tobias experience

[The Penguin]

As we have seen, Mike stayed with Gibson during this handover for a total of 950 basses. It certainly was NOT the case that Mike personally made every single one of those 950 basses, after which he and his people walked out the door and Gibson hired replacement warm bodies the next day! Instead, there was a gradual process during which Mike and his crew became progressively less involved, and the Gibson people took over. The "magic #2044" story just doesn't hold up.

I could tell you the story Rawn Randall told me in his office in the Burbank shop but Mike was not just there just for a transition period. The Burbank shop was built for Mike to continue making Tobias basses.

The transition period was to be when Burbank moved to Nashville but everyone decided not to go, before that change was ordered the intentions were to stay in Burbank and make basses in the new factory and spray booth.

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

For Christ sake lad stop making up stuff. And if you have nothing to offer besides personal attacks maybe you could spend more time in church instead doing something nice?

Face it you're just wrong and have been caught out!!

Bryan is not making a personal attack - he's just pointing out the obvious and apparent contradictions in your posts - in fact you are the one making a personal attack on him for no reason - other than that you have been caught out!!

 

[Angus]

It is simply as high quality as it is possible for a bass to be, in wood selection, sound, feel, craftsmanship. Yes, you can pay more. You can get Bigger Name Luthiers to add status value. You can get different sounds (it has custom Bartolini pickups, but they sound like Bartolinis, clearly). You can get different neck shapes, and different anything you want. What you cannot get is better. They don't come any better.

I love my Renegades and Killer B's, but to say that there is nothing else out there that is better is flat out as incorrect as one could possibly be. I've now had...6?... Tobias basses, all post Gibson, ranigng between '95 and 2005 in manufacture date. Fact of the matter is that there are PLENTY of luthier's out there who for the money will make basses with higher quality neck woods, cleaner and tighter neck joints, better fret jobs, better finishes, better nut setups from the factory, etc etc etc etc. There is a reason why big names are big names- they usually are very good quality (usually).

I love my basses now, but it's taken a LOT of work to get each one of them there. A lot. One of them still has a lot of work left. If I didn't do that work myself, they would be terrible deals (for the cost brand new).

If you want a few quick and dirty examples of why the newer basses are inferior to even the older Gibson-era basses: Sometimes use flatsawn maple in the necks instead of the flamed quartersawn stuff, necks have gotten thicker and more symmetrical, fretboards are very low quality wood (i've seen two with knots- one of mine was one of them!), and the most recent one had two frets that were about .020 off position, so it was impossible to get them in tune. Luckily, that fretboard is coming off.

If I ever bought another one, I would go for the oldest Killer B I could find. The older the better, as long as you don't mind used, which I don't.

I do like my Tobiases, and would love to own a pre-gibson (but likely never will unless I find the perfect one for a great price), but to say that there is nothing better or higher quality anywhere is flat out incorrect. Subjectivity entirely aside, there is no way this is true.

That said, I do think the newer ones are a rip-off.

By the way, this is neither good nor bad, but the "custom" Bartolini's in the Killer B are the same "custom" Bartolini's in my Zon. Exactly the same. I was surprised too!

 

[Flintc]

to say that there is nothing better or higher quality anywhere is flat out incorrect. Subjectivity entirely aside, there is no way this is true.

OK, my experience doesn't match yours. My experience doesn't even come close to matching yours. I'm willing to agree that quality control may be spotty, because people clearly have seen things I have not. And I also admit there's a lot of information I lack. For example, why would Gibson modify their asymmetrical neck programming of the machines that make them? DID they modify it? Solid information from Arkansas would be wonderful, but I don't have any.

I currently have two Tobias basses I ordered from the factory. All of the woods are top-notch. No frets are out of tune. There are no knots. The bolt-on is the best fit I've seen. The best luthier in town examined my neck-through and said it was the best-built bass he'd seen.

Now, maybe I got really lucky. Twice. Maybe if there's a third time I'll strike out. Maybe Gibson has process control issues of some sort. But the implication that they are ALL BAD is as flat-out incorrect from my view, as my implication that they're all great is from yours. I'll settle for inconsistent. And based on my very different experiences, I'd not hesitate to order another from the factory.

