| Author | Message | ||
| murray
Advanced Member Username: murray Post Number: 206 Registered: 7-2007 |
I am re-visiting an old gripe. I have just seen a Fender Jazz 1963 advertised for £5500!! I used to have a 1968 Jazz that I bought new and it was a good bass BUT it had earthing issues as they all did at the time. It did me very well and I don't regret it but it was stolen in 2000 and with the insurance monies of £1000 I bought my present Alembic Orion 4. Two completely different basses and the Alembic quality and, in fact, everything about the Alembic is in a different game let alone league. What is my point? - Old basses being put up for sale at stupid prices. I am not blaming the seller - nice work if you can get it!! I do question why anyone would pay such an amount for an old bass when there are such good new ones about that would leave change to buy a good rig. In fact at the same time as the Fender at £5500, there was an Alembic Persuader 1988 up for £1499. And as for mass produced new basses that are finished in a 'distressed' state with scratches supplied - don't get me started!!! Anyone feel the same? Glynn | ||
| stout71
Advanced Member Username: stout71 Post Number: 243 Registered: 7-2011 |
Yeah, kinda. I've been looking for a 72-78 Fender Jazz with a maple fingerboard at a reasonable price for a really long time. The thing is though, they are gonna sell those basses for whatever someone is willing to pay. They may have to sit on it for awhile, but someone will eventually pay that asking price. Economics 101 is the name of the game, as ridiculous as it plays out in this case. | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 2306 Registered: 9-2002 |
The vintage market is what it is. I hear the ongoing argument that they only appreciate, etc., but any market is always eventually going to go through a correction. I've always viewed instruments as tools, I quit getting all 'Moon in June' over them in my 20's, which has been a while back . . . I can understand some premium for something that's just not made anymore and impossible to replace. But I fail to see why on Earth anyone would pay that kind of money for a Fender bass when the new ones are demonstrably better in most any way that matters to me. And if I had to just throw stupid money at one, I'd have a real Custom Shop one done how I'd like. Fenders deserve their historical importance, but geez, a kid can screw one together in shop class, everybody in the world makes repros or hot-rod parts and pickups, and I will never get it if I lived to be 150. I'd be just as happy with a good Squier or MexFender and some hot-rod parts added and have nine-thousand dollars left over in this case. Joey | ||
| gtrguy
Senior Member Username: gtrguy Post Number: 832 Registered: 9-2004 |
I am sure the new Jaguar sports car is a way better car than an old XKE, but I would far rather drive an old one. I also hear that the 4 door Accord can out drag the vintage Jag... And how about a 64 Mustang? | ||
| terryc
Senior Member Username: terryc Post Number: 2288 Registered: 11-2004 |
I am of the same attitude Murray, there was a guy I knew who had this really old Strat, 62/63 or thereabouts, he said it sounded much better than the new stuff.....as he put it through a Boss effects processor..hmmm I told him it could have been a catalogue guitar after it went through the chorus/distortion/pitch shift/flange/octave modules! It's a load of hype, Leo made his guitar so the kids of USA could afford them as Gibsons were far out of their reach. I bought a Squier Jazz bass last year as I was doing some gigs with a 60's band and the LED fretboard Alembic just would not look right. It now sports a heavy duty bridge in gold, gold pickguard screws, gold control plate and knobs, string retainer and strap locks as well a set of Fender noiseless pick ups and set up by me where the action doesn't give you RSI. Just as good if not better than a battered P or J which costs 'n' thousands where 'n' is a number greater than 10! | ||
| wfmandmusic
Intermediate Member Username: wfmandmusic Post Number: 161 Registered: 1-2012 |
But, but wasn't that the year that they put one extra winding on the pickups and totally changed the sound for the better? I don't get it either and refuse to be a part of it. Maybe it's because I lived through that era and experienced those instruments. Just like today, some are good (for what they are) and some are duds. The year usually doesn't make a difference. Yes there were some lots of wood that sounded better but if an instrument was made following and using the same parts and procedures, really? The players had a lot to do with how it sounded. You can't buy that. To pay so much money for a bass that has grooves in the back of the neck and on the frets from someone playing the same licks over and over, or old dried up beer in the pickups that drooled down someone chin, a dent where a girlfriend got pissed off at it, or a cigarette burn on the headstock is just silly. The already distressed and make believe worn out look is to me like buying a pair of jeans with holes in them already. If I didn't do it myself it means nothing to me. I did some experimenting a few years back putting some Fenders together. After all are they not all parts basses? I wore my 74 p bass out. Through the years I beat the crap out of it. It sounds great and is still a player but I don't play it anymore. I have a custom shop jazz 62 model and a custom shop p 61 model. Neither cost as much as a vintage but both are nice basses. The p bass was hand picked out of 4 and they all sounded and played a little differently. So I decided to challenge myself and put together a bass that was as nice and great sounding as a custom shop at 1/3 of the cost. I did it, it worked, and I know it also sounds as good if not better than an old vintage bass. Not too many people would want to buy it though because it is a parts bass. I don't see a difference or hear a difference. To each their own but to me the they don't build them like they use to does not work for bass guitars. | ||
