thumb nt heavier than bolt on?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by herrera, Feb 23, 2003.

  1. herrera


    Feb 15, 2002
    thumb nt heavier than bolt on?

    is this correct i see in the warwick specs that the bolt ones are "lighter" and the neckthrus

    any experience?
  2. Brian Barrett

    Brian Barrett

    Nov 25, 2001
    Murfreesboro, TN (Nashville)
    Dealer, Builder
    It depends on the bass and the weight of the wood. Every bass is a little different.

    I know in my experience, it seems BO's many times are a little heavier then neck-through's, but again it depends on the woods used. I'm speaking from the perspective of same maker and same type woods in a bass comparison.
  3. Sean Baumann

    Sean Baumann Supporting Member

    Apr 6, 2000
    Livin' in the USA
    My NT was quite a bit heavier than any of the BOs I tried. I had a guy come over who was going to buy my NT, he brought his BO over to compare. His BO was at least a pound and a half lighter than my NT.
  4. jasonbraatz


    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA
    according to warwicks spec page:

    Thumb Bolt-on 4 7.70
    Thumb Bolt-on 5 8.14
    Thumb Bolt-on 6 9.02
    Thumb Bolt-on 5 Wideneck 9.02
    Thumb Bolt-on 6 Wideneck 9.46
    Thumb 4 10.12
    Thumb 5 11.00
    Thumb 6 11.88
  5. herrera


    Feb 15, 2002
    but is that true?

    i mean....

    maybe with the new specs the ovaknol neck and everything

    a friend of mine borrow me his thumb 5 bo because my nt arrives on thursday so i can learn the songs on a 5 (because i sell my 6 string) and it is so confortable this bnass

    that i am worry about that warwick (because all are different) be les confortable than this one

    so i am asking
    or at least i hope that the thumb nt i am getting have the neck as chunky as teh bolt on that i am playing

    why warwick doesnt use ISO 9000 or somethign so they have the specs on all basses!

    the one that is supposed to arrive on thursday is a 99 nt

    from the!
  6. Hmmm.....anyone else think that Mr. Braatz here plays, dreams and breathes Warwicks????

    Jason with his Streamer Stage II 5 = :bassist:
  7. SlavaF


    Jul 31, 2002
    Edmonton AB
    Holy crap! A 12 pound bass! Now, how could anyone play that for more than a few minutes?:eek:
  8. you put a pillow under your strap.
  9. geshel


    Oct 2, 2001
    There are a lot of 12 pound basses out there - 70s Jazz, anything much with a lot of bubinga or hard ash or solid maple going on. Or wenge or cocobolo. . .
  10. I think the issue are more with the body wood selection.
    Thumb BO are using Ovangkol. Thumb NT are using Bubinga.

    If we think about construction, with the same hardware, wood types (neck + body), strings, then Bolt Ons should be having more weight because of Bolts, instead of glue..
  11. neck thrus are all one piece. the neck is a permanent part of the guitar. guitars with glued necks are called SNs (set-necks).

    you have to be a MAN to play a warwick....
    i tell ya!;)
  12. Killdar


    Dec 16, 2002
    Portland Maine
    wish I could try out a NT thumb...all I ever see are the BOs. How do the NTs compare to the bolt ons? besides the weight that is...
  13. i saw a NT five thumb at GC this week. looked and felt great. used for $2400. that's a lotta dough.
  14. jasonbraatz


    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA

    LOL! :D nah, i've just been to the website enough that i knew they had their specs posted there.

    i DO believe that those specs were posted at a time when the NT's were still wenge but the BO's were ovangkol, so that would explain the weight difference. my thumb 6 (bolt on, wenge neck) weighs less than my ss2 but hardly by enough to tell.
  15. jasonbraatz


    Oct 18, 2000
    Oakland, CA
    that's a ripoff X 100. you can pick up used thumbs all day for $1300-$1500 and they'll have wenge necks. i got my ss2 for 1500 :D
  16. geshel


    Oct 2, 2001
    Actually, I think the numbers are current - bubinga is about that much heavier than ovangkol I think. Also, it wasn't too long ago the specs were different - they had some typos I think as the broadnecks were listed as weighing an absolute ton (like waaaay too much heavier than the normal necks). So, they've changed it within the past say, six months.

    edit: ok, make that 10 months. :)