• 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.

Warwicks: really old vs. kinda old

K-Funk

K-Funk

Sep 24, 2007
1,182
21
Auburn Hills, MI
#1
When it comes to Warwick era arguments, the whole "pre-98 vs. post-98" debate seems to get beat to death, as does the wenge vs. ovangkol debate. My question is a little different.

Are there any remarkable differences between the really early Warwicks (say, from the company's founding until about 1992), and the "middle-era" Warwicks (from 1992 to the ovangkol/mass production switchover in 1998/1999)? I'm mainly interested in differences in quality. The oldest ones had some oddball features like sculpted headstocks and dot inlays, but beyond that, any differences or superiorities?

Any other differences within the company itself between these two eras would be cool to know as well. Or are they in fact one single "era", with the next true "era" beginning with in 1998?
 
#3
It's hard to say - I own a 90' thumb (bought in 90) and I owned a 91 Dolphin 5 (bought in '92) which I sold a few years back. But I've never owned a newer one so I can't say with certainty - I have noticed that the new ones feel "different" and sort of "rough" in comparison to my Thumb which I know very very well. The older ones sort play themselves in my opinion - you put your fingers on the bass and it just makes good sounds no matter what you do, while the newer ones seem to be just like any other instrument. It's too bad that there was a change in quality and we can't get the same instrument that I fell in love with in the late 80's and eventually bought.

In my opinion, the only "real" warwicks are the streamer I and II, the thumb, and the original dolphin - as soon as they started introducing these less expensive models - fortress, masterman, etc, I lost interest in those. But that's just an opinion, and not a particularly insightful one at that, since I've never spent a lot of time with a newer warwick, having not owned one.
 
#5
bluegreenturtle said:
It's hard to say - I own a 90' thumb (bought in 90) and I owned a 91 Dolphin 5 (bought in '92) which I sold a few years back. But I've never owned a newer one so I can't say with certainty - I have noticed that the new ones feel "different" and sort of "rough" in comparison to my Thumb which I know very very well. The older ones sort play themselves in my opinion - you put your fingers on the bass and it just makes good sounds no matter what you do, while the newer ones seem to be just like any other instrument. It's too bad that there was a change in quality and we can't get the same instrument that I fell in love with in the late 80's and eventually bought.

In my opinion, the only "real" warwicks are the streamer I and II, the thumb, and the original dolphin - as soon as they started introducing these less expensive models - fortress, masterman, etc, I lost interest in those. But that's just an opinion, and not a particularly insightful one at that, since I've never spent a lot of time with a newer warwick, having not owned one.
Click to expand...

The Streamer isn't even a Warwick.....it's a ripped off Spector. :hiding::hiding:
 
#7
I had one of the neckthru Thumbs back in the early 90s. I always thought that it was too darn heavy. Thanks to the short horn I found it rather hard to reach the first few frets without too much strain and I thought that the neck was too fat for my taste.

But besides those few niggles I loved it to bits.
 
#9
I`m no expert but initially (till early 90`s) they were built by hand. I remember that some stock models came with different pickups (Barts, EMG) in the early years. Now they only use MEC or eventually SD Bassline.
 
#10
I own a 94 fortress as well as an 01 'i believe' infinity. To be honest, the construction on both basses are very different and it's hard to say which is 'better'.

the fortress has highs to the point where i really need to back them down in the mix. the infinity is more rounded, full, warmer, and IMO, more responsive.. then again the fortress needs some tlc

killer tone from both. i prefer the fortress live and the infinity in the studio.
 
#12
I have a 99 Corvette Standard 6 string and a 2006 of the same. The 99 has the wenge neck and Seymour Duncan Basslines soapbars. The wenge neck profiles are slimmer than the ovankol necks and as such shave about 6 ounces off the total weight.

But I've gotta say that the joinery on both instruments are identical. Totally top-notch. The hardware is almost identical as well with the 99 seeming to have aged to a satiny finish-not sure if they were originally this way.

I think the wenge neck may have had some hand finishing whereas the 06 seems to have more CNC work.

I don't notice that much of a sound difference. I'm gonna fly in the face of popular opinion and say that the late model Warwicks are just as top notch-albeit with a few different features and production methods-as the earlier ones.

I think we should designate the following:
The Golden Age - up to 1992
The Silver Age - 1993-1998
The Bronze Age- 1999-present

And based on the fact that most models are super cheap on the used market , one can't go wrong with an instrument from any "era."

Perhaps the earliest models have some extra mojo due to all of the work being done by hand, but I'm happy with them all.

Just my two cents...:D
 
#14
K-Funk said:
Yeah, I was mainly interested in the difference between what you designated as the Golden Age and the Silver Age. I think the "Golden Age" basses used a 2-band EQ and an unusual trussrod, didn't they?
Click to expand...

I believe you`re right.
For example, early SS II came with 2band EQ and I`m 100% sure that (at least) from 1998 they have 3band EQ.
 
#15
My 1996 Thumb NT4 has a 3-band, but it also has 18V electronics. The "Golden Age" Wicks also used a one-way removeable trussrod, whereas those from the middle and latest eras have better double-expanding trussrods and steel supports.

So, to recap, construction is of equal greatness between the early and middle eras, with the only advantage of the eldest Wicks being mojo? I would imagine the middle era to be a little more consistent as well, due to the minor time-consuming tasks going to machines...
 
#17
i had '90 thumb 6 and '89 tumb 4 fretless nt's.
these had 2 band eq's with barts.
the main difference for me is the neck, especially at 1st position.
on the newer models the necks are much fatter, and have that huge chunk of wood at the back of the headstock/ neck area.
the older necks were much more comfotable(to me, anyway), definitely
not fat or chunky, with a smooth transition at the back of the headstock.
i would imagine the extra in the new models is for reinforcement.
 
#18
The back of the headstock on the older-older ones will also have routes around the tuners. Trimming a bit of fat back there. I've known a few 90's and pre-90's, and although each feel a little different, and inconsistent (thumbs from the same year), I'm still itching for one. Oh, and that would be with EMGs, not the MECs which I believe replaced the EMGs around 92, if my memory is correct.
 
#19
My '87 Streamer is nothing like later models - one piece bridge, cherry body, almost entirely wenge skinny neck, EMG pickups, righteous tone. Quality-wise I think the basses are much of a muchness until the shift to ovangkol necks, but I do prefer the sound and feel of this Streamer to the later Stage I and II basses. Those who play it usually comment that it's the best Warwick they've ever played. (Amazingly my RIM Custom 5 is even better, but that's another story!)

Alex

P.S. Edit: The stock preamp is rubbish - bypass it and feed the EMGs 18V and then go through passive electronics or a nice preamp (OBP-3 in mine) and the bass will sound much better in every way.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back