Vintage vs new.

[Son of Wobble]

If people like older instruments, that's perfectly fine with me. I think it's just like collecting something, it's all about what someone else will pay for them. Luckily for me, some discontinued Ibanez basses don't demand too high a price and are pretty sweet instruments (scored my MIJ '93 SR800 for ~$179!!). For some people that's a total waste of money, but I love playing them. Taste in tone and feel is so subjective, it's hard to even compare new instruments...let alone vintage ones to new ones.

You are in the sweet spot for a collector, where your fetish object is absolutely affordable. Enjoy!
Anyone remember the rock critic Richard Meltzer? He wrote a hilarious satire on his collection of bottle caps, which were either roadside finds or stolen right off the necks of chilled bottles inside the old school dispensers. Metlzer discusses "cap collecting" in a way that makes one realize all the fetishistic behaviors of the collector can be directed toward any totemic object; the collectible is irrelevant, it is the mental process that is important and which needs to be serviced. So if you are getting it for cheap or for free, all's the better.

 

[The Bass Clef]

Your faux-disarming admission of ignorance about wine is a actually a rhetorical attempt to imply that Mongo2 is similarly ignorant about vintage Fenders, and just shooting his mouth off. This is in fact not true, Mongo know lots about basses.
And this we know cause Mongo always shoot his mouth off!

I do not believe anyone said - Mongo2 included - that a specific old bass cannot sound "better than." Rather, we took exception to the idea that all old basses sound inherently "better." To revisit your wine analogy, basses do not necessarily improve and mature with age. That is the contra argument here, rather than you being foolish to pay big bucks for a vintage bass. Obviously, if you choose to pay way over market then the purchase is a loser when viewed as "investment." But I personally enjoy indulging a more romantic view of instruments, and can embrace the idea that one's love for a particular guitar could be so strong as to transcend considerations of profit and loss. In fact, the idea that there is "the" guitar out there awaiting you is as alluring as the notion of romantic love. And if you guys are like me, you have gotten through some tough times simply by fantasizing about guitars. These sustaining dreams and fantasies are in fact the very manure with which musical accomplishments are grown. So if it helps you to imagine your bass as excalibur, more power to you. U2's Adam Clayton imagined his first bass as a "sword and shield," and the dream carried him pretty far.

Sure a guitar is just a plank with wires, but by focusing our minds on these tools, by creating with them and dreaming and fantasizing about them, we imbue them with greater meaning. It enriches the flavor of living to romanticize things thusly.

But hey, that doesn't make any of it true.

I didn't direct my post at Mongo. But I read a lot of posts on here assuming that vintage people all think their basses are better just because they're old. I don't know a lot of vintage players or collectors that actually feel that way (myself included).. and I don't really see that notion posted on talkbass nearly as much as it's made out to be.. once in a while a noob will and they get squashed pretty quickly.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Not all.

I don't care when an instrument was made. I consider each and every instrument I audition to be an exercise in discovery of what I can do that particular instrument when I play it. Simple.

I don't care where it's from, who made it, what color it is, when it was made or any other such criteria. To me it's an instrument that I'm discovering for the first time and I evaluate it on it's own merits. It's fun. There are few that I buy and many more I put back on the wall.

That would seem a bit silly to me. On one hand you have a process which makes it sound very academic where you audition an instrument which is an exercise in discovery.

But then you have no bench mark, you only evaluate this bass on it's own merits. You don't compare it to previous instruments you've played or listened to recordings of?

Also you don't care who, when or why it was made which in theory is very objective but then you also lose any ability to qualify why you like or dislike it.

Sounds a lot like the violin article where she found the instrument she wants to buy and it's the cheaper one but the folks conducting the test won't give her any details on who made it.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I didn't direct my post at Mongo. But I read a lot of posts on here assuming that vintage people all think their basses are better just because they're old. I don't know a lot of vintage players or collectors that actually feel that way (myself included).. and I don't really see that notion posted on talkbass nearly as much as it's made out to be.. once in a while a noob will and they get squashed pretty quickly.

Well if you don't think that the vintage bass is sonically better, then you are tacitly admitting that you are paying a premium for a patina and a pedigree? Just curious...

As for the "benchmark" argument expounded earlier, I will admit to being in the extreme middle. Fender P bass circa early 60's is my personal benchmark and ideal -- but I find my recently constructed '57 and '62 AVRIs more than sufficient in terms of build, aesthetics, wiring and sonic goodness. I have been recording both and can not imagine how either could sound any better, save for a better operator.

But I do love a good patina!

 

[mongo2]

That would seem a bit silly to me. On one hand you have a process which makes it sound very academic where you audition an instrument which is an exercise in discovery.

