tobias experience

[The Penguin]

Then get a Tobias.

But you said MTD would do anything! Oh wait, you used a smiley. Nevermind

 

[The Penguin]

its sad... poor children, wont somebody think of the children

The first Tobias I ever played was covered in children's handprints It was a red 4 string with yellow, blue and white handprints of Mike's kid (so I heard) all over it. And no dots, not even on the side.

 

[Flintc]

Penguin:

You seem to be just adding to the confusion. Certainly you confuse me.

(1) There seems to be general agreement that while Michael Tobias was building his first bases, and during ALL of the time he was personally involved, those basses were of very high quality. I've never heard of an exception.

(2) There seems to be general agreement that after some point in time, the quality of Tobias basses fell drastically, and word of mouth, rumor, and reputation all agree that many if not most of these instruments were anywhere from average-for-cheap to unplayably bad.

(3) Finally, there seems to be some agreement that the newest Tobias basses made in Arkansas are excellent in every way and easily worthy of being called high-end basses. I haven't found anyone who purchased a Tobias bass made in the last two years who has been disappointed or felt cheated.

This checkered history becomes worth noting in trying to find an answer to two different questions: (a) Should I consider paying the admittedly high price for a brand new Tobias; and (b) If I'm looking at an older used Tobias, what sort of instrument am I likely to get?

The first question I think is easier to answer, and the answer is YES. Consider Tobias basses, put them on your shopping list, give them a test drive. It is very very dificult to find anyone less than delighted with these, and scubaduba's reaction is fairly typical.

The second question is a bit more complicated. When did Tobias basses themselves (forget who owned the company; that's not what matters) switch from being really really excellent to being shoddy? As far as I can tell, this happened sometime fairly shortly after Michael Tobias ended his association with Tobias basses. That association ended after serial number #2044; basses above this number should be considered suspect, and a wise and careful buyer will examine it very very closely before parting with his money.

Now, when did the "era of terrible quality" end? (And I'm ignoring those who claim it did not. They're wrong.) This is much harder to answer, because as far as I can tell quality improvements in Arkansas have been gradual, skill at making these has been increasing but there are no magic numbers.

Based on my experiences (and soma666, and DaveDanger, and scubaduba, and many similar experiences), I would not hesistate to order a new Tobias from the Arkansas factory to meet my specifications. But clearly, you and others with Tobias basses from the Korean years would consider this an unacceptable risk. I admit I can't see how ownership of the company during the Burbank period realates AT ALL to the Tobias Experience with the new instruments.

But I can see how an extended period of producing shoddy-to-inconsistent quality basses can wreck a reputation, and trying to sell even boutique quality basses in the teeth of that reputation is swimming upstream. Those here who have physically picked up and played these new basses with an open mind consider themselves lucky. Those who have not, badmouth instruments sight unseen and consider themselves "in the know". And I suppose this rather unfortunate history is itself part of the Tobias Experience.

 

[The Penguin]

I think some of your confusion is from the attempt to define quality by the year. I don't think it's that binary. I have seen and held dozens of post Mike Tobias' and found major flaws to be rather common, this does not mean that they can't be a well playing good sounding instrument, just that hideous finish work or whatever is surprising in that price range. I don't claim all instruments from a period are bad but I have found great inconsistency over more than a decade of production based on samples brought to NAMM and the ones I own.

And I only own American Tobias', not Korean ones.

And somewhat related, the calling a bass pre Gibson to raise the sale price is catching on, there's a "pre Gibson" Growler on eBay right now

 

[Flintc]

I don't think it's binary either. I've spoken several times (but I don't mind repeating until it penetrates) that improvement seems to have been gradual. I've repeated that I've seen some Gibson Tobias basses that were poorly made, and had unimpressive finishes, etc. I've also said I haven't seen this in the last two years or so. This implies to me that the overall quality of their production has increased substantially. Maybe they still make occasional lemons. It's a factory.

