Warwick corvette FNA - slim neck?!?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by complexprocess, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. I played a warwick for the first time today. It was a used Corvette FNA. It had a bolt on neck and a single MM style pickup. According to warwick's site, this model is out of production. I picked it up mostly for a laugh, because I expected some unwieldly canoe shaped neck or a six string neck with four strings on it, thanks to all the slandering I've read here on the forums. :)

    Much to my suprise, however, the neck wasn't difficult to manage at all. Not to different in shape or girth from my Dean Edge. I didn't measure, but the width at the nut was pretty small, and on the bridge end the string spacing seemed a little on the tight side of average (the way I like it).

    My question is, are all warwick necks roughly the same dimensions, or were the corvette FNAs just particularly slim in the neck department? Could it have been just this one?

    This particular bass seemed pricey for the condition, but I deffinately see a warwick purchase in the (distant) future if others feel the same.
  2. I have been saying this for ages, warwicks have nice necks. Mine has a slim neck.
  3. Ralphdaddy

    Ralphdaddy Supporting Member

    Nov 6, 2003
    Chicago, Illinois
    All Warwick bolt on necks are the exact same, from the cheapest corvette to the Thumb BO, no difference. But I too find them very comfortable.
  4. silky smoove

    silky smoove Supporting Member

    May 19, 2004
    Seattle, WA
    My '97 Corvette has one of the slimmest necks I've ever played. Noticeably slimmer than a Fender Jazz, and just about on par with the slimmer Ibanez necks.
  5. the_faceless666


    Mar 3, 2003
    In fact, my Peavey Grind BXP as a VERY slim neck....
    It's the thinnest neck I,ve played....
  6. HeavyDuty

    HeavyDuty Supporting Curmudgeon Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Jun 26, 2000
    Suburban Chicago, IL
    I have a '98 FNA, and I think the neck feels almost identical to my Steinberger XM2A - maybe even a tad thinner front to back. I find it to be very playable.
  7. Glad to hear it. Some time I'll have to find a Warwick dealer and look at all the different choices. Nice to hear that your steinberger is comparable, Heavy. That's another one that I'd like to check out.
  8. MohawkHarry


    May 21, 2000
    I had the FNA 4 string and for some reason the bass hurt my fret hand and caused all sorts of cramps that I dont get with my other basses.
    Maybe it was the stretch? Mine also had the frets slightly hanging out so it had the sharp sawtooth feeling along the bottom side of the neck.
    One other thing that bugged me was the truss rod needed tweeking monthly if not bi-weekly. I guess you will have that with raw unfineshed woods.
    On the good side the bass looked awesome.
  9. Z-Bass

    Z-Bass Supporting Member

    Apr 22, 2004
    Pittsburgh, PA
    The exact wrong reason to buy one. It should come down to whether or not it feels good to you, not what the rest of us think.

    Either case when you try it out again, make sure you play it not only sitting but with a strap and standing. Like previously noted, they do feel a bit different than more traditional styled designs. Good luck!
  10. A/B any pre '98 Warwick(wenge) vs post '98(ovangkol); IMO oven-fresh mom-made fudge brownie vs sun dried dog poo.
  11. MohawkHarry


    May 21, 2000
    That could be the thing mine was the ovangkol model and I think it was the stretch while standing to play lower notes that caused the cramping.
    What would be cool is a Warwick FNA with Dingwall afterburner fret job!
  12. HeavyDuty

    HeavyDuty Supporting Curmudgeon Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Jun 26, 2000
    Suburban Chicago, IL
    Hmmm. Mine's a transitional '98, with a Wenge neck and a Just-A-Nut II.
  13. Adam Barkley

    Adam Barkley Mayday!

    Aug 26, 2003
    Jackson, MS
    The Warwicks I have compared like that were all great basses, Post-98 basses included. Maybe you just played some stinkers.

    If I were to buy another Warwick; fit, finish, and tone would be way more important than Wenge vs. Ovangkol.
  14. Disclaimer:This is all opinion- my 1st 'real' bass was a '98 Thumb 4 bolt on. Loved it. Wish I kept it. When I went 5 string, I assumed a Thumb 5 was what I wanted. Not. Went through 10 or 12 (lost count) Warwicks, as well as Pedulla, Musicman, Yamaha & others in search of playability comparable to that #1 Thumb. I wanted badly to like all Warwicks, & still pretty much do, I just have never been impressed with any ovangkol necked ones. My 5 now is a passive Fender Jazz, which I don't care for that much, but sound guys as well as non-musicians love. It's like a homely girlfriend who really loves you & cooks good.
  15. Maybe I should say pre 97, & of course fit, construction etc. should cancel out my all rambling.
  16. I have my warwick F.N.A. Jazzman 5 now for more then 2 years.