But then you have no bench mark, you only evaluate this bass on it's own merits. You don't compare it to previous instruments you've played or listened to recordings of?

That's correct, the best way I can explain is I simply react to the instrument.

Also you don't care who, when or why it was made which in theory is very objective but then you also lose any ability to qualify why you like or dislike it.

I can easily determine whether I like an instrument or not and it has nothing to do with any of those criteria.

Responses in bold.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Well if you don't think that the vintage bass is sonically better, then you are tacitly admitting that you are paying a premium for a patina and a pedigree? Just curious...

As for the "benchmark" argument expounded earlier, I will admit to being in the extreme middle. Fender P bass circa early 60's is my personal benchmark and ideal -- but I find my recently constructed '57 and '62 AVRIs more than sufficient in terms of build, aesthetics, wiring and sonic goodness. I have been recording both and can not imagine how either could sound any better, save for a better operator.

But I do love a good patina!

I'm with you I recently got a American Vintage '64 jazz bass and while it's still early I am very impressed with it thus far.

 

[mongo2]

As for the "benchmark" argument expounded earlier, I will admit to being in the extreme middle. Fender P bass circa early 60's is my personal benchmark and ideal

Interesting, I have no benchmark per se so I just react the instrument I'm playing. It's served me well for all these decades. Do you actually recall the tone of a particular P bass when you audition an instrument?

--But I do love a good patina!

I like it too but I don't let it get in the way of an evaluation

.

 

[FFTT]

Link Removed

Just in case you didn't catch it before, the writer of the article
I posted earlier said most of the information he posted came from Seymour Duncan.

A man who apparently has no idea what he's talking about
in regards to Fender Guitars and Pickups or why vintage pickups sound so good.

No where did I say there aren't some very nice modern basses, I simply haven't needed one.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Responses in bold.

I considered a well thought out reply but then I just simply reacted to your response.

 

[Son of Wobble]

.

I am loathe to wrangle with you at all on this Mongo -- it is like being lured into a knife fight with a Filipino street hustler in that I am sure to be cut to ribbons.

Regardless, I did NOT mean to suggest I weigh each bass I pick up against some sonic ideal… Rather, I was simply admitting to a "bias" in that "P bass" is the benchmark from my adolescence, and my rough renderings of it adorned countless Pee Chee folders.

As to ideal tone? Hmmm, when I see an Esperanza Spalding play, I realize I have no genius for the instrument. I am a pretender by comparison. So who would I be pontificate on ultimate tone?

But I can say that they tracks I made of my P bass sound SWEET. In part because I made sure to leave sonic space for the bass in the mixes. This is more important than ever in this age of mp3 played through mobile phone speakers. This point I can assert with confidence, if not authority…As for the rest, I definitely demur!

 

[The Bass Clef]

Well if you don't think that the vintage bass is sonically better, then you are tacitly admitting that you are paying a premium for a patina and a pedigree? Just curious...

As for the "benchmark" argument expounded earlier, I will admit to being in the extreme middle. Fender P bass circa early 60's is my personal benchmark and ideal -- but I find my recently constructed '57 and '62 AVRIs more than sufficient in terms of build, aesthetics, wiring and sonic goodness. I have been recording both and can not imagine how either could sound any better, save for a better operator.

But I do love a good patina!

I feel that my vintage and my newer basses are all sonically better than average - the average vintage bass or modern bass. They all have really good tone, regardless of age. The patina is cool and all, but I have MJT relics that look pretty darn cool too and cost a fracion. I do like the pedigree and history, and that is something I will pay a little extra for (and that's also because it'll hold its value if I resell it). But I don't pay a premium for my basses, I am patient and seek out the right bass at the right price.

The one thing that attracts me to vintage basses more than anything else though, is the feel of the necks! The reissues don't recreate the feel of the rolled binding-into-rolled frets that my '69 Jazz has. And there's something about the profile, the look and feel of the Brazilian rosewood board, and the feel of the worn finish on the back of the neck of my '61 P that the reissues and relics don't quite have. The relics' necks may even feel 95% as good, but like all things of quality, that last 5% always cost more than the first 95%.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I feel that my vintage and my newer basses are all sonically better than average - the average vintage bass or modern bass. They all have really good tone, regardless of age. The patina is cool and all, but I have MJT relics that look pretty darn cool too and cost a fracion. I do like the pedigree and history, and that is something I will pay a little extra for (and that's also because it'll hold its value if I resell it). But I don't pay a premium for my basses, I am patient and seek out the right bass at the right price.

