, drop a board on a concrete floor to hear tone properties. And, the Ken Smith experience of building ten identical basses (same woods, construction, electronics, etc) and having each one sound different, speaks volumes.
Wood variables: age/era, species, density, dryness, grain, geographical origin, type of saw cut, body size and shape, chambering, laminations, character/flaws, mating with other wood combinations, finish type and thickness, etc. The list goes on and on.
Then, consider player preference, expectation, technique, and ear, electronics, strings, amp, room, bass setup, pickup type, placement and height, scale length, phase of the moon and tides, time of last meal, etc.
In this, Keith Roscoe has a way to make variables work in a pleasing visual and sonic marriage. Bottom line. Trust Roscoe's proven artistry. Forget the rest as minor detail. Enjoy your basses and the day : )
Wood variables: age/era, species, density, dryness, grain, geographical origin, type of saw cut, body size and shape, chambering, laminations, character/flaws, mating with other wood combinations, finish type and thickness, etc. The list goes on and on.
Then, consider player preference, expectation, technique, and ear, electronics, strings, amp, room, bass setup, pickup type, placement and height, scale length, phase of the moon and tides, time of last meal, etc.
In this, Keith Roscoe has a way to make variables work in a pleasing visual and sonic marriage. Bottom line. Trust Roscoe's proven artistry. Forget the rest as minor detail. Enjoy your basses and the day : )
Last edited:
Still, never had ash sound like mahogany, or vice versa
But no need spoiling other forum members' experience with another of many countless debates about tonewoods impacting tone or not.
Yeah, I don't want to get all stirred up, but my mahogany bass sounded different from my ash. I think everything plays a part. Wood. Build. Electronics. Hands. On and on. But I still think a Roscoe sounds like a Roscoe. I played my Century 5 for a gig last night. Contemporary jazz, soul, funk quartet at a local restaurant that does music on Wednesdays. It sounded amazing. Plays so easily. Love it. Now that we figured out a better set up (there's a giant pillar in the middle of where we set up) I have rom to bring my Classic P as well next time. With flats and played a certain way it gives an "upright vibe" for some tunes. I rode my B string a lot last night. I can because it sounds so awesome. I know people love their multi scales and stuff, but I'd put my B string against anyones.
As a Roscoe fan, I agree Steve. As a Dingwall fan, I like the even tension across the strings of a multi scale (especiallythe D and G strings. Yes, more balanced string sets can mitigate the difference.
The bottom line is I no longer predominantly play multi scales. Instead, it's my Thunderbirds with appropriate strings. Never selling my Roscoe or Dingwalls though.
