1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
     
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

wow i have never seen this sx jazz before

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by LCW, Apr 22, 2009.


  1. LCW

    LCW Banned

    Mar 2, 2009
    OREGON!
  2. hover

    hover

    Oct 4, 2008
    Massachusetts
    It IS a pretty neck for a "j" neck tho... and they play pretty nice.
     
  3. Foamy

    Foamy

    Jun 26, 2006
    Sac Area
    Looks nice. Wonder why they did these things on a short-scale first though. And the tuners.....may be nice, but I am really used to the Fender and Grover styles.
     
  4. TRob1293

    TRob1293

    Feb 1, 2008
    Louisville, KY
    only 1 in stock - last of the current head-stye (probably)
     
  5. DeanT

    DeanT Send lawyers, guns and money...

    They didn't do it in short scale first. That's just what's left in inventory. They had short and long scale LTDs like this, but sold them all out. Excellent Jazz clones by the way. Put a set of Fender Noiseless pups in it and you won't be able to tell the difference from a real Fender jazz soundwise.
     
  6. Foamy

    Foamy

    Jun 26, 2006
    Sac Area
    Hmm, OK, good to know. I can't remember ever seeing them before on standard scale. Looks like a fine bass indeed!

     
  7. lug

    lug

    Feb 11, 2005
    League City, Tx
    FYI, SX's version of a J neck (Width of the neck at the nut: 1 9/16"; at the 20st fret: 2 9/16") kinda falls in between a real J and a real P size in real life.
     
  8. Wow! That sure looks like more than $179.00 worth of bass... Red only, I wonder?
     
  9. Webtroll

    Webtroll Rolling for initiative

    Apr 23, 2006
    Austin, TX
    That's a beautiful bass. SX stuff keeps looking better and better.
     
  10. lbanks

    lbanks

    Jul 17, 2003
    Ennui, IN USA
    OT: THis is purdy!
    wno650na1.
    Now If they could do this in a 5-string bass...
     
  11. TRob1293

    TRob1293

    Feb 1, 2008
    Louisville, KY
    FALSE! (no disrespect intended)
    You are reading the website numbers, which are wrong.

    I have 6 SX Jazz necks (3 on a bass and 3 off).
    EVERY one has a dead-on measurement at the nut of 1.5".
     
  12. any clue why??
     
  13. TRob1293

    TRob1293

    Feb 1, 2008
    Louisville, KY
    No one knows exactly why, but the SX basses will start shipping from the manufacturer with a different headstock (kind of Carvin LB-like) later this year.

    search = essex headstock
    here in TB
     
  14. My SX j-bass necks vary from 38mm (~1.496) to 39mm (~1.535) wide measured with Starrett calipers that were verified for accuracy by a ISO Guide 17025 compliant lab. ;)
     
  15. Foamy

    Foamy

    Jun 26, 2006
    Sac Area
    Oh, the 17025 guide?? That old one??

    ;-)


     
  16. msiner

    msiner

    Sep 2, 2008
    Tucson, AZ
    Rondo better have its lawyers ready because Carvin will never stand for such blatant trademark shape infringement.;)
     
  17. lug

    lug

    Feb 11, 2005
    League City, Tx
    Haven't measured my two SX necks but they are both definately a bit chunkier than any Jazz bass I've ever played and far chunkier than my Jag (which is a bit thinner than a normal jazz). They may be 1.5 at the nut, but the neck itself is thicker.
     
  18. maybe because fender trademarked its headstock style or something like that, i remember a thread by Roger Sadowsky regarding this?
     
  19. TRob1293

    TRob1293

    Feb 1, 2008
    Louisville, KY
    That I will agree with, but...
    ...only on the heavy gloss necks. That coating of gloss (and by gloss standards, it can be thick - which is why DIOGENES probably has his variances) does add to the overall feel of the neck.

    I have an SX Jazz neck that feels just like the normal Jazz neck in thickness - it is finished in satin, not the heavy gloss.
    I also have a few gloss-finished necks that feel a bit 'different' than a normal Jazz neck does.

    How you can tell, just by looking at the neck:
    - the heavier/thicker gloss necks tend to have the orange coloring (a poor attempt at fake-aging) and the headstock will be labeled: SX - Vintage Series.
    - the nicer (IMHO) satin-finished necks will be thinner, faster, and lighter (but may need a bit more fretwork before really being honest-to-goodness playable) do not have the orange coloring and the headstock will be labeled: SX - Standard Series.

    The blocked-necks only seem to coe in the gloss-finished necks, but have no orange coloring.

    I'm willling to bet the 1.535" necks were gloss-finished and orange colored headstock, while the 1.496" necks were satin-finished and maple (or body) colored headstock.

    39/100th's variance - yes, we can tell when we play (or try to play in my case ;)
     
  20. TRob1293

    TRob1293

    Feb 1, 2008
    Louisville, KY
    I don't think it's the Fender trademark they were worried about - I think the SX-Vintage Series headstocks were closer to Lakland's than Fenders.

    The SX-Sandard Series headstocks really should be excluded as they look like none other (with that little 'hook' at the end).

    SX-Vintage Series:
    sjb5734blk4.

    Lakland:
    443-Silver-R-100-dpi.

    Sadowsky:
    [​IMG]

    Fender:
    [​IMG]

    SX-Standard Series:
    pjbsc4a.
     

Share This Page