• 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.

#162
karl_em_all said:
I have a '13 4003 Ric and if the older models sound better I'd love to play one. Chances are they'd probably just be different.
Click to expand...

I've owned 2 4003's from the 2000's, one 4004, and a '72ish 4001 and the 4001 is the one I miss. I can't say "better", except in my opinion i greatly preferred flats, the badass that was modified into it, and perhaps for some the brass nut (which some would argue completely changed the tone..lol).
 
#163
king_biscuit said:
I'm not insulting you by stating that you are arguing from an egocentric perspective, any more than you are insulting me be demanding that "vintage" instruments (of which i own a few) are a "scam." If you have a rebuttal to my post then make it, but please spare the self riotousness!
Click to expand...

I find it kind of ironic you're arguing that a critic of spending $8k on one that is $800 despite receiving objective information that would show a bit of foolishness is the egocentric one. Seems that an egocentric would be one who denies facts and over-consumes - i.e. someone who over-spends on a vintage instrument instead of putting the money somewhere more fruitful .
 
#164
jstar said:
I'm also a carpenter, and the adage "They don't make them like they used to" is true there too. Old houses are a nightmare of crappy construction and take tons of money to bring up to modern standards. They last cause people spend tons to keep them looking original.
Click to expand...

Up here in the rust belt, two things happened - rich people built brick Greek Revivals, Art Decos, and Victorians and poor immigrants moved into clapboard housing built in a few days to accommodate the rapid growth of industry in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The former have been restored in a myriad of ways (in my town, many of the old mansions are offices, cafes, stores, and apartments). The latter (my parents live in one of these shoddy houses built in 1890) were built not with lifespan in mind but with quick utility. My parents' house has an old nasty fusebox, no basement, a terribly leaky roof and has been added on twice. The walls are poorly insulated and they were pre-electric and internet so the wires are nasty; the walls are just what we called "firring strips" at the lumberyard.

In contrast, when you look at New England cities and towns you find the housing is mostly brick and has existed for hundreds of years with little upkeep. The "old world" way of construction.

The crappy junk that was born was born out of quick utility. Not unlike what Fender did in the late 60's through the early 80's.
 
#165
michael_atw said:
I find it kind of ironic you're arguing that a critic of spending $8k on one that is $800 despite receiving objective information that would show a bit of foolishness is the egocentric one. Seems that an egocentric would be one who denies facts and over-consumes.
Click to expand...

Selfishness and egocentricity are not the same. An egocentric person is one who (in part) is unable to fully understand or to cope with other people's opinions. Mongo thinks people who buy vintage instruments are foolish because he doesn't see intrinsic value/attraction in them. No different than me stating you are foolish if you like mayonnaise just because I can't stand it.

Is anyone who buys Levis over wallmart Wranglers foolish? The objective quality in the two is the same, and the Levis are not inherently better than the Wranglers; the Wranglers are certainly cheaper. I'm sure you could come up with example after example of this sort of thing. People don't consume strictly based on utilitarian reasoning and usefulness -- this is not limited to the vintage guitar market. Frankly I'm a bit shocked so many people are having trouble with this.
 
#167
mongo2 said:
Now all those Fenders "born out of quick utility" are considered "vintage" instruments and therefore deemed worthy of elevated prices by sellers.
Click to expand...

The first issues of Batman and Action Comics were printed on newsprint quality cheap paper designed to be read and discarded. And yet they now sell for elevated prices too. You can not use an argument of utilitarian usefulness alone to explain the collectable market.
 
#168
king_biscuit said:
Selfishness and egocentricity are not the same. An egocentric person is one who (in part) is unable to fully understand or to cope with other people's opinions. Mongo thinks people who buy vintage instruments are foolish because he doesn't see intrinsic value/attraction in them. No different than me stating you are foolish if you like mayonnaise just because I can't stand it.

Is anyone who buys Levis over wallmart Wranglers foolish? The objective quality in the two is the same, and the Levis are not inherently better than the Wranglers; the Wranglers are certainly cheaper. I'm sure you could come up with example after example of this sort of thing. People don't consume strictly based on utilitarian reasoning and usefulness -- this is not limited to the vintage guitar market. Frankly I'm a bit shocked so many people are having trouble with this.
Click to expand...

Good point. I suppose it's like art collection of any sort. Originals are more valued than copies.
 
