Vintage Old Fender - I don't get it.

[Jim Carr]

...My 62 was very much worth every hard earned dollar I paid for it...
One thing I can say with absolute certainty, there is NOT a newer bass owned on this entire site that can match mine with both quality, & affordability...

Best investment I EVER made. Something about it being a 62 made it worth every Penny I spent...

Investment? OK, sure. But, I spent way less for my '55. It cost me $240 in 1973. That's about $1200 in 2012 USD. Since it has been appraised at over $8k, a 600% appreciation, do I win a pony?

 

[bh2]

My 62 Jazz cost me £250 in '75.

I've since almost destroyed it, it was a wreck when I got it, still recently valued at around 4K.

My 2002 MIM P cost £250 in 2008.

Ponies galore!

 

[southshoreconor]

i have a 78 P bass, and a Memphis "lawsuit" era P. out of the half dozen basses i own, nothing sits in my left hand as perfectly as those two necks.

 

[Jim Carr]

My 62 Jazz cost me £250 in '75.

My 2002 MIM P cost £250 in 2008.

Ponies galore!

But did they throw in the Unicorn, too?

 

[bass71]

Comparing oranges to limes a little here, but a few days ago I was entrusted by a friend to shape up an all-original 68-69 Jazz he's owned for 30 years. It sounded fine. But it has a huge compound bow in the neck that you can't fully straighten out with the truss rod, so above the 12th fret you get almost nothing. I managed to massage it into better playability with a shim that allowed all but a couple of notes on the D string to ring. In addition to that, the neck pocket was OK but there was a significant overhang beyond the treble side of the neck, something that I would NEVER tolerate on a new instrument.

And there is somebody out there ready to pay many thousands of dollars for this instrument, which definitely is good sounding, but will also demand compromises from whomever buys it.

I feel very fortunate not to care that much.

Never understood the neck pocket thing.

The four screws exert a huge mechanical connection between body and neck and the mechanical interface between the sides of the neck and body is of no consequence at all.

My 71 P has a huge gap between neck and body and sounds fabulously woody and well P bassish..lol

 

[mongo2]

Never understood the neck pocket thing.

The four screws exert a huge mechanical connection between body and neck and the mechanical interface between the sides of the neck and body is of no consequence at all.

True. I've made experimental basses without neck pockets at all and they work just as well as those with neck pockets. I've also installed Mustang RI and Bronco necks on P and J bass bodies which leaves a sizeable gap at the sides of the neck pocket, again no difference in tone quality or sustain, but the dead spots vanished when using the shorter scale necks.

 

[Nobody]

I realized something about the vintage Fender craze that I really appreciate. People love those old fenders which is cool. But not everyone can afford to have one so they get new or newer cheaper ones which is cool too. This means that vintage Fenders, new Fenders and used but not vintage Fenders are very popular. In fact they are the most popular basses out there.
This is great news for me. I think Fenders are cool enough and they are iconic but I'm not really a Fender kinda guy. Sorry but I am just not. So why is this good news to me? Well since Fender is so popular other companies have to actually try to put out basses to compete with these iconic instruments. These other companies either have to make clones to compete or they have to try something different. This is where I come in. I'm one of those "other guys" that actually like the "different" basses.
Ibanez has it's Sound Gear line of basses that has been pretty successful with folks like me. I never paid much attention to them because I thought they looked a little too plain(a shallow reason, I know). But then they came out with the SRX line and I said "What's this? I should try one of these." After a while of looking at them on the interwebz I put a bid in on an SRX700 on ebay but was out bid. I ended up with something else. A few years later I got an SRX300 in a trade and fell in love with the neck and the sound was right up my alley. I also got some money in that trade and ended up buying an SRX400 and it was awesome! I always wanted a neck-thru(yeah I'm one of those guys too ) so when Ibanez decided to get rid of the SRX line in the U.S.(probably because they weren't as popular as their other attempts to compete for market share with Fender) Musicians Friend was selling SRX690s for $350! that's half off! I sold my SRX300 and 400 and got one. It's AWESOME(to me)! 5 piece maple/walnut neck, awesome bridge, awesome pups beautiful finish, great playability, and it is an antacid. When I pick it up and play it I'm satisfied = no gas. They say that to be poor and content is to be rich enough. Well I'm pretty content with my poor little cheap Ibanez.
Since most people desire Fenders it keep the prices high on them and drives the prices down on the off brands for the rest of us. The whole vintage Fender thing? I get it and I've come to really appreciate it. Thanks guys!

 

[dkelley]

Never understood the neck pocket thing.

The four screws exert a huge mechanical connection between body and neck and the mechanical interface between the sides of the neck and body is of no consequence at all.