    The bass before was a Ibanez SGR 600, an el cheapo 4 string.
    This F.N.A. is awesome !!! It took me a few weeks to get the feel, cauz the neck is way thicker (is that english ? :D opposite of thin) then the neck of the SGR...

    Even with my very small fingers, it's very playable !!
  17. milo


    Jul 22, 2004
    me and my friend went in guitar shop one day to see what they have from warwick.
    there were 1 thumb BO , 2 corvettes, ans a lot of rockbass corvetts.
    first thing that my friend (guitar player) noticed was that THUMB have thicker neck than other warwicks.
    it looked and feeled like old FENDER precision neck.
    other vettes had more like ibanez thickness.

    WHY? :meh:
  18. Sorry, you must have misunderstood. I wasn't asking if I should buy this particular bass. It was in rough condition and overpriced. My question was whether I could expect other warwicks to feel the same, or if I just happened to find the one warwick with a slim neck. The reason I asked is because it was the only warwick I've ever seen in the state of Vermont (on stage or in a store). If I can expect other's to feel similar (turns out I can from what I've been hearing) it might be worth seeking out a warwick dealer out of state. Otherwise, not.

    Thanks for the advice on playing positions. When I tried to play this one standing up I noticed it was missing a strap button, so no dice. :)
  19. HamOnTheCob

    HamOnTheCob Jacob Moore Supporting Member

    Nov 21, 2004
    Cambridge, Ohio, USA
    Endorsing Artist for Warwick Basses, Mesa Engineering, Joyo Technology, Dr. J Pedals, and Levy's Leathers
    That year has no significance in terms of neck material whatsoever. The neck change occurred some time in late 98. Around 97, though, they did switch the nut from brass to wilferite.

    Around 91 or so, they started angling the tuners. This is also when they introduced their patented electronics cavity cover. They also began installing recessed straplocks on their basses.

    Around 95/96 they changed from handmaking the bodies to machine making them. They also changed the trussrod system around that time, as well as the trussrod cover (from regular style to the easy-access type they use now). I had a 95 Corvette and a 96, with noticably different procedures used to make the bodies and trussrods. I also had a 94 Thumb BO 5 and I currently have a 98 Thumb BO 6, with the same obvious differences in production.

    I've had 2 1998s with Wenge necks. And one of them had a brass nut still. I've also seen basses as new as 2002 with wenge necks. They didn't change from wenge to ovankol until mid 98. And even after that, they could still be ordered with a wenge neck. And the brass nut is still available as well. Sometime in 98, around the time they switched to ovankol necks I'd imagine, they also switched from the recessed straplocks back to standard strap buttons (huge downgrade, IMO).

    Judging a Warwick solely on being "pre" whatever year is silly. I think the wenge neck is far superior to the ovankol neck, but that's not to say a wenge neck from 96 is any better than one made today. I happen to prefer the wilferite nut over the brass nut, also. This isn't an objective argument. It's a subjective argument. Sure, I would agree that older Warwicks are better than newer ones, but it's a combination of things. I'd rather have a Warwick from around 93/94 than one from the 1980s. The design and production of Warwicks, IMO, was the best in the early/mid 90s. Prior to that time, some design issues still needed smoothing out, and after that time, as I mentioned, they became machine-produced and such. This is all subjective, though. If it plays well and sounds good, who cares what year it was made or how?

    Also, as someone else mentioned, not all Warwick necks are to the same specs. Thumb BO necks are much fatter than Corvette necks, for instance. And Streamer LX necks are somewhere in the middle.
  20. I had 2 FNA's not too long ago. One had a wenge neck, the other ovangkol. One was natural, the other was gloss sunburst. I switched necks...huge difference. The gloss, originally with wenge, sounded much growlier and had more bite; the natural gained some oomph. Therefore, I cannot agree with the assessment above that the wenge necks are superior hands-down. My current Warwick is a FNA Jazzman 2002 Ltd; ovangkol neck, and I love it.