When you consider that the cost of the raw materials in a $30,000 bass and a $1500 bass isn't all that much different, what sets them apart?
...I find, both these problems can be addressed quite successfully, even for a CCBSO, but it's not real cheap, if you spend on setup and repair, and you probably might as well have put that extra toward a better bass in the first place. Unless you inherited the bass for free - which some people, do.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "isn't all that much different." My understanding is that the differences in the cost of the raw materials between a $1500 and a $30,000 is usually quite substantial. On the one hand there would be a bunch of plywood-- on the other, some nicely flamed spruce and maple carefully chosen in terms of its characteristics as tone woods. Of course, the difference won't be as large as the difference in the cost of the two finished instruments but it's still quite substantial, as I understand.
Also, at least for the ones I've seen, the materials and workmanship are quite a bit inferior on CCBs as compared to some of our favorite entry-level DBs that go for around $1500. I understand that, with some work (e.g., replacing/replaing fingerboard, filing the nut, other setup work, etc.) one can get a CCB to be a serviceable instrument and that, most often, one would have been better off buying a quality bass to begin with. Still, that kind of work wouldn't redress the problems that will remain as a result of overall poor design and inferior materials used in making the body of the bass.
I suspect that there's no fundamental disagreement here. Especially for the benefit of newbies, I'm trying to guard against the notion that, with some work, or even a bit more work than makes good economic sense, one can expect to turn a CCB into a bass having the quality of the entry-level basses usually recommended here. From what I've seen and experienced, that's not the case-- which is to say it's more than just the hand of the maker in those cases.
