• 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.

WARWICK BASSES

#101
Mr.Ace said:
https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://reverb.com/item/7162903-usa-lakland-55-14-2017-candy-apple-red?_aid=fb-dpa-top&h=ATM7cmKQg3a4Wfm2DmwmtAtvdkRUd4LGolbNs72rmsR7KmQLfJCNuA6-WmoIBbXtvUfqIhtd2nh1oAiIz-FPnKWefDSGPQ7Jppp97njt8Ift8l79xYTXPVMOFMJ8AaBsBXYZy2oErh_ktHOdMycwuv4&enc=AZOSim0l9Dn0fhQGzy1V4ohTPDOfOdVbFs6Nfi7WqPu0DYYcIfsFpex5zkiHz4KqGtnkDAy53HY0tnAOFTkeq1xb7U_Nlh05hX9xm7-DTSYGaC-gX2OZBx7AO1y6Ye-9_vaRNoFkjEu-IEUX2diQyDGDQD_FBmihNcoFBoNK_bT8ICNblLBkEYlxtmyB8pMLwMUlo5SBGQsO0-wBQjY1sul1vDfhWevDZGN3l5zdLsVgVNHFb4477UoTIISUxYE_ODoykWqeniE7uesKZBqWdPE_KRxovIxgZm71qTNDl9aN6uqoIQgIKSfMIUuuJEKhqyx4uSfgsnXJiIVcc31y3Bya-HAj51YBEbBhs17LhaSrhxoGOsceAlvYl4vlI_f78bCrhuNOGEdZuyCldm6sXlaDMznO6NF0itygnUplv9XFwQ&s=1
Click to expand...

Lakland? Thanks but I went through quite a bit of effort to unload one of those! I'm interested in the Warwick for the tiny little body (and sound of course).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Ace
#102
I've owned three Warwicks long term: a 1991 Streamer Stage I 4, a 2003 Thumb BO 4 and a 2002 Thumb NT 5. I also owned two Thumb BO 5s for mere hours each. First thing about the Thumbs: they weighed a ton. Second thing about the Thumbs: their necks loved to dive. By far, the best of the three Warwicks I owned long-term was the Thumb BO. It was the best built and had the most even sound across the fretboard. The Thumb NT had the worst B string of any bass I've ever played (and was mud in the mix) and the Streamer had minor dead spots in various places on the neck. The Thumb BO had the most focused tone of the three and sat best in a mix. On the other hand, a friend of mine has numerous Warwicks dating back as far as the mid-80s and a couple of his Thumb NT 5s sound great. Regardless, I would never buy another Warwick new after what I experienced with Warwick's customer (non) support.
 
#103
Mr.Ace said:
https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://reverb.com/item/7162903-usa-lakland-55-14-2017-candy-apple-red?_aid=fb-dpa-top&h=ATM7cmKQg3a4Wfm2DmwmtAtvdkRUd4LGolbNs72rmsR7KmQLfJCNuA6-WmoIBbXtvUfqIhtd2nh1oAiIz-FPnKWefDSGPQ7Jppp97njt8Ift8l79xYTXPVMOFMJ8AaBsBXYZy2oErh_ktHOdMycwuv4&enc=AZOSim0l9Dn0fhQGzy1V4ohTPDOfOdVbFs6Nfi7WqPu0DYYcIfsFpex5zkiHz4KqGtnkDAy53HY0tnAOFTkeq1xb7U_Nlh05hX9xm7-DTSYGaC-gX2OZBx7AO1y6Ye-9_vaRNoFkjEu-IEUX2diQyDGDQD_FBmihNcoFBoNK_bT8ICNblLBkEYlxtmyB8pMLwMUlo5SBGQsO0-wBQjY1sul1vDfhWevDZGN3l5zdLsVgVNHFb4477UoTIISUxYE_ODoykWqeniE7uesKZBqWdPE_KRxovIxgZm71qTNDl9aN6uqoIQgIKSfMIUuuJEKhqyx4uSfgsnXJiIVcc31y3Bya-HAj51YBEbBhs17LhaSrhxoGOsceAlvYl4vlI_f78bCrhuNOGEdZuyCldm6sXlaDMznO6NF0itygnUplv9XFwQ&s=1
Click to expand...
This ones already sold, but my lakland 55-
InhumanResource said:
Lakland? Thanks but I went through quite a bit of effort to unload one of those! I'm interested in the Warwick for the tiny little body (and sound of course).
Click to expand...
I completely understand
 