| peoplechipper
Senior Member Username: peoplechipper Post Number: 531 Registered: 2-2009 |
I go both ways on the vintage thing; I am drawn to old instruments, I like 'lived in' instruments. I agree with Trevor Rabin, who felt that guitars were born dead and you had to beat life into them...I also think the wood was better back then. Acoustic guitars are at their best after 20-25 years of use and age, I think electrics are the same as the wood is vibrated and aged...on the other hand, 15 years ago '70's Fenders were cheap because they were mostly crap; they still are but sell for 5 times as much because very few can afford the actual good Fenders and buy what they can...my Gibson Melody Maker(1960) is a magic guitar; every time I play it, I play something new-it's got 1000 songs in there somewhere, and everyone I've let play it tries to buy it from me or have me will it to them; it's just got this thing that no new guitar I've ever held has...I guess I'm saying I will generally go with the old stuff as long as I don't pay stupid for it...Tony | ||
| glocke
Senior Member Username: glocke Post Number: 1005 Registered: 9-2002 |
I was in the vintage game for awhile...Out of it now and it is doubtful I will ever get back into it again. I enjoyed the vintage instruments and amps I owned, but at the end of the day I just found almost everything about it more trouble than it's worth. | ||
| peoplechipper
Senior Member Username: peoplechipper Post Number: 535 Registered: 2-2009 |
Vintage can be easy; my old Traynor amp started sounding bad so I looked around inside; two signal caps were dead so I replaced them and the amp went back to killer...with old stuff it's so much easier to find dead components, which makes repair so much easier...and repair is something designers don't think about anymore... | ||
| edwin
Senior Member Username: edwin Post Number: 1900 Registered: 5-2002 |
Vintage instruments should be judged on their own merits, just like every other instrument. My favorite guitar to play right now is a '57 Gibson ES140T. Is it because of the old wood? The very early patent number pickups? Who knows? It just all works. I love playing certain vintage amps. My '67 Showman sounds great, but I've done a fair amount of work to it, including a Mercury Magnetics output transformer. I have a pair of McIntosh MC30s in my stereo that sound far and away better than any amp I've ever heard. Is it because they are old? Probably not, but they don't seem to be making output transformers like that any more. Probably not cost effective. But repairing them is dead simple. A lot of what we like is probably due to construction techniques that are too labor intensive to manage profitably anymore. And, of course, my '67 Starfire is my favorite bass to play. It's no trouble at all. Is it because it's vintage? Who knows? Maybe they could build one like it today. | ||
| wideload
Advanced Member Username: wideload Post Number: 209 Registered: 6-2003 |
I wish I had vintage gear, but all my stuff is just old! As for cars, I like the oldies, but I'd rather drive a new Mustang with power windows and A/C and 450 HP than an old one with crank windows and 220 HP. That' just me... However, I might change my mind for an old Triumph.. | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 5951 Registered: 7-2004 |
Wideload, you might just change your mind about that Triumph if you got one. I've been restoring a 1958 TR3A for a couple of years now. While it's fun and always elicits smiles, it is also crude, simplistic, rough and basically a lot of work compared to driving my other two vehicles built in 1993 (Porsche 968), and 2001 (Toyota Highlander). Similarly, my 1976 Series 1 guitar and, especially, Old #10 are rather crude compared to my custom Further. My 1961 Strat is a great guitar, but I wouldn't pay even one tenth of what it's worth to purchase one. Bill, tgo | ||
| murray
Advanced Member Username: murray Post Number: 209 Registered: 7-2007 |
Just got this from Haze Guitars - a nice site to be on your email list. "Hi again The Fender Broadcaster—the instrument that would become the Telecaster—began production in 1950. And it was great, wasn’t it? What guitarist doesn’t dream of owning a 1950 Broadcaster? I’d love one. Wouldn’t you? So where am I going with this? Well, that vintage Broadcaster I (any possibly you) have been dreaming about was made on an assembly line in a metal shed with no toilets*. These highly coveted instruments were made in Leo Fender’s premises on Pomona Avenue, Fullerton, in what was described as “two plain steel buildings”. The instrument was designed, from the ground up, to be a factory product. It was intended to be built on a production line with as little fuss as possible. I often find myself thinking about the perceptions people have around guitar manufacture. There can sometimes be a sense of snobbery about guitars made in a certain way, or manufactured in a certain place, that’s not always warranted. Here’s the thing (and I’m NOT just talking about Fender here): Pretty much all of those classic solid body guitars from the last sixty years were not lovingly hand-crafted by a kindly looking artisan wearing half-moon glasses. Those classic guitars came off a production line. Now, even the most automated, CNC driven, factories will have an element of hands-on and many instruments will have considerably more hand-tooling involved but a guitar will almost certainly have gone from one station to the next, being worked on by a number of skilled workers in its travels through the factory. Yes, factory. Not a sunny workshop on a hillside outside Seville where a master luthier builds two guitars a year, just as he’s done since he apprenticed there fifty years ago. A factory, where hundreds of workers make hundreds of guitars every single day. