That $250 IV has the following data:
Made at the
Deawon Plant, China
on February, 2007
Production Number: 5132
Made at the
Deawon Plant, China
on February, 2007
Production Number: 5132
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.
Thunderbird Club
- Thread starter TBird1958
- Start date
-
- Tags
- club thunderbird
For the Bay Area folks, I need to get the fret sprout on the CP taken care of and looking for someone you all trust that won't cost more than what I paid for the CP in the first place. @MCF has a good contact in SoCal, but not likely I'm going to be heading that way any time soon.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
I didn't see that specific review (would be interested to watch it) but I base what I said on a number of his vids I have watched. There are a few I've watched of other players (Andersons from the UK always being entertaining) and they all offer insights into basses I may never play or buy. For entertainment value, I like a good presentation where the reviewer(s) are clearly enjoying what they are doing.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Real Guitars / Gary Brawer - I've divided them because Gary is in Oakland now, and Real Guitars has an in-house guitar tech where Gary used to work out of - possibly cheaper.
dieselman
Supporting Member
Review was Negative from the Bridge to the Finish. Wasn't really good.
this guy rocks it as well…
Invalid Link Removed
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
I totally agree about the bridge. Why they didn't incorporate the same bridge they installed on the Epi NR is a mystery. (or just basic cost-cutting bs)
I don't have an opinion about the finish quality never encountering one in person.
Last edited:
It was painfully obvious he prefers FSO's and his review was slanted. I considered the source(a 'brainwashed' butthead with pre-conceived opinions). Eff him and the horse he rode in on.(semi-offensive opinion follows
)
My friend still has this model that he bought new. Pretty cool bass!
1979 Kramer DMZ4001 Electric Bass Natural w Original Hardshell Case | Reverb
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
It was painfully obvious he prefers FSO's and his review was slanted. I considered the source(a 'brainwashed' butthead with pre-conceived opinions). Eff him and the horse he rode in on.(semi-offensive opinion follows
o - k... but until I watch that specific review, I'll hold any criticism/opinion I have. I know for a fact that there is a lot of very bias opinions of T-birds here (understandably so) - but being a very objective player/long time owner of a gen1 vintage T-bird, (fully celebrating/considering its pluses and honestly acknowledging its minuses, w/o bias) - I might agree with some of his criticism.
Post the link and I'll give you my honest review of his review -
Last edited:
I haven't watched it but here is the link.
Last edited:
Now my interest has been peaked. I’ll have to watch the review and see how his observations on the 21 NR stack up against mine. My review is on record a page or two back in this thread. I will openly admit that I am biased towards humbucker equipped basses which I alluded to in my review, outside of that I have a very open mind and a very eclectic collection of basses to prove it.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
As a long standing member/participant of this tb T-bird club - I wouldn't be here if I weren't a dyed-in-the-wool T-bird advocate. But... I work on and design/build my own basses and don't shy away from pointing out the good, the bad and the ugly about any bass. There are certain basses I love the looks of, and even the sound of - that I would never own for various reasons. To me, a bass needs to check off a number of boxes to be considered a good design. Then there are poorly designed basses that sound great, and well designed basses that sound average. (and everything between)
I was visiting my friend Tad today who recently bought an Ibanez SR 4-string to learn on. I advised him in the sale - and he scored. Super nice (active) bass with a great 24 fret neck and 3-band EQ. The bass is pearl white w/gold HW and in mint condition - for under $400 w/gig bag. I'd rate it close to 100% - no down side.