As for price, now, here we're in closer agreeement. Gibson's (fictional) list prices are absurd. The prices through their internet sales (1/3 less than list) are also unreasonably high for what you get. I notice dealers are now offering new Tobias basses for about half the fictional list, and this is not an unreasonable price. Not a bargain, but not unreasonable.

 

[Munjibunga]

Do we know yet whether the OP was talking about a Tobias (Gibson) or MTD? Gibson has a $5,000 price tag on some of the new ones, but I figure for that price, you might as well get the real thing (MTD).

 

[bucephylus]

The problem with these Tobias threads is that guys are getting hung up in subjective categorizations and semantics.

Some folks, such as The Penguin, have decided "Pre-Gibson" means instruments built before the Gibson buyout. Others think it means instruments made by Mike's crew before the op shifted to Nashville. You've also got pre-Burbank, and even pre-Hollywood. Plus from what I've seen, Mike almost never makes one instrument the same as the next; its more of a constant tweaking and exploratory process - a work in motion. The collectors can have a field day with this stuff.

However, my 2c is that from a player's perspective, there are instruments made by Mike and his crew and those made afterwards. The line of collectors wishing to bash this POV can form to the left.

When Munji says that MTD's are the "Real" thing, he means that they are made by Mike's current shop. Mike is a wizard, and his instruments are rightfully prized by players for their sonic performance. BTW Munj, I believe the OP was describing a newer instrument, since $5K is about $1K higher than the current asking price for the "pre-Gibson" Signature instruments (has anyone checked out the flame purpleheart 6 currently on eBay?!!! ).

Regarding the "Post-Mike" instruments, there are several points I've noticed. First, the designs are still the "real" thing." Here, there are two issues. For one thing, some guys just hate them now because they feel Mike got a bad deal and they hate big companies - the Evil Empire. Well, OK, whether any of that is true or not is one thing, but no one is going to change that kind of opinion (prejudice). Second, the consistency of the instruments hasn't been there. Some are excellent, many are not.

That last point brings up two additional things to keep in mind about the "Post-Mike" instruments. If you buy a new one, you'd better take it to the grave, because it will maybe hold 1/4 - 1/3 of its value (if you are lucky). The flip side is that the good used examples can be had for seriously low street prices on the used market; and that's a good situation for a player, if they don't suffer from the Evil Empire syndrome and chance upon one of the nice examples.

There definitely were some folks at the Nashville operation who knew their stuff, and I have no doubt the same is true of the Arkansas shop. This is grey zone stuff. And, BTW, there are "Real" Mike instruments which play like doo as well. He's a (great) luthier, not a saint.

The last thing I'll say is that I don't understand some of the negativity towards players who find and like a post-Mike bass. What's that all about? Mike's original designs are still marvelous and they are different than his current designs. Why is it a bad thing if some of the original designs happen to get made well, even if the consistency isn't there? Shouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[Flintc]

bucephylus:

Makes sense to me. It's hard to read these threads without coming to the conclusion that most people need to look at the serial number to figure out if they have a good instrument. And as you imply, the presumption is that IF Mike Tobias had a hand in it, the instrument is fabulous, whereas if he did not, it's just a piece of junk with flaws in the junk!

If there are no people in Arkansas who know what they're doing, there are some VERY VERY LUCKY people there, who produce highest quality despite themselves. It's starting to look almost like whether you get a state of the art bass or a fixer-upper depends on which shift made yours, or what day of the week it was made, or some such.

(And I find it hard to credit that they sometimes use their "bad" neck and fret and routing templates and jigs, and sometimes their "good" ones.)

Without a large sample, it's hard to know just what's the probability of the Arkansas producing a lemon. When some people see all lemons and others can't find one, it's hard to understand. But Munjibunga's implication that Gibson's output isn't "real" might be an explanation. This is what's called prejudice, boys and girls. Gibson and MTD make different instruments, and they do it differently.

Setting history aside, if you want a new bass, these are two distinctly different (but both expensive) options. Which one you prefer OUGHT to depend on which one sounds and feels better to you. Using a serial number to substitute for judgment may be simple, but not very wise.