I mention the Korean years because from what I've been able to gather, American quality reached bottom during the years Gibson was also producing Tobys in Korea. I hazily recall that Juszkiewicz decreed in 2003 or so that the Tobias line should somehow magically start producing boutique instruments, as a policy decision. Decrees like that don't happen overnight, but so long as that remains an organizational goal, progress will be in that direction. Seems to have worked fairly well.

If I owned some of those instruments I've seen made during the period you're talking about, I too would be disgruntled.

 

[Anthbass]

I can't believe I just waded through that mess...
Anyway, I haven't had the pleasure of trying an MTD but I do have a Growler, which will do nicely in the interim. It is a shame about Gibson's management clouding the water, which I have experienced first hand. I bought the Growler for a song but I think its a keeper, so bully for me. With a pickup swap methinks it will be my 'go to' bass for awhile.

 

[Angus]

As it stands, I still would never buy a new Tobias, but wouldn't hesitate to buy an older (mid-late 90s) Gibson-era Tobias, as from all that I've owned and seen, they had the best woods and build quality. All the newer ones I've played just don't cut it, and I'd much rather own the older ones.

For me, the Gibson-era ones that were the best were in the era where they had the plain wood headstock (not the black one) and the older-style bridges that said Tobias on them.

 

[caesarbass]

I had a Basic 5 serial #642, Flame maple body, neck through maple/purple heart neck, Bart's with no lettering on them, I bought it brand new. The only reason I sold it was I didn't like the narrow string spacing anymore, other than that it was the "perfect" bass!!!!! The tone was KILLER!!!!!!
Now stop arguing and go play your basses!!!!!!

 

[Flintc]

For me, the Gibson-era ones that were the best were in the era where they had the plain wood headstock (not the black one)

We are fortunate that scubaduba posted such a fine picture of the headstock of a brand new Tobias. Even luckier that we can see the build quality in about as much detail as pictures permit.

All the newer ones I've played just don't cut it

And so we have an excellent opportunity to examine a bass that "just doesn't cut it". Indeed.

Diffidently, I suggest that maybe, just maybe, we have found someone for whom the evidence *does not matter*.

Now stop arguing and go play your basses!!!!!!

Some of us surely will. Others will play the *reputation* of their basses.

Today, I was calling around to see what kind of price I could get for a custom-order Tobias classic. And sure enough, I ran into one person whose attitude was "Why would you want one of those things? Why not by the "real" Tobias from MTD?"

I said, well, it's a possibility. How are they different? How do they feel? How does the sound compare? Turns out, he'd never played one. He admitted he was simply repeating what "everybody said". Uh huh. On the other hand, he did offer me a pretty good deal. I'm giving it some serious thought.

 

[CrashClint]

As it stands, I still would never buy a new Tobias, but wouldn't hesitate to buy an older (mid-late 90s) Gibson-era Tobias, as from all that I've owned and seen, they had the best woods and build quality. All the newer ones I've played just don't cut it, and I'd much rather own the older ones.

For me, the Gibson-era ones that were the best were in the era where they had the plain wood headstock (not the black one) and the older-style bridges that said Tobias on them.

Here is a picture of my 1992 Killer B #2372. It is built extremely well and sounds fantastic. The micro switch on this one is passive/active and not slap contour. Though it does have the black headstock, it has the bridge with Tobias. I would be hard pressed to ever part with this bass, IMO it sounds and plays better than any of the ones I have played in the last couple of years.

 

[Angus]

Nice! There is some range of years where they used black, went back to natural, and then back to black, and then again back to natural, and it's that middle period that I think were the best. If it has the black headstock and the older "Tobias" logo bridge, then it's off the very early Gibson-era where some were good and some were questionable.

 

[Angus]

We are fortunate that scubaduba posted such a fine picture of the headstock of a brand new Tobias. Even luckier that we can see the build quality in about as much detail as pictures permit.

And so we have an excellent opportunity to examine a bass that "just doesn't cut it". Indeed.

