• 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.

Rosewood fretboard - when and why?

ronlitz

ronlitz

Apr 20, 2008
427
219
Northern Virginia
#1
When did Leo first start offering a rosewood fretboard, and why did he decide to do that? Was there a specific design goal Leo was trying to accomplish, or was it something else - like marketing? It would obviously cost more to manufacture, so to do something that cost more must have had a driver. I know we all debate the difference in tone between maple and rosewood, but was that really a factor in the late 50's/early 60's? I know it's bordering on heresy to say this, but I can barely detect a difference in tone (all other things being identical).
 
#5
According to Tony Bacon and Barry Moorhouse's book "The Bass Book", the rosewood fingerboard was added to the Fender Precision bass in 1959. It doesn't say why, but most likely it was due to demand and competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zontar
#7
It's not necessarily more expensive to use a rosewood board, or at least wasn't given the prices of wood back then, because it let them do the routing for the truss rod differently and not have to fill in a skunk stripe on the back. They could also cut the fret slots on the board before it was glued to the neck, which may have brought costs down and/or production up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SanDiegoHarry
#8
Found this in a book on Teles from a google book search. Seems it was sales demand that pushed Fender to rosewood at first, and then Fender may have realized rosewood solved the problem they had with premature aging of the lacquer on maple boards. Source: The Fender Telecaster: the detailed story By A. R. Duchossoir

image.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronlitz, blindrabbit and SirMjac28
#9
Also, I can see the switch to slab rosewood being more costly in materials but possibly speeding up production time, thereby being zero sum in cost difference to Fender. Maybe a few new machines, tools etc? But, I believe the later switch to a veneer rosewood board would increase materials costs even higher than slab and would also increase production cost / time. This is purely conjecture on my part.

Also, it has always been rosewood for me. From my first burst/rosewood p-bass that I bought in 1981 at a flea market for $187, to the oly white/rosewood p-bass I bought last week for a little bit more and the many many in-between.
 
#12
I have built simular basses using ebony or rosewood fingerboards and there is a different voice between them. It's not an EQ thang, but the way the tone carries. It's attack, sustain and decay is different.
I'm a little tired of the "the wood does nothing" debate. Of course it does, which is why a graphite bass sounds different to a wooden one. Everything influences the timbre; woods, pickups, construction, amps, cabs, hey even you finger shape etc. The amount and quantity of influence is just a willy-waving debate. Micheal Tobias is often commenting on choosing a wood combination to suite a playing style or sonic direction. I have more time for his observation than many others because what he says correlates to my own experience. There's also aesthetics...go take a look at a Meridian Jazz bass...sure looks pretty in cocobolo...oh and yeas it sounds different to a regular Jazz bass...but it still sounds like a Jazz bass. So in answer to the original post, because it sounds nice and because it looks nice.
 
Last edited:
#14
GMC said:
I have built simular basses using ebony or rosewood fingerboards and there is a different voice between them. It's not an EQ thang, but the way the tone carries. It's attack, sustain and decay is different.
I'm a little tired of the "the wood does nothing" debate. Of course it does, which is why a graphite bass sounds different to a wooden one. Everything influences the timbre; woods, pickups, construction, amps, cabs, hey even you finger shape etc. The amount and quantity of influence is just a willy-waving debate. Micheal Tobias is often commenting on choosing a wood combination to suite a playing style or sonic direction. I have more time for his observation than many others because what he says correlates to my own experience. There's also aesthetics...go take a look at a Meridian Jazz bass...sure looks pretty in cocobolo...oh and yeas it sounds different to a regular Jazz bass...but it still sounds like a Jazz bass. So in answer to the original post, because it sounds nice and because it looks nice.
Click to expand...
My bass instructor back around 2000 said that when he auditioned a bass he didn't even plug it in. He listened to the tone without amplification. He said electronics can always be swapped out. Dead wood, not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7dollarbologna and blaxquid
#15
In researching before I got my SR, I saw a giant rant on the Ibanez forum about SRs not being offered in "metal" enough colors. If, beyond anything that has been said, some people just like different looks. To me, If the best sounding, most comfortable bass I could afford had a body shaped like a turd with a rainbow striped fingerboard, It's probably what I would buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMC
#17
mikefromchurch said:
In researching before I got my SR, I saw a giant rant on the Ibanez forum about SRs not being offered in "metal" enough colors. If, beyond anything that has been said, some people just like different looks. To me, If the best sounding, most comfortable bass I could afford had a body shaped like a turd with a rainbow striped fingerboard, It's probably what I would buy.
Click to expand...

Now that's a bass I'd like to see!!!

I also agree with having the most comfortable bass as possible. The overall loks are gravy.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back