• 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.

SCORE!!! 1962 Precision content

#21
Great score! The tuners and pickguard are worth what you paid for the bass...
The P pickup could be original, you'll have to pull them out to look if you care. The J looks like a Duncan Bassline or 1/4 pounder.

I know if it were me I'd be thinking about filling in the J hole and having a good quality, super thin nitro refin done. I'd be ditching the badass for a proper fender grooved saddle bridge too.
But that's me - if you're digging it as is, play away and enjoy!

My '62 beater (orig body, neck, and pickups but aftermarket everything else) is one of my favourite basses. If the neck on yours is similar to mine... well, you should be a very happy camper!
 
#25
Some stuff doesn't add up to me. (Not saying that there is anything wrong with the bass just weird).

How new is the Quarter Pounder? I thought they were fairly recent. Just seems like an odd newer mod. Also the neck has practically no wear and looks thicker from front to back than a vintage 62.

And most people that do poor refinishes don't use nitro.

I would be very curious to see what's under the pickups and the other electronics. The bad thing is that with a refinish of any kind you generally lose most identifying factors. If the pots and pickups are swapped it brings question to the whole body.

By why refinish and route a bass that appears to have had little use (judging by the neck).

Would love to see some more pictures it's a very interesting find.
 
#26
I think it's kind of cool that it's not all original - you can play it and enjoy it without worrying too much about its "value". Of course, you can't put your kid through college with it, but it seems like a great player and you got a fantastic deal.
 
#28
I'm not 100% sure the finish is actually nitro - it could be housepaint for all I know. I'm just sure it's def not poly - it's wearing through to the wood in a few spots.

I never said the J PU was a Duncan or whatever - I have no ideas what it is. Sounds nice though.

The neck is a slab where the fingerboard meets the maple and is written 2-62 in handwriting. They switched to stamping dates on the neck heel 3-62 I believe. Also the truss rod is about halfway between the sandwich of woods and not directly through the maple as on the reissues and later Fenders. The back of the neck does have a good amount of dark spots I didn't photograph well enough.

I'm just using my Illustrated History of Fender Bass book to identify most parts - this could be a fake but I imagine someone would have a hell of a time putting all of these parts together to someone off.
 
#29
Johnny Alien said:
Some stuff doesn't add up to me. (Not saying that there is anything wrong with the bass just weird).

How new is the Quarter Pounder? I thought they were fairly recent. Just seems like an odd newer mod. Also the neck has practically no wear and looks thicker from front to back than a vintage 62.

And most people that do poor refinishes don't use nitro.

I would be very curious to see what's under the pickups and the other electronics. The bad thing is that with a refinish of any kind you generally lose most identifying factors. If the pots and pickups are swapped it brings question to the whole body.

By why refinish and route a bass that appears to have had little use (judging by the neck).
Click to expand...

I think you're asking some questions that can't be answered.
The neck looks ok to me - my 62's neck is quite deep from front to back, deeper and chunkier than my 60 and 64 Ps.

Who knows what was in the J position before the Duncan? Could have had a Dimarzio put in in '74, then someone decided to try something else later. There's no way to know.

People did some nasty things to those old basses back in the old days. Someone could have been tired of looking at that sunburst and decided "it would look better black, get the spray bomb". It was only worth $200, so who cares?!

I don't see much reason in faking a bass, then putting on $400 original tuners and a $500 pickguard and selling it for $900.
If you were interested enough at some point, it would be fun to take it apart, take a bunch of pics, and post them over on the FDP. Let the detectives over there have a go at it. There are some EXTREMELY knowledgeable guys there that can tell you what you have.

FWIW I think you scored a real bargain. Now go put that original bridge back on and tell me how you like it :D
 
#33
cripula said:
I think you're asking some questions that can't be answered.
The neck looks ok to me - my 62's neck is quite deep from front to back, deeper and chunkier than my 60 and 64 Ps.

Who knows what was in the J position before the Duncan? Could have had a Dimarzio put in in '74, then someone decided to try something else later. There's no way to know.

People did some nasty things to those old basses back in the old days. Someone could have been tired of looking at that sunburst and decided "it would look better black, get the spray bomb". It was only worth $200, so who cares?!

I don't see much reason in faking a bass, then putting on $400 original tuners and a $500 pickguard and selling it for $900.
If you were interested enough at some point, it would be fun to take it apart, take a bunch of pics, and post them over on the FDP. Let the detectives over there have a go at it. There are some EXTREMELY knowledgeable guys there that can tell you what you have.

FWIW I think you scored a real bargain. Now go put that original bridge back on and tell me how you like it :D
Click to expand...

True on all counts.
 
#35
I just can't stop playing this thing! :hyper: I've been whoring it around to jams and rehearsals with me every night this week. It hasn't spent 24 hours in my apartment without me taking it somewhere to be played - the way I intend it to be.

I even have a mini studio session tonight at my home as well :smug:

I got my co-worker to come in and bring her Nikon. We snapped some really nice pics of the bass. You can see the bad refin, and all the gritty details of this thing now.

I've had my buddy look at it who knows vintage guitars/basses. He agrees the neck is original, but has probably been over sprayed - hence the glare.

Anyone know anything about the flat-head screws holding the pickguard on? My buddy's 66 has phillips...are these original? Any ideas?

Enjoy! :bassist:

Fender1962Bass03.jpg


Fender1962Bass04.jpg


Fender1962Bass07.jpg


Fender1962Bass08.jpg


Fender1962Bass13.jpg


Fender1962Bass20.jpg


Fender1962Bass22.jpg


Fender1962Bass25.jpg


Fender1962Bass28.jpg


Fender1962Bass30.jpg


strange little markings on the neck between 2nd and 3rd fret. very even pattern though. weird.
Fender1962Bass34.jpg


Fender1962Bass37.jpg
 
#36
That is one fantastic looking bass ! The neck is DEFINITELY oversprayed, body refinned, etc, etc...you know all the details... but it looks like a true "player". Congrats !

You and I have both come across some cool basses for cheap lately !

:)
 
#37
Dark Horse said:
That is one fantastic looking bass ! The neck is DEFINITELY oversprayed, body refinned, etc, etc...you know all the details... but it looks like a true "player". Congrats !

You and I have both come across some cool basses for cheap lately !

:)
Click to expand...

Indeed DH! The bass gods are smiling upon us :smug: Thanks for the kind words.

I'll try and get some recordings up tonight to post here soon. This thing sounds quite beastly as well.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back