• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why are older basses "coveted"???

Junkers like 1960s Kay and Epiphone did the same thing over the last 7-8 years.
Epiphones in the 60’s were not junk, they were Gibson counterparts, and aimed at specific markets. By the early 70’s, however, the original operation was shut down, folded into Gibson, but the brand name was kept and applied to some miserable and fugly budget models(the ‘Melody Maker’ name, Gibson’s original student/budget line, was retired). This all happening while Gibson proper came up with some real attrocities. I finally came to grips with playing guitar, and received a new J-50 acoustic for my birthday in 1973. Utter plastic junk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5StringBlues
Epiphones in the 60’s were not junk, they were Gibson counterparts, and aimed at specific markets. By the early 70’s, however, the original operation was shut down, folded into Gibson, but the brand name was kept and applied to some miserable and fugly budget models(the ‘Melody Maker’ name, Gibson’s original student/budget line, was retired). This all happening while Gibson proper came up with some real attrocities. I finally came to grips with playing guitar, and received a new J-50 acoustic for my birthday in 1973. Utter plastic junk.
I can attest with authority that the '71 Epiphones were total junk. I had one as my starter bass, replaced it with the Rick after less than a year. It would not hold tuning and played like junk, plus it was heavy.
 
Junkers like 1960s Kay and Epiphone did the same thing over the last 7-8 years.
Some later Kay import models were not great but their 50s and 60s American made instruments were very good. I have two late 50s Kay basses that are excellent.
IMG_5387.webp
IMG_1756.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5StringBlues
There is no argument on THAT front. However, the "general affordability" of everything in general relative to income was MUCH better and continued through the 70's into the 80's when fiances got tougher and tougher for indificuals and families... in spite of inflation being a major concern of the 70s (remember Whip Inflation Now?).

For reference, I have a mere "music ed" degree, but with that, my first house cost approximately 2.5x my annual salary (wife never worked once we had kids and it was all on me). Life wasn't "easy", but it wasn't nearly as stressful as it is today. When I upsized my home 7 years later, my next house was about 3x my salary. Compared to what it costs our kids today, people with master's and doctoral degrees, BOTH spouses HAVE to work and the homes they purchased are 4-5x their COMBINED income. The same thing can be cited when purchasing cars back then. With a modest one-income salary, we got a new car every three years, though admittedly cars back then didn't last 10 years and went to the wrecker at 100,000 miles.

I dunno... Things today are complicated and IMO kind of a mess and really difficult to compare things from different eras because there are more facets involved pertaining to "affordability". JMO
There isn't a mess regarding the straight-forward recognition that specifically Fender musical instruments cost significantly more in the 1960s-1980s, adjusted for inflation. It's actually a miracle Fender isn't charging $3000+ for their flagship standard models; the reason being off-shoring of some aspects of American production (hardware) coupled with a flood of softwood models.

I could go into a dissertation about the macroeconomic issues regarding American (and world) interest rates, housing construction cycles, loss of manufacturing, paper wealth, consolidation, monoeconomics, resource depletion, etc. but it is beyond the confines of this specific thread.
 
Last edited: