i bought that thing weeks ago, its still in my Bugatti veyron! ahhhh, its ok i guess
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.
The world's most expensive bass...
- Thread starter Ballin'bass
- Start date
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,122
- 16,795
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
I think the wood finish is pretty damn gorgeous, but the gold (while nice) is a bit over-the-top, and the diamonds are getting into "really?" territory.
I do think the wood is beautifully finished, and I almost like the gold, but I'd be too worried about a diamond vibrating off to actually want to play the thing.
At least it's not as tasteless as this thing:
Where stuff like that is concerned, I apply the following logic: One sausage roll is nice. Two is nicer. Five thousand would put me off sausage rolls for life.
I do think the wood is beautifully finished, and I almost like the gold, but I'd be too worried about a diamond vibrating off to actually want to play the thing.
At least it's not as tasteless as this thing:
Where stuff like that is concerned, I apply the following logic: One sausage roll is nice. Two is nicer. Five thousand would put me off sausage rolls for life.
Wow. Idk if I'm the last to know or if anyone else has seen this but DAAAAYUUMMMM!
Most Expensive Bass Guitar | LUXUO Luxury Blog
Who would play this??
My bet is that it sounds the same as, or worse than any other bass priced $249,000.00 less.
I live in Korea. You just gave me an idea!
I think I'd personally prefer the ancient walrus tusk
Makes me wonder: isn't it time they'd start a Discovery channel series about sturdy Alaskans digging for Mammoth tusk in Siberia for that ever so profitable bass-nut industry?
Uh,,, friend, Siberia is the bad guys... we're Alaska, the good guys.. LOL
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,122
- 16,795
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
(Jewish mothers voice) "Meh, it's nice, I suppose. But is it practical?"
Still working my way through this thread, but I wonder about the ivory nut. If it were elephant ivory, would the instrument be impounded And seller fined, etc, but because it is ivory from an extinct species it is ok? I'm legitimately curious.
Since you put it that way, I'm not sure I want a bass that comes with an elephant nut.
I think the wood finish is pretty damn gorgeous, but the gold (while nice) is a bit over-the-top, and the diamonds are getting into "really?" territory.
I do think the wood is beautifully finished, and I almost like the gold, but I'd be too worried about a diamond vibrating off to actually want to play the thing.
At least it's not as tasteless as this thing:
Where stuff like that is concerned, I apply the following logic: One sausage roll is nice. Two is nicer. Five thousand would put me off sausage rolls for life.
Eat two sausage rolls and feed the dogs with the rest 4998 of them.
Man, just the nut "made from 10,000 year old mammoth ivory" would probably cost more than the average bass...
The syntetic bone on my american standard jazz bass is just fine. Thanks but that mammoth is dead for 10000 years.
ps. too bad leo fender didn't create the precision bass 10000 years ago.
That's fine brotha, different strokes...My point was these other companies have been around for a long time and are infinitely more pivotal in the history of instruments than a jeweler inlaying uranium to make the price high. Alembic had the first active instruments, the first 5 string instruments the multi piece body, BC Rich, although ugly as homemade sin, those were some of the baddest sounding basses of their time. Spector had 3d curve and of course the haz preamp that's basically a hard rock necessity.
I'm not taking anything away from Ritter. His finishes are cool. I dig the Carl Thompson-Ness of his basses and I dig that he sticks rare rocks and metals into his stuff but that does nothing for the advancement of the instruments playability or sound (though I'm sure especially on here someone will argue that).
If you dig them, then rock on them. And let me play it too : )
You're missing the point. I'm saying the companies that are pioneers and innovators of the instruments should be held in higher reverence than someone that puts aesthetics into a bass. That's the relevance.
It's not about BC Rich being "popular for 30 seconds" it's about the innovation in the electronics back in the day (before my time). That is pivotal in our instruments history. Inlaying grandpa's dog's ashes doesn't do anything. Value what is functional and useful over something with friggin' moon rocks put in it or whatever. Ritter is still bad ass. I'm not knocking them.
I'm all for things that develop the state of the art or push boundaries, but I'm of an age that when I see bling on basses (Bajazzle?) I always think of the Rhinestone Stratocaster...
The problem is that when I see the Rhinestone Strat I can't help think of this...
I'm not saying the Ritter is even remotely related to the Rhinestone Strat, nor that I have a 'view' on the Ritter, that's just how my thoughts went when I first opened this thread.
The problem is that when I see the Rhinestone Strat I can't help think of this...
I'm not saying the Ritter is even remotely related to the Rhinestone Strat, nor that I have a 'view' on the Ritter, that's just how my thoughts went when I first opened this thread.