I also own a number of '60s basses of various brands. They all rock - in different ways. Some have singles, some buckers, some have different ergonomics/neck profiles/nut widths... like getting to know different people from different cultures each with their own unique sensibility/voice. But... this does not mean they are all ergonomic, or that they don't require a commitment to conform to their less than ideal design. It's what a player decides is worth conforming to (for various reasons) that bonds the marriage between player and instrument. Sorry to keep harping this - but a Thunderbird bass is one option in a universe of options. I love my birds of a feather - but I have dear friends with major flaws too...
always thought Moreve would have better served his band with a Bird….really cool being able to dwelve into it by playing make believe lol…..bout a year ago, time flies…
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Thanks for posting - w/o owning/playing one - I respect his opinion. 100% agree about the bridge - it and the standard Rickenbacker bridge are the two worst bass bridge designs... ever. Finish flaws are a real issue for a bass costing that much, and he is 100% correct about the original design flaw of all gen1 & 2 versions of the T-birds (both R & NR) being a stretch to 1st position. (unless you ride it at your knees) Simply a matter of superficial looks over function. All and all - I agree with him, and not because he determined it isn't a "slap-monster". (who would ever slap a T-bird?)
Hate me (like him) - but I'm giving my honest opinion based on my awesome 1964 II "reverse" (never use that distinction - a '63-'65 was the 1st T-bird for crimany sake so in my logic the late '60s T-bird was reversed... owner/player since 1974. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Ok I watched the review and listed my comments below. It was in fact a generally biased review, he even hinted at that. The parts that weren’t biased were factual for the bass in his possession but not necessarily for the model in general and the purchase logic was flawed. I wouldn’t call him a hack, and it wasn’t an intentional hit job but it wasn’t an informative or helpful review.
First off, he’s a really good player and did run through the various settings and playing styles (finger, pic, slap) nicely. Well, maybe not so nicely on the slap, I’ve heard better but I don’t typically like slap regardless of who’s doing it, so I kinda tune out during those portions of reviews. His tone observation and playing observation was that it sounded and played phenomenal especially with a pic but he wasn’t fond of the slapability. That and the Hipshot tuners were about the only good things he noted about the bass.
Pretty much the rest of the review was a completely biased and bogus airing of his personal pet peeve with the Gibson three point bridge, a legitimate beef with a significant finish flaw in the paint, and a misleading gripe about the price of the bass.
Bridge
It made no difference to him if the bridge was functional or not, he flat out hates the three point and said so. He made some bogus negative comments about the bridge to support his disdain for it (falls off the bass when strings are removed, can’t be intonated, saddle heights can’t be adjusted). To be honest, they were hack comments and a real stretch. In other words before he even picked up or touched the bass he knew he would probably not like it because of the bridge. That’s unwarranted bias vs a legitimate beef in my book.
Finish Flaw
He did note a significant finish flaw at the tuner on the face of the headstock. I’d agree it was a botched finish or finish damaged during assembly. It should never have left the factory that way. I’ve heard of others on the web complain about the finish. I’ve only seen three 21 NR basses in person but none of the three I’ve seen had any notable finish issues. He said he looked into it on line and noted other people claimed to have the same problem. Who knows how many of those comments were legit vs internet piling on? Bottom line though, his bass had a finish issue, he rightfully highlighted it so other buyers can look for those issues during a purchase. It’s a legit heads up but quite possibly not indicative at all of the general state of these basses.
Price Point
At the time he reviewed it the bass was listed at about $1900, but he must have updated the video because a caption popped up on the screen indicating the 2022 price is now about $2100. His observation is thats too much money to ask for a bass with this type of bridge and this bad of a finish flaw. Bridge aside since thats a bogus discussion, I’d have to agree with him. I wouldn’t have paid that price for that bass with that finish flaw. If it didn’t have the finish flaw I’d say it was priced competitively with its Fender counterpart (American Vintage Reissue P Bass).
That said, I personally think both the Fender and the Gibson are over priced, but what isn’t over priced these days. I’m paying twice as much for a gallon of gas now than I was two years ago, more for food, more for utilities and just about everything else.
IMHO the Gibson 2021 NR is an $1800 bass. If you paid more than that for a new one you didn’t get a great deal and if you paid less you did get a great deal. So instead of just quoting MSRP he should be listing “Street Price” as well, which is about $1800 on Reverb in the states and about $1600 in Europe.
I finally asked my wife how much she paid for mine, it was $1650 not including tax and shipping. I consider that a pretty darn good deal for a brand new phenomenal playing, solid mahogany, set neck bass with rosewood fingerboard, sweet sounding pickups, gorgeous burgundy metallic finish in a solid case with all the case candy including a multi tool. If I had an option to buy the comparable Fender P bass at the same $1650 price, I’d choose the Gibson. If I had the chance to buy either one at their MSRP I’d pass on both.