 

[Fealach]

I just came back from Guitar Center. I played some Pedullas, a Roscoe, a neck-through Warwick, a bass made by a local luthier, and a Gibson Tobias Basic (S/N 10435 or similar, I forget exactly). The Tobias was the best playing and sounding by a wide margin. The workmanship and fit/finish was without evident flaw. It was also the cheapest of the "high end" used basses there. Personally I felt the overall look of the bass to be closer to the ballpark of a really nice neckthrough Cort or Schecter than the Pedullas or other "boutique" basses. Well executed, but uninspiring, there was nothing to draw the eye to it as it hung from the wall. Still, it was nonetheless a really nice bass and some no doubt prefer a less flashy appearance.

However, it sounded very little like the Tobias basses I'm familiar with from the 80's. It was a nice sounding bass, but there's a quality that was missing. It's tough to put into words, a sort of smoky, groggy, midrange sound that is present in my friend's Zebrawood and in my Maple Tobias.

Maybe some of the Gibsons are as bad as folks say; I haven't encountered one that was poorly built and unplayable. I still haven't encountered one that I'd consider the equal of one made before the move from California. For the record, while I see the point that anything made by Mike's crew after the Gibson buyout is technically a Gibson product, it doesn't matter whose money bought the mfg. equipment, it was still built by Mike & crew.

Of course tone is subjective; I love the "voice" the older ones have, but I suppose I can imagine how someone might not like the very colored sound they have. OK, I can't really understand it, but anything's possible. In any case the newer ones are worth checking out, especially used if the price is right.

 

[GreyBeard]

I had a 5 string model with 2 barts. I could never get use to the thing. It played great as long as I was sitting down but it just didn't hang right from a strap.

 

[Angus]

OK, my experience doesn't match yours. My experience doesn't even come close to matching yours. I'm willing to agree that quality control may be spotty, because people clearly have seen things I have not. And I also admit there's a lot of information I lack. For example, why would Gibson modify their asymmetrical neck programming of the machines that make them? DID they modify it?

If you say that quality control may be spotty (not acceptable on a $3k+ bass!) and that there is "information you lack", how could you have said, then, that it "is simply as high quality as it is possible for a bass to be"? Very, very contradictory statements. All anyone would ever have to do is look at the wood and fret work to see that this definitely is not the case.

When I get back to CA I'll take some pictures of my Killer B's to show new and old contrast.

Mind you, I like my Tobias's, but IMO it is misleading to say that the quality is at or near (let alone above) that of the Pre-Gibson era.

Given all the new ones I've played that I haven't bought, I wouldn't ever buy one sight unseen. I'd only ever buy a used one with the knowledge that I'd have to change a lot of things to make it perfect. Of course, that said, my ebony'd up KB is my main bass.

 

[BodaciousBass]

Do we know yet whether the OP was talking about a Tobias (Gibson) or MTD? Gibson has a $5,000 price tag on some of the new ones, but I figure for that price, you might as well get the real thing (MTD).

IMO in that case, you should get an MTD because of one sole reason: Customization. If you order from MTD you can get a bass customed for YOUR needs with all YOUR specification.

 

[dcr]

He may end up hating me for this.....

Or you could ask fivestringdan about the current crop of "Tobias" basses. He used to work at the plant in Conway and actually worked on / built a number of them.





dcr

 

[Flintc]

angus:

If you say that quality control may be spotty (not acceptable on a $3k+ bass!) and that there is "information you lack", how could you have said, then, that it "is simply as high quality as it is possible for a bass to be"? Very, very contradictory statements. All anyone would ever have to do is look at the wood and fret work to see that this definitely is not the case.

What I'm doing here, is giving you the benefit of the doubt. I have not experienced the problems you have. I'm not willing to say you don't experience them; if you say you do, then I assume you do. In which case, logically we must assume production quality is inconsistent. Either that, or one of us is not telling the truth, right?

The Tobias basses I've bought have not had these flaws. Period. I have examined the wood and fret work with a magnifying glass, and with accurate tuners. What am I supposed to see, besides highest quality woods and perfect intonation? If you wish, I'm willing to say I've been lucky, and my experience may not be typical. How would I know? Those I have are as high quality as it's possible to be.

(But I do have some manufacturing experience in large companies, and I know that quality control is always an issue when no personal relationship exists between manufacturer and customer. The near-impossibility of speaking with anyone at the factory, shielding them from human contact, is not a good sign.)

Now, consider this rather strange communication:

I played some Pedullas, a Roscoe, a neck-through Warwick, a bass made by a local luthier, and a Gibson Tobias Basic (S/N 10435 or similar, I forget exactly). The Tobias was the best playing and sounding by a wide margin. The workmanship and fit/finish was without evident flaw.

