• 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.

Vintage vs new.

#281
peledog said:
To me 'vintage' still holds a nostalgic connotation when it comes to electric instruments. There's a vast difference time-wise between classical and electric instruments. Maybe in 250 years, there will be a test comparing new basses with 60s/70s era basses.

In the meantime, to me, it's more hype and an inflated market for collectors. I buy basses to play, for the most part, and resale value doesn't affect purchase decisions. However, given the opportunity to buy a late 60s/early 70s Jazz - I would do it.

Great article and the NPR link was very eye opening as well.
Click to expand...

agree - At least for Fender, it's no exaggeration to say the '46-'70 period was "the golden age" for that company. The instruments they produced then are on all the great songs of that period for the most part. That's a cold fact. How commerce distorts (everything) is unfortunate at it's base (no pun intended) when considering a vintage instruments "worth". Whether you were fortunate to get one before the market sunk in it's fangs, (or even better bought it new and still have it) or you can justify a market price for one now - it's between you and (______) and frankly my dear, why should anyone give a damb (otherwise).
 
#282
king_biscuit said:
I do not believe that the only criteria, or even the main criteria, considered when buying a vintage guitar/bass, is playability and sound. In large part, people are buying them for the same reasons people buy old comics, stamps, coins, etc., and those reasons are not solely based on utility. With the logic expressed in this thread, someone is being scammed when they buy a collectible stamp, because the face value is less than the price paid by the collector.
Click to expand...

If one asked the forum, "why do you own a vintage bass?" very few would say, "because I like to see it as a wall hanger". It's very clear most covet or own them on this forum because they believe they have superior characteristics - i.e. the "sound" and "feel". One can read through and find that argument in this very thread and others numerously. I don't use the term "scammed" - I use the phrase, "flushing money down the toilet". Then again, I don't collect anything, my money works harder in the stock market.

I prefer at this point to buy a $750 modern bass that sounds as good, if not better, than a $3000 60's or 70's Fender. Looks just as good, feels just as good. Made in the same factory process they've pulled since the early 60's. With the difference, I put some in stocks or pay off some debt. Logic is recognizing that bias is a faulty way to make decisions. Especially sensory bias. Even if I wanted that "vintage tone", 80-90% of it is in the pickups and electronics and one can acquire those for 1/4 the price of the vintage instrument. People are buying 70's Fenders because they believe the sound is superior. Or merely because they are old. Not because Leo Fender touched them because he was long gone. Not because of scatterwound pickups because they were long gone.

So if ____ buys it because of superior sound - he is quite probably wrong. If he buys it because it's quality is higher - probably wrong. If he buys it because it is old - he's a dolt. I can see if it is first-run or first issue as there is an inherent uniqueness to that (like the comic books you mentioned), but they were at serial 500000 in the mid 70's. Far from first run.
 
#283
BassHappy said:
I must say, I applaud (actually standingly ovate) your intelligence, optimism and heroic actions in your honest and noble attempt to rescue this thread - but I fear that your musings are way too rational and common sensical to be able to gain any traction...
Click to expand...


BassHappy said:
I have always felt, and I still believe - that the process of the wood aging over many, MANY years seasons it - in a sort of an indescribable way - and that the natural aging of the wood is what creates the true magic.

I personally don't think the bass needs to look like it was dragged by a tow truck and played for a gazillion hours in order to be deemed "the holy grail". I think the organic and natural aging of the wood tells the tale.

Every time I pick up my older instruments - they only seem to sound better.

Just my two cents.

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
Click to expand...

I applaud your ability to equate "rational" with terms like "felt", "believe", and "indescribable".

The term rational implies facts and logic - and feelings, beliefs, and immeasurable adjectives are antonyms of such a thing.
 
#284
michael_atw said:
If one asked the forum, "why do you own a vintage bass?" very few would say, "because I like to see it as a wall hanger". It's very clear most covet or own them on this forum because they believe they have superior characteristics - i.e. the "sound" and "feel".
Click to expand...