Diffidently, I suggest that maybe, just maybe, we have found someone for whom the evidence *does not matter*.

Sorry, build quality is not something you can scrutinize in a picture. Maybe for you, but I need to have the bass in my hands to do so. I would not call a picture of a bass definitive proof nor an excellent opportunity...just a picture. Lots of basses have fretwork that looks good in a picture. I certainly would not in any way indicate this as evidence.

Calling me the person for whom "the evidence does not matter" is a little ironic, isn't it? Besides the fact that I've played Tobias basses from every single era (very easily over 100) and have owned 7, you'd think I might be a bit more hopeful of a turnaround in quality given that they aren't offered anymore, right? Every time this discussion comes up, you come here and praise how amazing every single bass is, until someone (for example, Brad Johnson) comes along and says that they've witnessed crap, and then you say "well, there are a few, but they are exceptions!" and then more people come along, and it becomes "well, quality is sometimes an issue", etc etc. It repeats in every thread, too, and it obviously makes me wary of the veracity of posts concerning these basses. Besides that it is impossible for you from personal experience whether the quality issues are the exception or not, it also doesn't help that I don't know if my perception and understanding of "quality woods, materials and craftsmanship" is the same as yours. For all I know, you might settle or expect less than I do, which means that for the same bass your experience might be vastly different than mine. All of this, in turn, makes it very difficult to judge quality over the internet.

I know it sounds all well and good to play the witch hunt and denounce me as biased and all that, but it sounds a wee bit like the pot calling the kettle black, that's all. Well, that and perhaps I don't really think you've read what I said.

It's cool though, to each his own.

 

[CrashClint]

I understand what you are saying Angus. I am a flaw hawk, I will just about put a bass under a microscope. I have seen some quality issues, I remember a friend getting a 97' Zebra Wood Killer B and the control cavity cover was cut wrong and there were gaps where you could actually see inside the the control cavity and this was a brand new bass. I played a new Basic the other day and to me the craftmanship was really nice, what you would expect in an higher end bass. Granted it didn't compare to my Roscoe, but again it didn't cost as much either.

I am glad the Gibson is trying to fix production mistakes. I have always loved the feel and sound you can get from a Tobias, but they have a long road a head of them because of past issues and the Korean Tobias basses as well. Us guys who have been around awhile know the history have a skepticism to get past.

 

[Flintc]

angus:

Calling me the person for whom "the evidence does not matter" is a little ironic, isn't it?

You may be right. But just as I come across as a cheerleader with questionable ability to judge, I think you come across as someone who knows there are sure to be flaws, making these instruments real gambles.

For all I know, you might settle or expect less than I do, which means that for the same bass your experience might be vastly different than mine.

This is a good point, and nearly impossible to disentangle. Hard to distinguish the objective quality of an instrument from the subjective ability of that instrument to meet some personal measure of expectations. And in fact, I've met one person who finds Tobias quality to be dubious, has examined the Tobias bass I play most of the time, and finds it "not as good as <name brand>" despite not being able to find a single issue with it!

Perhaps for me, all these high-zoot basses are pearls before swine; I wouldn't be able to know this. I really don't know without physically handing you a bass and asking for your critical judgment. Yes, I have seen some some very poor Tobias basses from Gibson. I've also seen what I and others consider truly superior basses. So this leaves several possibilities:
1) Their quality is generally unexceptional, because their build processes are mediocre. The result is some real lemons, some fabulous instruments, and most of them are decent but overpriced.
2) Their processes are generally great but something somewhere is wrong (for example, bean counters shoving hurry-up basses out the door at EOQ). This would result in nearly every bass being excellent, and a few of them being just awful, not completed properly, or with glaring flaws.
3) A process that attempts to inspect quality in rather than build quality in. This can result in (for example) NC machines wandering out of calibration but continuing to be used until they're so far out of whack the basses start failing inspection. Then and only then is the offending machine tracked down and recalibrated. This can result in a run of basses, perhaps for a month or two, just out-of-fit (seams not exact, etc.)