Now, that sounds pretty impressive. BUT, do not forget, Tobias by Gibson suffers by reputation, which means that

I felt the overall look of the bass to be closer to the ballpark of a really nice neckthrough Cort or Schecter than the Pedullas or other "boutique" basses

Now, this is both peculiar and exasperating. Plays and sounds better, by a WIDE MARGIN than Pedulla, Warwick, Roscoe. Yet the comparison is immediately made with Cort or Schecter based on physical appearance. For the most part, they are not flashy. So, what do you want, sound and feel, or flash? Personally, I like the looks. If actual playing quality, feel and sound, exceed these big-name quality basses, and fit/finish are flawless, what matters here really? I wonder.

(Incidentally, I learned that I have considerable latitude if I order a Tobias from the factory - lots of different neck laminations, body laminations, wide choice of tone woods, fretless, stereo output. Not a custom bass as you might get from Nordstrand, maybe, but more like you might get from Carvin.)

 

[The Penguin]

Face it you're just wrong and have been caught out!!

Bryan is not making a personal attack - he's just pointing out the obvious and apparent contradictions in your posts - in fact you are the one making a personal attack on him for no reason - other than that you have been caught out!!

Could you show where? Like how I showed over and over how Tobias says you have a Gibson?

And do it without the tears please. Then we can have some cookies and milk.

 

[The Penguin]

By the way, this is neither good nor bad, but the "custom" Bartolini's in the Killer B are the same "custom" Bartolini's in my Zon. Exactly the same. I was surprised too!

All Barts are custom The Killer B's are P pickups under the shell, if anyone's interested.

 

[Flintc]

Like how I showed over and over how Tobias says you have a Gibson?

No, Mike Tobias says he has BOTH - a guitar made AFTER the sale to Gibson, built personally by Mike Tobias. Earlier, I asked you which you considered more important. I suggested perhaps the bass itself is what matters. Apparently you disagree?

 

[The Penguin]

Some folks, such as The Penguin, have decided "Pre-Gibson" means instruments built before the Gibson buyout.

To be fair I'm going by the terms Mike uses on his website, in emails and in person.

However, my 2c is that from a player's perspective, there are instruments made by Mike and his crew and those made afterwards.

That's the definition I have stated makes sense even offering the term post Mike. Pre or post Gibson only refers to the companies ownership.

For one thing, some guys just hate them now because they feel Mike got a bad deal and they hate big companies - the Evil Empire. Well, OK, whether any of that is true or not is one thing, but no one is going to change that kind of opinion (prejudice).

I think you nailed that one.

The last thing I'll say is that I don't understand some of the negativity towards players who find and like a post-Mike bass. What's that all about? Mike's original designs are still marvelous and they are different than his current designs. Why is it a bad thing if some of the original designs happen to get made well, even if the consistency isn't there? Shouldn't that be a good thing?

It is for me and my basses But some are all about labels, scratch the decal of a pre CBS Fender and watch the price drop in half. It seems even with Tobias many can only make their decision on the label and can't judge the instrument as a player individually.

 

[The Penguin]

Using a serial number to substitute for judgment may be simple, but not very wise.

By the way, I know you've only seen good ones but Gibson used to bring some real dogs to NAMM, you could stand by the booth and watch people pick them up with a smile and then put them down in disgust. The chance of finding a dog was once pretty high.

 

[The Penguin]

IMO in that case, you should get an MTD because of one sole reason: Customization. If you order from MTD you can get a bass customed for YOUR needs with all YOUR specification.

34" scale with 17.mm spacing?

 

[The Penguin]

No, Mike Tobias says he has BOTH - a guitar made AFTER the sale to Gibson, built personally by Mike Tobias. Earlier, I asked you which you considered more important. I suggested perhaps the bass itself is what matters. Apparently you disagree?

Why can't anyone see that's two different things? Have we really gone past the level of complexity available at just 2? Pre or post Gibson refers to the ownership. Mike gives he exact serial number this happened on his website and in the email. He even used the term Gibson Tobias to refer to this bass. That is something totally separate from who built the bass. Why try to change the way language works to meet the demands of the fragile? Tobias can handle the term Gibson Tobias, why does it cause so much fear here?