My 71 P has a huge gap between neck and body and sounds fabulously woody and well P bassish..lol

Yea... There is a lot of physics that is disregarded in assumptions made without knowledge. I've found pocket tightness makes little if any difference. I assumed it would matter some, but instead the alignment of how you bolt it on matters far more to tone.

 

[Nobody]

My bass doesn't even have a neck pocket, just the way I like it.

 

[Stone Soup]

but instead the alignment of how you bolt it on matters far more to tone.

nah.

 

[_asdfgh_]

Vintage amps and effects unusually hate because they are so noisy (the ones I can afford at least).

I've had a couple of vintage amps in my time and they sounded great. No noise. Just too heavy. Oh, and the first one caught fire on stage whilst I was playing. That was... interesting. Wonderfully warm yet clean, though. Just in that case, too warm, it would seem.

I'll add a P.S. that whilst they sounded warmer than the solid state gear I had at the time (Trace Elliot) I now have a Warwick amp that if I were to A-B it with certainly one of the old tube amps I could prefer. I wouldn't be able to tell without a proper test as I could be biased. But the Warwick gets at the very least most of the sound for 30% of the weight. The other tube amp had a significantly different voicing to the Warwick, so not a fair comparison.

Getting off topic from basses, though.

 

[_asdfgh_]

My 62 Jazz cost me £250 in '75.

I've since almost destroyed it, it was a wreck when I got it, still recently valued at around 4K.

My 2002 MIM P cost £250 in 2008.

Ponies galore!

Throw in inflation and £250 in 1975 must be the equivalent of about £750 in 2002.

 

[_asdfgh_]

Nope...I've already said the old and new instruments were mostly average with some good and some stinkers. They all need to be evaluated on their own merits and not just assumed that because one is old or new that it's inherently better.

The ones from 50 years ago that were stinkers probably ended up as firewood about 40 years ago.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivec...uble-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad

 

[taurus1]

in my entire life, after decades of playing, I've not once ever heard of a musician "scrapping" or giving up on a bass or guitar, because it was unplayable junk.
I own a dozen Fender basses and have played many, mostly 70's and up, not one was unplayable junk.
most people that tried to play Stevie Ray Vaughans no.1 Strat got stopped in their tracks, nobody could play that thing but himself. it wasn't because it was junk, he just liked really huge strings and high action.
I've heard this about lots of famous players instruments, unplayable to some, magical in the hands of the owner.
so once again, we get to read that, "most Fenders of that era were junk or firewood, some were ok".
you just gotta love Talkbass.

 

[michaelandrew]

A local music store (Ottawa, Canada) had a Michael Manring clinic (incredible, BTW) recently and they had a '63 Fender P on a hanger. The thing looked like it had been shot at and hit - made a stark contrast with the Zon basses that MM was playing. At $8500.00 it was more mojo than I could handle so I decided to leave it there for a collector to enjoy.

 

[MegaSwing]

Never understood the neck pocket thing.

The four screws exert a huge mechanical connection between body and neck and the mechanical interface between the sides of the neck and body is of no consequence at all.

My 71 P has a huge gap between neck and body and sounds fabulously woody and well P bassish..lol

It just looks a little raggedy and unkempt for a precision crafted instrument of the time. I'm aware that the sound is the sound regardless. But I am a little surprised that this one got out of the factory with such poor cosmetics.

 

[1SHOT1HIT]

^^^REALLY likes unicorn farts and anal belches.

Yes REALLY! This is the Internet, I wouldn't steer you wrong here.

 

[1SHOT1HIT]

Investment? OK, sure. But, I spent way less for my '55. It cost me $240 in 1973. That's about $1200 in 2012 USD. Since it has been appraised at over $8k, a 600% appreciation, do I win a pony?

No.....you can't win, because you still spent almost 3 times my price of $100 IN 2012 for my 62, and that's still only $100 in 2012 money.
Now.....kindly give me my pony back.

 

[mongo2]

It just looks a little raggedy and unkempt for a precision crafted instrument of the time. I'm aware that the sound is the sound regardless. But I am a little surprised that this one got out of the factory with such poor cosmetics.

I'm not, IME, it's quite common for the era.

 

[Jim Carr]

No.....you can't win, because you still spent almost 3 times my price of $100 IN 2012 for my 62, and that's still only $100 in 2012 money.
Now.....kindly give me my pony back.

Oh yeah, well I paid for mine with bar gigs that were paying $500 for 5 nights (in 1973). That's $2625 a week in 2012 money. Try finding such a gig now. They grew on trees back then—and the drinking age was 18. Oh the humanity!

But you can have yer pony back 'cause I am nice, just follow the road apples...