No, not at all.
Check out the grain on my TRB6II. The unusual grain pattern just adds to the character of the bass. I absolutely love it.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Would this grain mismatch bother you?
- Thread starter fourstringbliss
- Start date
Check out the grain on my TRB6II. The unusual grain pattern just adds to the character of the bass. I absolutely love it.
Roasted maple neck with roasted maple fretboard.
This I for sure like because it's unique, and a fretless as well.
Last edited:
My thing has always been, how does the neck feel, and how does it sound to you?
Unless I have the chance to peruse multiple basses like in a shop to pick from, then looks could also be a factor. Shipped to me, I go with my two criteria at the top. If those are good for me it's a keeper. There would have to be some damage or some additional unsightliness more than this to make me send it back. Like a big knot in the middle of it. Even then, if it looked interesting enough it might add to me keeping it
Last edited:
I have a feeling that my opinion of the bass may be different if I could actually see it in person. It actually looks better just seeing the photo rotated to horizontal. The back looks OK to me. My initial negative reaction to the looks of the bass may also include the whole over-all design not being attractive to me.
The photos I posted above of my Am Dlx don't do the actual instrument justice compared to looking at it in person, so the bass in question here may be something I could live with.
Like a friend of mine once said, (back in our young days right around closing time). "The ugly ones need lovin' too you know".
Also. Isn't there a TB rule against calling a bass ugly? I seem to recall a member, (was it Mr M. from Florida who used to post a lot in the Portaflex Owners Club thread) may have been publicly reprimanded for doing so? Something about how the looks of a certain bass reminded him of a toilet seat.
The photos I posted above of my Am Dlx don't do the actual instrument justice compared to looking at it in person, so the bass in question here may be something I could live with.
Like a friend of mine once said, (back in our young days right around closing time). "The ugly ones need lovin' too you know".
Also. Isn't there a TB rule against calling a bass ugly? I seem to recall a member, (was it Mr M. from Florida who used to post a lot in the Portaflex Owners Club thread) may have been publicly reprimanded for doing so? Something about how the looks of a certain bass reminded him of a toilet seat.
Last edited:
not on a fretless....if the neck worked for me i couldn't care less about that beautiful grain matchup. on a fretted? i'd have to burn it!
- Apr 18, 2008
- 16,007
- 1
- 31,705
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
My take is “embrace the difference” if you like the sound and feel of the bass. My Lakland 55-94 from 1999 (time flies while your having fun)
has a flame maple top where the vernier was to thin. In direct daylight, photography studio lighting, or stage lighting you can see the grain of the
Swamp Ash body underneath, running vertically while the maple runs horizontally. So you get a “checkerboard effect”.
My Mirecourt French Bass has a huge Knot under the E string. I’m fairly certain that contributes to the sound of my the Ehrlund (EAP) pickup
has a flame maple top where the vernier was to thin. In direct daylight, photography studio lighting, or stage lighting you can see the grain of the
Swamp Ash body underneath, running vertically while the maple runs horizontally. So you get a “checkerboard effect”.
My Mirecourt French Bass has a huge Knot under the E string. I’m fairly certain that contributes to the sound of my the Ehrlund (EAP) pickup
It's not the worst I've seen.
However, on a guitar top that had no scratchplate, it might well.
This is my 'wild one':
(Although the wildness is kind of symmetrical...)
(Although the wildness is kind of symmetrical...)
Bleh! ...It wouldn't bother me. Especially if it played and sounded to my liking.
I guess I'm just not that particular.
I guess I'm just not that particular.
This. It's not a "mismatch" if it was never intended to be a match in the first place. There's no need to look at it as some failure of workmanship if the kind of grain configuration the OP would prefer wasn't even a design goal to begin with.
With a wood that has pronounced figuration, the reliable way to get matching is to use two bookmatched pieces, typically as a top over a one (or multiple) piece body. This bass has no top, and it's apparently a one-piece body, so it shouldn't be at all surprising that you don't get a grain match. It's not that it could never happen, but it's not guaranteed and isn't the primary goal in that scenario.
I personally wouldn't care, if I liked the bass otherwise. If anything, I kind of like it it when grains do unexpected things. Admittedly, it would be different if I had, say, specifically ordered a bookmatched top (which I have on various basses on occasion). But that wouldn't apply to this context.
All that said, the OP is under absolutely no obligation to like it just because other people don't mind it. If it's really going to bother you that much, send it back.
Last edited:
OP's bass does NOT have a "grain mismatch". It's a piece of wood, sawn in a way I'd call "semi-flatsawn". The left side's close to flat sawn and the right side's close to quartered, because the log wasn't big enough to get it all quartersawn or all flatsawn.
That's just the way that piece of wood is.
That's just the way that piece of wood is.
