I got my 3/4 DB back a while ago after a bunch of major work. For the most part everything looks great but the bass came back with a different tailpiece than when it left. The repair person said that the tailpiece was cracked, which was possible but I think that unless it was a hairline crack, I would have noticed it before. Thing is that the tailpiece was replaced and I was not asked or told until the bass was put into my hands. I may have been willing to pay to have something better put on but he may have assumed otherwise since we did have an initial budget. I wish we had discussed it beforehand and also that I had been shown the problem with the old tailpiece
The replacement tailpiece looks pretty bad, like an old piece of maple with sloppy, thick runny black paint. It flares outward at the top instead of curving up into a nice vertical line and it has deep notches where the strings cross the raised lip at the top of tailpiece. It looks like something he had kicking around from another bass after it had been replaced. Still, I am ignorant enough that it may not be that terrible.
That said, the bass does play and sound better than ever, even with it's decades old strings. The other work that he did looks very nice.
Anyway, the question is if I should bother to replace the tailpiece when I change my strings? It is ugly but I can probably live with it. I have read a lot about tailpieces on old threads and other sites but wonder if there would be a big difference in anything but appearance on a laminated bass that is quite nice but in no way exceptional like some of the old carved instruments that people talk about on this board.
I am guessing that I can probably find better ways to spend the money but just wanted to bounce it off you folks first.
Peace,
S
The replacement tailpiece looks pretty bad, like an old piece of maple with sloppy, thick runny black paint. It flares outward at the top instead of curving up into a nice vertical line and it has deep notches where the strings cross the raised lip at the top of tailpiece. It looks like something he had kicking around from another bass after it had been replaced. Still, I am ignorant enough that it may not be that terrible.
That said, the bass does play and sound better than ever, even with it's decades old strings. The other work that he did looks very nice.
Anyway, the question is if I should bother to replace the tailpiece when I change my strings? It is ugly but I can probably live with it. I have read a lot about tailpieces on old threads and other sites but wonder if there would be a big difference in anything but appearance on a laminated bass that is quite nice but in no way exceptional like some of the old carved instruments that people talk about on this board.
I am guessing that I can probably find better ways to spend the money but just wanted to bounce it off you folks first.
Peace,
S