The one thing that attracts me to vintage basses more than anything else though, is the feel of the necks! The reissues don't recreate the feel of the rolled binding-into-rolled frets that my '69 Jazz has. And there's something about the profile, the look and feel of the Brazilian rosewood board, and the feel of the worn finish on the back of the neck of my '61 P that the reissues and relics don't quite have. The relics' necks may even feel 95% as good, but like all things of quality, that last 5% always cost more than the first 95%.

Fair enough, thanks for elaborating!

 

[king_biscuit]

LOL...Your continuing attempts to denigrate me simply negates your argument so by all means, please continue. Your ad hominem remarks don't prove me wrong and the fact that you feel the need to stoop to such tactics works to support my position, thank you.

Response not in bold.



Next you should try feigning offense to avoid logic. Oh wait...


Let me clear this up:

Mongo demands that vintage instrument buyers/owners are being scammed, presumably out of feeble mindedness.

KB demands that Mongo is evaluating the vintage market based on his own self-styled criteria and refusing to consider other criteria that may motivate a vintage buyer/owner -- thereby pronouncing Mongo's "reasoning/position" egocentric.

Mongo has nothing left to say on the matter so he pretends to be offended and wilts away.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Well, this apparently has gotten emotional.

I do have a thought: Is not calling something that is old "Vintage" imply something that might not be true? Not all old wine is, in the traditional sense, "vintage" - which really means that some vintages are vinegar. So too with old musical instruments.

So let's start a thread called "old basses versus new". That might be more meaningful - and accurate.

 

[Sputnik Monroe]

Hahaha ... I like that

At 60 I'm the youngest member of my band ...
I'm the one who is "Vintage" when I bought my P bass and J bass
they were just "used" basses at used rather than vintage prices.

 

[FFTT]

Same here.

Brand new '66 Hofner 501 $99.00 in Germany purchased by mom for my 14th D-Day
Used '64 Jazz Bass $250.00 in 1973
Bought & Re-Sold 72 Rickenbacker 4001 with hash mark binding for $450.00
My most expensive bass was the USA Schecter PJ in 1979 for $1600.00

'93 Strat Plus with Gold Lace Sensors, my #1 guitar about $800.00
2005 Ibanez AF105NT $629.00 with case.
'85 Les Paul Studio Standard Dot, fully bound with Shaw PAF's for $1,200.00
2005 Larrivee P-10 Quilted Mahogany Parlor $1599.00

$12,000.00 in new and vintage hand wired amps since 2006.
purchased by working many many hours of overtime.

Geeze Like The Wind!

 

[mongo2]

I am loathe to wrangle with you at all on this Mongo -- it is like being lured into a knife fight with a Filipino street hustler in that I am sure to be cut to ribbons.

LOL...that may be due to my Viking ancestry

Regardless, I did NOT mean to suggest I weigh each bass I pick up against some sonic ideal… Rather, I was simply admitting to a "bias" in that "P bass" is the benchmark from my adolescence, and my rough renderings of it adorned countless Pee Chee folders.

As to ideal tone? Hmmm, when I see an Esperanza Spalding play, I realize I have no genius for the instrument. I am a pretender by comparison. So who would I be pontificate on ultimate tone?

But I can say that they tracks I made of my P bass sound SWEET. In part because I made sure to leave sonic space for the bass in the mixes. This is more important than ever in this age of mp3 played through mobile phone speakers. This point I can assert with confidence, if not authority…As for the rest, I definitely demur!

Nothing wrong with a good P bass, no matter when it was made.

.

 

[mongo2]

Response not in bold.



Next you should try feigning offense to avoid logic. Oh wait...


Let me clear this up:

Mongo demands that vintage instrument buyers/owners are being scammed, presumably out of feeble mindedness.

Why do you presume that? Do you feel feeble minded for buying one? Like I have said here before I own and use several vintage instruments.

KB demands that Mongo is evaluating the vintage market based on his own self-styled criteria and refusing to consider other criteria that may motivate a vintage buyer/owner -- thereby pronouncing Mongo's "reasoning/position" egocentric.

Mongo has nothing left to say on the matter so he pretends to be offended and wilts away.

LOL...Your continuing attempts to denigrate me say much more about you than they do about me. However, it's very entertaining to watch you try.

I haven't gone anywhere, but I do have other things to do besides watch your antics. For instance, this afternoon I finished building another EUB.

 

[Canadian APII]

in my opinion it is just tone difference and is a personal preference. Each tone has it's own place.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Anyone who denies the obvious truth of the vintage scam isn't paying enough attention to what they are hearing. Once the skill of critical listening is learned it's very obvious.

Dude, you're just another human with an opinion.

The fact that vintage marketers are full of BS does not change the possibility that vintage instruments might sound slightly different than modern ones. Your utter conviction that you know the truth is nothing more than proof of your bias.