Whether they admit it or not is irrelevant. Do you really think anyone believes a 20k custom color stack knob sounds 19k better than a new Jazz bass? Also, the fact the people will pay a premium for all kinds of things that can't possibly affect sound or playability, like color, original finish, original pickguards, tuners, cases, etc., proves that the value of these instruments includes more than just utility as musical instruments.
 
#286
Talking about the last 70's tone. What about the London Calling, JJ Burnel tone?
I've read many times it is attributed the super heavy 77-79 P-bass.
I've played a few of these basses and they are often 10 to 11 lbs and the workmanship on them is generally pretty bad. However they had that hard hitting, compressed tone.
Could a 60's P-bass duplicate that tone?
 
#287
Laurent said:
Talking about the last 70's tone. What about the London Calling, JJ Burnel tone?
I've read many times it is attributed the super heavy 77-79 P-bass.
I've played a few of these basses and they are often 10 to 11 lbs and the workmanship on them is generally pretty bad. However they had that hard hitting, compressed tone.
Could a 60's P-bass duplicate that tone?
Click to expand...

I know TB member Narud swears by the tone his heavy '70s Fenders - to the point that I think he only plays boat anchors. So I'll bet a lot of JJs tone does come from the heavy ash body. I've owned a few heavy '70s Fenders too, and while they sounded good, the weight wasn't worth any tone difference to me because I inherited my old man's bad back! And lucky for me, I actually prefer the tone of my much lighter basses anyways (9 lbs. is my limit and 8 lbs. is $$$$ for me). So, I think there are great sounding light and heavy basses out there (and not so great ones too). Maybe a '60s bass could duplicate the tone of a heavy '70s, but it would have to be on an bass by bass basis I think. Lol, that sounded funny.
 
#289
michael_atw said:
I applaud your ability to equate "rational" with terms like "felt", "believe", and "indescribable".

The term rational implies facts and logic - and feelings, beliefs, and immeasurable adjectives are antonyms of such a thing.
Click to expand...

Hello Michael

Well, thanks so much for the applause, but it probably wasn't necessary.

Yes, it IS true, some of us actually THINK and FEEL about a subject and are able to express both nearly simultaneously.

Nice to see that you are focusing so hard on the subject matter at hand - and contributing your awesome wit and wisdom accordingly.

:hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper:

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
 
#290
karl_em_all said:
Would it be fair to say that the experience gained in instrument building over the past 40years or so would result in a finished product today that would be an improvement over what came before (say a 60's Fender compared to it's modern version)?
Click to expand...

There are many "improvements" built into modern Fenders: higher mass bridges, stiffening rods in the neck, lightweight tuners, poly finish instead of nitro. Older Fenders had Brazilian rosewood fingerboards, newer Fenders don't. And one big-name luthier (can't find the reference right now so I won't name names) has said that the available supply of one or more common tonewoods is heavier today than it was decades ago.

Even vintage Fenders differ: the pre-CBS and transition basses were relatively lightweight, then in the 70's, Fender jumped onto the "heavier is better" bandwagon along with Gibson and others.

Then there's aging: exactly no one knows for certain whether the tone of wood changes or remains the same over time. Pickup magnets might age as well.

Given all of the above, this is a perfectly valid debate. It is reasonable to argue that old Fenders sound different than modern versions because so much is different. OTOH it's also reasonable to argue that all these changes don't matter, tone-wise, but even so, a better comparison would be pre-CBS vintage vs. vintage reissue, because the reissues are built more closely to vintage spec.


Jefff said:
I like basses that play well and sound good.

I don't really care when or where they were made.
Click to expand...

Sure, me too. The nicest sounding P-bass I've ever played is my 2005 Sadowsky NYC P5... but that's irrelevant, it sounds significantly different than a Fender even in passive mode.

Even though non-Fenders are now my thing, I still enjoy the thought experiment about whether those old Fenders could sound different (I deliberately avoid saying "better/worse").

I see no way of resolving this scientifically... I suppose it could be done, but the logistics and expense would be ridiculous.
 