#169
To attempt a friendlier tact, I read something somewhat related to the topic in The Fender Bass Handbook by Paul Balmer - insights by Carol Kaye. She's talking about her basses back from '64-'73. (mostly new Fender P's and a old beat-up modded Dano 6 string) For the Fenders, she never replaced strings, stating she simply didn't have time. Instead, every 2 years, she'd replace the bass. "I merely ran into a music store on a break, handed in my old bass, and quickly picked out a new Fender Precision, and so every two years I had new strings!" That implies at least 6 different new basses when her playing helped create gold numerous times. (over 10,000 record dates) Said she never kept any of them - they were tools of the trade. She did state that '… the one I used in the mid-1970's was the best one for quality." She now plays an Ibanez. (I'm guessing it's fairly new) ;)
 
#170
king_biscuit said:
Selfishness and egocentricity are not the same. An egocentric person is one who (in part) is unable to fully understand or to cope with other people's opinions. Mongo thinks people who buy vintage instruments are foolish because he doesn't see intrinsic value/attraction in them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#173
I just like instruments from an era when the whole world was looking to get their hands on a quality American guitar. Now an American guitar is just another choice. It's easy to look at vintage basses now against the 1000s of other brands out there and say, "there's nothing special about them". But when these vintage basses came out, there were no better electric bass offerings in the world. And I if want to obtain a few guitars from America's "golden age" of guitar making, why do you have such a mission to make sure I know that you don't think they sound or play better?

And what does "sound better" even mean.. better than what? Every single other bass that's ever been made? That's a ridiculous notion that can never be proven or disproven. There is only, "I like the tone" or "I don't like the tone" - vintage or new. In fact I see it as a big waste of time to argue about something so intangible. It's like a my "Dad can beat up your Dad" argument in the sandbox.

I can't tell a $10,000 bottle of wine from a $10 bottle (not kidding), but I don't go around to everyone I know with a wine cellar and tell them they're vintage wine isn't any better. Not only would they not invite me back to their home, but it would just make me look ignorant to them - whether I believe I'm right or wrong. :rollno:
 
#174
smcd said:
TB is a discussion forum. If you don't want your parade rained on, then it's probably not a good idea to post.


Regardless, I don't see much raining on parades on TB. People who post NBD threads get nice pats on the back. Almost no one says "your bass sucks" in those threads. But if you're going to express your opinion on a subject, expect responses that don't necessarily agree with yours.
Click to expand...

You completely missed the point. It's not about disagreeing, it's about being an a-hole while you are disagreeing.
 
#175
There's a term people use to describe certain individuals who deliberately try to offend and irritate others, because they feed off the reaction.
They cannot be reasoned with, no matter how you try.

The only solution is to not engage them.
 
#176
thebrian said:
I can't tell a $10,000 bottle of wine from a $10 bottle (not kidding), but I don't go around to everyone I know with a wine cellar and tell them they're vintage wine isn't any better. Not only would they not invite me back to their home, but it would just make me look ignorant to them - whether I believe I'm right or wrong. :rollno:
Click to expand...

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.
 
#177
In ALL cases regardless if we are talking about the original violin article or the electric bass, something has set a bench mark. Be it a Stradivarius or a Fender, over time a bar was set. Construction techniques and materials that worked well were continued to be used and the ones that needed improvement all sorts of experimentation was done. And the craft is further honed.

Folks that are in the "new is better camp" still use the vintage as the benchmark, i.e. I have a new Pbass and it plays every bit as well as my PreCBS P Bass or better. The "Vintage camp" from what I'm reading isn't saying older is always better I think they are saying we are the benchmark prove to me you are better.

At the end of the day we all want to play an instrument that inspires us, feels good under our fingers and sounds good to our ears. Of course through these developments there are many instruments that are built today specifically to surpass the original.

Some do some don't and most of the time we don't agree on which ones.
 
#178
peterpalmieri said:
Folks that are in the "new is better camp" still use the vintage as the benchmark,
Click to expand...

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.
 
#179
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.
 
#180
smcd said:
People like vintage instruments for 3 reasons:

1. Nostalgia - some people want a guitar from the days when they were a kid. Either that or they want a guitar like their favorite old guy used to play.

2. Fun - people like old stuff. Cars, for example. A 2014 Dodge Challenger will smoke a 1970 Challenger in every way. Yet people will pay a LOT more money to own that old, slower car. Same with everything else.

3. Fantasy - some people think that certain old guitars were made with love by caring artisans using magic pixie wood. They think that these old guitars are "special", though that term really applies to those who believe this kind of thing.


It's not a big secret. Articles debunking the vintage myth aren't exposing anything that a rational person didn't already know.
Click to expand...

+1 And don't get some of those guys talking about "old growth" trees according to some nature stop producing decent trees after the 60's :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back