Post Number: 31
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 6:50 am: |
Note the bridge. Is this normal?
Haven't seen something like this yet.
Post Number: 307
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 8:13 am: |
Other than it being a Series I, it looks correct to me..
Post Number: 1726
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 8:24 am: |
Very nice instrument with a weird bridge indeed.
Do I read correct that it is number 33 from the year 75. It is a Series I indeed (Not 2) and it has the same bdoy design as Brother Funky Keavin's #12: the upper and lower horn are of the same length. Although this bass has a Omega cutout. One can see also the thicker and more rounded body also normal for the older Alembics.
Nice ...really ...cool inlays too!
Post Number: 378
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 8:25 am: |
Umm, It's a Series I as far as I can tell. I do agree that the bridge looks twisted, but the bridge block is straight and it sort of looks like it's supposed to be that way on this instrument. I also like the intriguing inlays. Being #33, it would have been subject to a lot of experimentation, as if they ever really stopped trying new things. In fact, I am always surprised at how close those early instruments were to what remains the current state of the art.
Do you think that's really 'burl rosewood' on the top? It looks more like flame koa to me, but it is 30ish years old. The neck laminates also look like they could be walnut, wasn't that common in the early days?
I traded email with the seller last night and he agreed that it didn't have CVQs and was editing the listing, but he doesn't appear to have done so. He does, however, maintain that it's a SII because of the Omega cut. Also, there is no power supply or cable.
The bass was initially listed at $2995 with no reserve, so I would guess the reserve is in that vicinity. That would make this an interesting instrument to a collector, but a bit on the expensive side for a player.
Good luck to any and all that are interested.
Post Number: 2027
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 8:41 am: |
I'll check the records, but that looks like 75AE033 - made in 1975 for export. Top and back also look like a modestly Bird's-eyed Zebrawood, which is very rare, we haven't run across another board in almost 30 years.
I'm guessing the neck is a standard Maple/Purpleheart arrangement. The purple looks a bit brown under the yellow finish, Walnut usually doesn't look that dark.
Omega cut doesn't make it a Series II, and a Point doesn't make it a Series I. We usually rely on the electronics to determine model name on an older bass like this. Back then, the names Series I and Series II did not exist.
Off to work and check those records!
Post Number: 115
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 8:48 am: |
What about the fretboard inlays? Were those done by Alembic as a custom original or was that something offered as an option back in the day. They're quite interesting. Those aren't the 'birds of prey' that are listed on the custom quote generator...are they?
Post Number: 2028
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 9:53 am: |
There was no 33 AE, and upon closer inpection of the picture, it must be 75AC033. It can't be 73 33 - that was in dela's collection and is Teak.
Here's what the file card says:
peghead veneers: Vermilion
fingerboard: Ebony - FRETLESS
birthday: not recorded
sold: directly to original owner
So if this is the right bass, I think the frets and inlays must have been added later, a nice job too if the LEDs still work. LEDs were not listed on the card, but neither was the neck, and it certainly has one of those!
To confirm if it's 75AC033, have the seller check for handwritten numbers on the card or one of the pots. I can reference these to recorded serial numbers for the electronics.
Post Number: 379
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 10:40 am: |
It does appear that the headstock marking is 75AC on one side and 033 on the other, so I think you probably identified the right instrument. Do you remember ever building basses with a canted bridge like this one?
Post Number: 612
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:13 am: |
The ad states Series I. Am I missing something or has it been edited?
Post Number: 94
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:30 am: |
Edited. It originally described the bass as a '74 or '75 Series II with CVQ pots. The info has been corrected, apparently due to this club's efforts. Another one for the good guys!
Post Number: 382
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:31 am: |
It's been heavily edited. I traded email with the seller last night and pointed him at this site and the boards to verify his info, maybe he stopped by.