  • Like
Reactions: InhumanResource
#104
bass12 said:
I've owned three Warwicks long term: a 1991 Streamer Stage I 4, a 2003 Thumb BO 4 and a 2002 Thumb NT 5. I also owned two Thumb BO 5s for mere hours each. First thing about the Thumbs: they weighed a ton. Second thing about the Thumbs: their necks loved to dive. By far, the best of the three Warwicks I owned long-term was the Thumb BO. It was the best built and had the most even sound across the fretboard. The Thumb NT had the worst B string of any bass I've ever played (and was mud in the mix) and the Streamer had minor dead spots in various places on the neck. The Thumb BO had the most focused tone of the three and sat best in a mix. On the other hand, a friend of mine has numerous Warwicks dating back as far as the mid-80s and a couple of his Thumb NT 5s sound great. Regardless, I would never buy another Warwick new after what I experienced with Warwick's customer (non) support.
Click to expand...


That's strange you mention the b string cause both of my thumb nt basses have super tight focused b strings that are tuned down to A. No flop, no flub, tight concise focused lows that punch through the mix live or in the studio. I've heard some years are different. You mentioned it was brand new? I have an 04 and 89 thumb nt. Both when set up right have really tight b strings even tuned to A.

I ask because a lot of people love their b strings on the nt's. Just curious cause it seems I run in to a few who have had some different experiences (some negative issues with their cs).
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Nameless
#105
Mastodon2 said:
Still sounds like a Thumb to me - the 6s don't seem to growl quite like the 5s (as I mentioned in my post the slanted J pickups close to the bridge are a big part of the sound imo) but it still has that fundamental low mid sound the Thumb is famous for, most noticeable in the low notes in that video. The one in that video did sound comparatively tame and neutral compared. but a Thumb is a Thumb.
Click to expand...

It is me playing in that vid ... and tame and neutral compared to which video ???
 
#107
FNHScar17s said:
That's strange you mention the b string cause both of my thumb nt basses have super tight focused b strings that are tuned down to A. No flop, no flub, tight concise focused lows that punch through the mix live or in the studio. I've heard some years are different. You mentioned it was brand new? I have an 04 and 89 thumb nt. Both when set up right have really tight b strings even tuned to A.

I ask because a lot of people love their b strings on the nt's. Just curious cause it seems I run in to a few who have had some different experiences (some negative issues with their cs).
Click to expand...
Yes, I bought it new. I had to order it from a local distributor and I just assumed it would be a great instrument. It was pretty much a lemon. My friend's Thumbs are much better sounding instruments. Moral is that it's always best to try a bass before buying if possible, because you never know. :)
 
#110
bass12 said:
Yes, I bought it new. I had to order it from a local distributor and I just assumed it would be a great instrument. It was pretty much a lemon. My friend's Thumbs are much better sounding instruments. Moral is that it's always best to try a bass before buying if possible, because you never know. :)
Click to expand...
I bought a Corvette $$ at a great price because it had been sitting around at Bass Northwest for a while. It had a dead spot on the G string 7th fret (which may be why it wasn't selling). It's a great bass otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TolerancEJ
#112
Altitude said:
To my eyes, Warwicks make more of a visual statement than is fashionable right now. Garish designs, the wood-wood-wood look that @Paulabass mentioned earlier, the deliberately hi-fi tone, it all says "Arsenio Hall Show" to me. Not saying a given person should avoid owning a Warwick if they like them, just saying that it is sort of a "look at me" choice.

I did notice Stu Hamm playing a green one in the Zoom B3n video below. Apart from being, well, green, it sounds great and is a bit more understated.