I don't know. I doubt if Gibson would permit any factory tours and interviews. Maybe someday I'll test that guess.

Sorry, build quality is not something you can scrutinize in a picture. Maybe for you, but I need to have the bass in my hands to do so.

No, I think the pictures combined with the testimonial are about as meaningful as the medium here permits. As you say, it's very limited - glaring problems might show up, but subtle things would not.

I guess what matters here is, I would not hesistate to order a Tobias built by Gibson to meet my specifications, and you wouldn't take what you see as a far greater risk than I do. For all I know, the day may yet come when I'll do that and be obliged to admit you were right and I was wrong.

Us guys who have been around awhile know the history have a skepticism to get past.

This is what kind of honks me also. Gibson has GOT to know that they have serious reputation issues here. They desperately need to ramp up their visibility here, do some PR, get someone online in a hair shirt, try to mend a lot of fences. And instead, their customer support people didn't even know Gibson made Tobias basses. Kinda makes me want to order up while they seem to be on a roll, because Corporate Gibson is a bunch of arrogant folks deaf to their customers. For all I know, with this attitude, Gibson may once again have to eat their seed corn, and Tobias will once again fall on hard times.

 

[The Penguin]

For me, the Gibson-era ones that were the best were in the era where they had the plain wood headstock (not the black one) and the older-style bridges that said Tobias on them.

My '93 Killer B, first year Nashville, has a black headstock and the black Tobias bridge. My Renegade (Arkansas, late '90's?) has the maple headstock and cheapie bridge. Noted for the collectors

 

[CrashClint]

angus:

This is what kind of honks me also. Gibson has GOT to know that they have serious reputation issues here. They desperately need to ramp up their visibility here, do some PR, get someone online in a hair shirt, try to mend a lot of fences. And instead, their customer support people didn't even know Gibson made Tobias basses. Kinda makes me want to order up while they seem to be on a roll, because Corporate Gibson is a bunch of arrogant folks deaf to their customers. For all I know, with this attitude, Gibson may once again have to eat their seed corn, and Tobias will once again fall on hard times.

The customer support for Tobias when you call in is terrible. I just spent 35 minutes on the phone with them and the guy I spoke with was clueless. I have misplaced my Truss Rod Tool, so no problem, I will just call Gibson and order a new one, right? Well, I got put on hold and was disconnected, so I called back. The second person I talked to gave me a different number to call, which was a wrong number. I called Gibson back and someone finally told me that I would have to order the Truss Rod Tool through an Authorized Tobias Dealer. I called a dealer, come to find out since my Killer B is an earlier model, it uses a different size tool than the newer ones. Mike at Music City directed me to StewMac. StewMac said, just let us know the size of the truss rod and we can get it for you.

I have to give it up to Keith Roscoe, Mike Pedulla, Ken Smith, (Which I own basses) when you call them with questions you can normally talk to them right on the spot. I have never called Michael Tobias (I was looking at buying one of his basses), but he has personally answered my email question about his MTD basses from me within 24 hours. Maybe Gibson should let the new Tobias Basses operate as it's own entity so when you call and ask a question you can get hold of someone that knows their product through and through and can quickly discuss any issues you maybe having like the fine Luthiers I listed above.

I know, I should have never misplaced my truss rod tool. I will probably find it in my son's skateboard stuff.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Pre-Gibson refers to what crew was building the basses at the time. That's all. Onwership was not the issue. The only reason I can see to make it any more complicated than that is for laughs.

2044 was the last bass built by Mike and his crew. That doesn't mean that those basses were the last "parts" that Mike and the gang built. Mike and/or the people he oversaw built from serial #17X to 2044. Gibson took over production after that.

Too simple? Apparently. Magic? Obviously

I have numbers 179 and 308.