Now I am curious about the whole serial number thing, though. I thought the serial numbers ran in a continuous upward line and weren't reused. It sounds like there was a separate series of numbers applied to export instruments, thus two #33 basses. Are the details of this documented somewhere?
Post Number: 350
|Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:28 pm: |
Sorry to digress - dela's got one of these things in teak? Do we have any pictures?
Post Number: 956
|Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 5:05 am: |
Bob; there is a picture of 73 33 here:
Post Number: 12
|Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 12:50 pm: |
It looks as if the instrument may have lost the headstock at on time. You can see in one of the detail shots, the telltale line running from the headstock along the top of the neck back to front(side anyway).
Post Number: 388
|Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 1:15 pm: |
Nice catch. If it didn't lose the headstock, it does appear at least to have cracked some.
Buyer beware, as always, I guess.
Post Number: 329
|Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 2:37 pm: |
I have a chip out of the finish on my 75 that I look at in triple takes all the time, as at a certain angle, it looks like a crack in the neck like this one does. When I enlarge the picture in question above, I can see that maybe it is a patch of finish that popped off - but maybe it is indeed a crack from neck damage of some sort. I would want verification on this, if I were thinking of seriously bidding on that bass.
Post Number: 462
|Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 5:31 pm: |
Everyone, I have had lots of early Alembics. I have owned several from 1975 and 1976 with the bridge slanted like that. I assure you that it must have come this way. Poke around in the showcase section of the 1975 series 1 instruments. It was common.
As far as the serial number goes, the the zero in front of the 33 is not a zero, but an O (alpha). Trust me on this one. I have had basses from that era with that same marking. When I contacted Alembic about this, the person I talked to did not know why the O was there, or what it meant. It is just there. I was told that the person that used the O in the serial numbers is no longer with Alembic, so they didn't know what it meant. Serial number 33 would have been from 1973, I know because I owned that instrument too.
That is definately a zebrawood top. I remember several basses from that era with that type of wood. I owned 1976 O62 that had that top.
Mica - When I was considering a new custom, the look I was hoping to get with the koa top is exactly like this bass. The birdseye zebra is what inspired me to use that type of koa. I think the birdseye zebra is gorgeous under that yellow finish. With the Koa it can have that same hue with a clear finish. Maybe one day.
What a beautiful bass!!! If it only was a short scale. I think the strap button is in the wrong place for my tastes too.
Post Number: 369
|Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 11:39 pm: |
Silly guess, but perhaps the O was just for omega - Ù - which is of course the letter o in the Greek alphabet.
Post Number: 370
|Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 11:48 pm: |
Well, the omega doesn't print in the code page, so here's a picture of one:
Post Number: 334
|Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 12:57 am: |
I never read this auction, as I was not interested in the bass much. However, "The bass is in very good condition, and only has a few minor cosmetic flaws. There is a small chip on one side of the Omega cutaway which is about the size of a quarter." If I were to list this when selling a bass, I would list it as a major flaw. I asked the person posting on this bass in the Swap Section if he was the seller and if so, he should check out this thread. He sent me an e-mail asking me which thread, so I posted the link to this one in the other thread and then e-mailed it to him, also. Considering that he has not addressed the neck issue and how he described the missing wood on the omega cut, I would beware of this bass until I was satisfied the glitch in the neck is missing finish and not a crack that would mean even more serious structural repair is needed. $0.02 tossed in.
Post Number: 394
|Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 6:55 pm: |
Well, the listing has been partially adjusted, but the seller has neglected to come clean about a few important pieces of data as yet. Namely, he still represents the bass as burl rosewood over mahogany. He also hasn't mentioned that it was originally fretless, meaning that the inlays, LEDs and fretwork were done after the fact and probably not by Alembic. Seems like a fairly important piece of data when you're trying to play up the collectable nature of the instrument, no?
Well, it's not for me anyway, so it will be someone else that ends up either happy or disappointed.
Post Number: 2
|Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:14 pm: |
The new owner will be Very Happy! This bass is Awesome!