Click to expand...



On the first point, I love beautiful boutique basses.

On the second, I perhaps wasn't surprised to see Stuart Hamm go to Warwick basses since they seem to be on a mission at the moment to pick up as many pro players as possible, but I have found the sound of his Streamer a little disappointing.

Let me rewind - I've been a massive fan of Stuart Hamm since I was 15. I bought two Kubicki Ex Factors because of what I had seen and heard Stu do with them. I loved the sound of his Urge II basses. I saw him play live with his OB1 5 string Urge II and it was an incredible sound. Even his Washburn sounded great, despite my surprise that he had parted way with Fender.

The Warwick doesn't sound so good to my ears. I've not heard it live so maybe I haven't had the full trouser-flapping power of it.
 
#113
Mr.Ace said:
For me the corvette basses just sound way to aggressive. The thumb sounds nean and growly, but still some how sweet.
Click to expand...
My opinion would be just the opposite. My Thumb 5NT is pretty much a 1 trick pony, and that trick is aggressive, punch you in the gut, grit! My Corvette standard is much more versatile. The $$ is more like the Thumb. Its the placement of the pickups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Ace
#114
Funkabilly said:
My opinion would be just the opposite. My Thumb 5NT is pretty much a 1 trick pony, and that trick is aggressive, punch you in the gut, grit! My Corvette standard is much more versatile. The $$ is more like the Thumb. Its the placement of the pickups.
Click to expand...
I just have a different opinion as well.

Granted there are a lot of variables. I think the Thumb NT is really in your face, but when I can to the neck pickup with the bass turned up and the treble and mids rolled down, I think you can get a very good what I consider R&B thud. I also assume with the standard corvette, you are referring to the active version. I really like the sound and feel of them, but the passive version is much less versatile. Of course the $$ has a lot more options regarding electronic settings, but I still prefer the sound of the Thumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Ace
#115
ficelles said:
With all due respect to Warwick, if I were spending $3k on a new bass it would not be on a Warwick. I’ve owned several and they are great basses, but their availability makes them a better buy used than new. If you’re saving for something special it could be more special if you see what I mean...
Click to expand...

Having said all that I bought myself a Warwick :) Nowhere near $3k or even $1k though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveCS, Trouztrouz and TolerancEJ
#116
ficelles said:
Having said all that I bought myself a Warwick :) Nowhere near $3k or even $1k though...
Click to expand...

Looks like a long-lost cousin of mine...
DSC_0005_9.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: ficelles
#119
bass12 said:
I've owned three Warwicks long term: a 1991 Streamer Stage I 4, a 2003 Thumb BO 4 and a 2002 Thumb NT 5. I also owned two Thumb BO 5s for mere hours each. First thing about the Thumbs: they weighed a ton. Second thing about the Thumbs: their necks loved to dive. By far, the best of the three Warwicks I owned long-term was the Thumb BO. It was the best built and had the most even sound across the fretboard. The Thumb NT had the worst B string of any bass I've ever played (and was mud in the mix) and the Streamer had minor dead spots in various places on the neck. The Thumb BO had the most focused tone of the three and sat best in a mix. On the other hand, a friend of mine has numerous Warwicks dating back as far as the mid-80s and a couple of his Thumb NT 5s sound great. Regardless, I would never buy another Warwick new after what I experienced with Warwick's customer (non) support.
Click to expand...
Warwick has customer support? I have a master built instrument and they can't even answer a shaging email. I just assumed they don't have such a department.
(edit: someone replaced my word with 'shagging' ... my word)
 
#120
Paulabass said:
A woman's perspective on a lot of Warwicks. The ovancol, bubinga, wenge comb.
They're really brown. You look left, you see brown, you look right...more brown. Brown everywhere. Soooo much brown. If they could make brown chrome...
Beautiful if you like brown, or giant dog turds.
Nice basses.
Click to expand...

I :poop:'d myself laughing....soooo much brown. :laugh:
There are exceptions:
Warwick CV TSB front close 2.jpg Warwick CV TSB back close.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back