 

[Fealach]

To be fair, both Mike and Gibson have responded to my Emails with helpful information within 24 hours. Ok, so Mike was within 2 hours, but still...

My old Killer B had the plainest looking maple body you'll ever see. It looked unfinished. Black bridge, I can't remember if it said Tobias on it, and a black headstock. Played great and sounded great.

 

[vision]

I'll just chime in and say that I have played multiple Tobias basses from every era (pre-Gibson, pre-Nashville, Nashville, and Arkansas). There really is no difference between the pre-Gibson models and the pre-Nashville models that were built by Mike and his crew during Gibson ownership. The Gibson basses built during the 90's in Nashville were great basses, but a bit hit or miss. I have played some prefect basses from that period, and some that have issues. One key point is that these basses while keeping the same basic design were completely different from the previous era. Not better or worse, but different. The woods used are different, and the finish is completely different, as well as the Bartolini electronics. When talking about these basses, these differences NEED to be mentioned, because you're really comparing apples to oranges. The quality control thing is a completely separate issue from the fact that you're talking about different basses.

For my taste and my personal style, I actually like the Gibson 90's era basses more than the pre-Gibsons. (As long as we're talking about one of the GOOD ones.) The pre-Gibbys have a warmer, darker tone to them, while the Nashville Gibby's are a bit more bright. Of course the wood choices will vary this, but I've played enough of each to be able to make a general statement. My DREAM bass is a nice 90's era Gibson Tobias Classic 5 - that bass is just ME. I can definitely see why others with different tone preferences than me would prefer the pre-Gibby's, but I just want to point out that neither bass is "better" or "worse" when taking the poorly built basses out of the equation.

The Arkansas Tobias basses are once again completely different from the previous era. I have played 7 or 8 of these basses, mostly Classics with one Killer B and one Basic. The Killer B I played was great, really well made and well put together. ALL of the others, however, had serious quality control issues like warped necks, frets sticking out, visible glue, bad laminate jobs, etc. I've also noticed that the woods used in the current models are much more heavy than the previous eras. I'll also put out a disclaimer that the newest of these basses I've seen was from last fall, so I haven't been able to check out the most recent batches they've made. Hopefully the quality control issues have been worked out. I have absolutely no reason so bash the current line, I REALLY love Tobias basses and I would like to buy one, as long as my mind could be at ease that it wouldn't have issues. I just wanted to put in my experience with these basses - the quality control issues are NOT just rumors, I've experienced them first hand on over 80% of the basses I've checked out.

 

[The Penguin]

Pre-Gibson refers to what crew was building the basses at the time. That's all. Onwership was not the issue. The only reason I can see to make it any more complicated than that is for laughs.

2044 was the last bass built by Mike and his crew. That doesn't mean that those basses were the last "parts" that Mike and the gang built. Mike and/or the people he oversaw built from serial #17X to 2044. Gibson took over production after that.

Too simple? Apparently. Magic? Obviously

I have numbers 179 and 308.

Well if you go by what Mike Tobias writes on his site and not people who are afraid of the Gibson name pre Gibson refers to before Gibson bought the company.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

The Gibson Buyout...

After several attempts to move the business to larger, better equipped facilities, I sold Tobias Guitars to Gibson on 1/1/90. The first Tobias Gibson serial number was 1094. At that point, Gibson was instrumental in moving us to a bigger shop in Burbank and setting us up with a great spray booth and dust collection system. We finally met So Cal safety codes. Basses built during 1990-1992 era were built initially by the same crew that had helped establish Tobias Basses as one of the most sought after basses on the planet. We added several people during 1990 and ended up with a great 10-man shop.

Could it be any simpler than going by what Mike Tobias himself says? Note it's not even the same crew, they added a lot of people in the first year immediately after the Gibson buyout. It was not the same people doing the woodwork and finishing. Mike uses the term pre Gibson to refer to who owned the company, we can do that too.

By the way there was just a "pre Gibson" Growler on eBay It seems many people prefer the term for profit.