Last edited:
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,588
- 221,963
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Good overview - I haven't bought a new bass since 2006, so I'll opt out of that end of the conversation. I'm a major advocate of buying used and willing to do some fine-tuning/work on any bass I purchase. So I'm not in the market to buy one, and if interested I listen to those who play/review them for their insights.
Sorry - I'll never be convinced the Gibson/Epi 3-point bridges are anything but a crap design. A standard bent-plate Fender bridge (since 1951) is an infinitely better design both functionally and sonically. The Hipshot Supertone and from what I've heard the Babitz versions are decent replacements. I use the Hipshot Supertone on a bass of mine which addresses the design flaws of the original 3-point and I've seen that Rickenbacker has finally upgraded their poorly designed bridge in the last number of years. For Gibson today to continue to install that 3-point on an attempted RI of a bass that never had that bridge in the first place ...
In my original NR review a couple of pages back I noted the use of a three point on this bass as a shortcoming from a reissue standpoint (along with the pup spacing).
That said, I’ll respectfully disagree with you on the functionality of the Gibson three point (jury is still out on the Eppi three point). The Gibby three point is perfectly functional, robust and reliable. Can it fall off the bass if you remove the strings? Sure. It was designed so that the strings hold it in place, the fender bent plate was designed so the screws hold it in place. If you remove the screws on the bent plate it falls off the bass as well. Is it difficult to get to the intonation screws on a three point? Not really, certainly no more difficult than a bent plate. Does the three point have individually adjustable saddles? Nope, it’s designed to match the radius of the neck so it doesn’t need them. Whereas the bent plate has 8 little grub screws on the saddles that inevitably get stripped, lost, loose, or adjusted incorrectly. Do string silks ride on the saddles of the three point? They can, and that’s a design flaw that the bent plate doesn’t have. Is the bent plate a top loading design? No, and that’s a design flaw the bent plate does have, just ask anybody with coated strings. That’s not even taking into account bent plates with shared bar saddles or bent plates with threaded barrel saddles or bent plates with string through body options.
Fender has a number of different bridge designs. Their bent plate is my least favorite, their high mass is my favorite. Likewise Gibson has a number of bridge designs as well, the three point is my least favorite, the two piece VP is my favorite. I have a number of basses from various manufacturers that have two piece bridges (Warwick, Alembic, BaCH, Greco to name a few) of the bunch, the Epiphone VP two piece is the best executed and my favorite. On a Thunderbird I’d take it over a Babicz or Hipshot or three point any day of the week.
Other than being butt ugly, the three point is a perfectly acceptable bridge as is the equally butt ugly bent plate.
I watched the review but have the disadvantage of not having touched or even seen a NR.
I thought he exaggerated the negatives a little and a one claw (out of ?) score seemed a bit harsh.
The bridge, it has plenty of detractors but it works if inelegantly. I thought scoring it down for not having adjustable string height while not mentioning that it is preset to match the neck radius was harsh.
The finish flaw looked crook. But if I understood correctly he had to part disassemble the tuner to find it. I expect if I owned the bass I would never have known about it. If I'm wrong and it was plainly visible then Gibson deserved to be marked down.
He said he liked the sound of it.
The price? Yes it’s expensive but is it in the ball park for other US built name brand basses? I don’t know.
I thought he exaggerated the negatives a little and a one claw (out of ?) score seemed a bit harsh.
The bridge, it has plenty of detractors but it works if inelegantly. I thought scoring it down for not having adjustable string height while not mentioning that it is preset to match the neck radius was harsh.
The finish flaw looked crook. But if I understood correctly he had to part disassemble the tuner to find it. I expect if I owned the bass I would never have known about it. If I'm wrong and it was plainly visible then Gibson deserved to be marked down.
He said he liked the sound of it.
The price? Yes it’s expensive but is it in the ball park for other US built name brand basses? I don’t know.