#291
Fuzzbass said:
I see no way of resolving this scientifically... I suppose it could be done, but the logistics and expense would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not really. All someone needs is recording equipment, an old bass, and a new one. People have done sound comparison experiments on here and I'm sure at some point someone did one of this ilk.

Or, someone can merely publicly demonstrate a blind test and see what people say. Like Coke vs. Pepsi.
 
#292
BassHappy said:
Hello Michael

Well, thanks so much for the applause, but it probably wasn't necessary.

Yes, it IS true, some of us actually THINK and FEEL about a subject and are able to express both nearly simultaneously.

Nice to see that you are focusing so hard on the subject matter at hand - and contributing your awesome wit and wisdom accordingly.

:hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper:

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
Click to expand...

You have strange responses to posts. Rational is not "think" and "feel" - and in the topic of 'vintage vs. new' those terms distort.
 
#293
michael_atw said:
Not really. All someone needs is recording equipment, an old bass, and a new one. People have done sound comparison experiments on here and I'm sure at some point someone did one of this ilk.
Click to expand...

You'll need far more rigid and elaborate methodology than that for too many reasons to list, which will be readily apparent if you apply your obvious intellect and healthy skepticism to the problem.
 
#294
Why not try to arrange a test at some of these Talk Bass GTG'ers?

There are plenty of owners on here with incredible vintage basses ranging from mid 50's, through the mid 60's & tons of 70's & up.

Why not try to pull off a blind test, an audio/recording test, Etc?

I'd be really curious what the results would end up being!

I think my 62 would trump the new stuff, but admit that all that confidence could easily be fueled by the mental factors that make these pre CBS basses Collectable. So I'd really be curious if there's actually something to it.
 
#295
1SHOT1HIT said:
Why not try to arrange a test at some of these Talk Bass GTG'ers?

There are plenty of owners on here with incredible vintage basses ranging from mid 50's, through the mid 60's & tons of 70's & up.

Why not try to pull off a blind test, an audio/recording test, Etc?

I'd be really curious what the results would end up being!

I think my 62 would trump the new stuff, but admit that all that confidence could easily be fueled by the mental factors that make these pre CBS basses Collectable. So I'd really be curious if there's actually something to it.
Click to expand...

This is a spectacular idea - and if you ended up using Jazz Basses you could include, long, medium and short scale basses as well from Fender Japan:

BassComparison.jpg


Make sure the electronics are stock Fender - Just string em up with identical strings, use the same signal path and let her rip.

Would be a beautiful thing to know - both vintage vs. new and the impact of scale length on tone under a microscope~

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net
 
#297
michael_atw said:
If one asked the forum, "why do you own a vintage bass?" very few would say, "because I like to see it as a wall hanger". It's very clear most covet or own them on this forum because they believe they have superior characteristics - i.e. the "sound" and "feel". One can read through and find that argument in this very thread and others numerously. I don't use the term "scammed" - I use the phrase, "flushing money down the toilet". Then again, I don't collect anything, my money works harder in the stock market.

I prefer at this point to buy a $750 modern bass that sounds as good, if not better, than a $3000 60's or 70's Fender. Looks just as good, feels just as good. Made in the same factory process they've pulled since the early 60's. With the difference, I put some in stocks or pay off some debt. Logic is recognizing that bias is a faulty way to make decisions. Especially sensory bias. Even if I wanted that "vintage tone", 80-90% of it is in the pickups and electronics and one can acquire those for 1/4 the price of the vintage instrument. People are buying 70's Fenders because they believe the sound is superior. Or merely because they are old. Not because Leo Fender touched them because he was long gone. Not because of scatterwound pickups because they were long gone.

So if ____ buys it because of superior sound - he is quite probably wrong. If he buys it because it's quality is higher - probably wrong. If he buys it because it is old - he's a dolt. I can see if it is first-run or first issue as there is an inherent uniqueness to that (like the comic books you mentioned), but they were at serial 500000 in the mid 70's. Far from first run.
Click to expand...

Some of us do like old stuff for its own sake. Better to be a dolt than a smug know-it-all- but that's just my opinion.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back