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Not a thing. The fact that an instrument comes off a production line isn’t a problem. The fact it comes off that line with a particular name on the headstock doesn’t absolutely speak to its quality. The fact that the production line is in a particular part of the world, does not necessarily mean it’s better or worse. I’ve played a lot of guitars over the years. I’ve played guitars costing a hundred bucks that felt fantastic and I didn’t want to put down. I’ve also played guitars worth ten grand that I’d think hard about paying a hundred bucks for. Any manufacturing process, and in particular a very busy production line, depends massively on its quality control. When poor quality stuff is allowed to leave the factory, the consumer suffers. Ultimately the brand suffers, although it sometimes seems like some brands are bullet-proof. Back in those steel buildings in Fullerton, in the ’50s, Leo Fender hired a guy called Forrest White to help manage production. White implemented an incentive scheme and allowed any line worker to reject a product from the previous stage if it wasn’t perfect. Granted, this may have been easier in an early Fender factory than a current one, churning thousands of guitars a week but, I see evidence of good quality control in a lot of manufacturers these days (and most are improving every year, all around the world). What’s my point with all this rambling? Don’t take things at face value, push away any preconceived ideas you may have, and don’t fall prey to other people’s snobbishness. Your guitar probably came off a production line. Don’t stress too much about where the line is located or whose name is on the factory gate. Check the specs for what you want, try lots of instruments with an open mind, and you just might find your next guitar is something you wouldn’t have expected. As always, hit reply and your email will come straight to my inbox. Cheers Talk soon Gerry *According to The Fender Book by Tony Bacon and Paul Day, Fender workers had to cross the railroad tracks to use the toilets in the nearby Santa-Fe depot. A toilet was installed after one worker got too old to dodge trains when he wanted to take a whiz." Glynn | ||
| peoplechipper
Senior Member Username: peoplechipper Post Number: 550 Registered: 2-2009 |
The biggest problem with a lot of new guitars is the finish; so many have such thick polyester finish it's like an anti-tone blanket, personally, I stick to poly; I actually have to put lip balm on my bare arm to play my Distillate without sticking to it until I start sweating ( of course this is only a problem in spring and fall, where it's nice enough to wear short sleeves but not sweaty yet)...anyway, put that stuff on too thick and you dull the wood...the other thing is that the wood was better then. Yeah, you can still get the good stuff but as an example my '60 Gibson Melody Maker has nice Honduran Mahogany and a Rosewood board and it's all premium on a student guitar; the wood they're using now for it's equivalent isn't nearly as good, nor is the finish...I will however agree that cheap guitars are way better than they used to be overall...Tony | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 2314 Registered: 9-2002 |
This is completely true. I worked on the line at Gibson in Nashville in the early 90's. All these LP's, L5's, Super 400's, V's, Explorers, SG's, 1275's (absolutely terrifying to buff out a doubleneck, it always scared the hell out of me, especially after seeing a couple torpedo into the floor from the guy that was training me), are built in most cases by people who don't play, in a totally industrial setting. They could just as easily be building toilet seats or alternators. It's a massive woodworking enterprise at its' heart, plus paint booths, wiring, hardware, etc. Roughly 30 stations to go from lumber to a finished Les Paul, about 4 days waiting on finish prep/completion. Until they slap the Gibson logo on the head, it could be any brand guitar. I can completely vouch that there is no magic inserted at any point in the process. If there is any, it's in the musician, not the axe. And the Custom Shop axes are not that different, only better-figured wood, and a bit more handwork. The true one-offs like ZZ's white fur L5's are just skunk-works projects for the magazines, essentially, or vanity projects for the individual artist. I will say that Gibson has always stuck with lacquer, as it's just so easy to fix minor finish problems, way softer and easier to blend out blems than poly finishes. When I worked there, Henry had a unique source for 'endorser' guitars for the guys that weren't Eric or Joe Perry: Your average less-than-superstar endorser got seconds !! On the other hand dealing with artists could be tricky: I once saw a cache of six custom built to-die-for '59 replica LP's returned / rejected by (nameless to protect the jerk) as the bodies were 1/16" too thick for him . . . . . As always, the difference in a Gibson or Fender and an Alembic or other specialty axe is the time involved in production and the bespoke hardware, wood choices, and the artisans involved: There are no artisans on the line at Gibson or Fender, as there's just no time. In those days we pushed about 1200 axes a WEEK out the back door. It's probably more by now. Joey | ||
| 5a_quilt_top
Senior Member Username: 5a_quilt_top Post Number: 438 Registered: 6-2012 |
Reading this makes you appreciate Alembic all the more...! Each instrument is treated like the unique creation that it is. Bottom line is it all comes back to the wood. Bad wood = bad instrument. No matter how old it is, where/how it was made or how well it's dressed up & blinged out. I played a '66 Strat that absolutely sucked, one of the worst guitars I've ever played. Totally dead wood - no resonance whatsoever. And I've played several recent Mexican Strats that are absolutely alive with resonance - the electronics were a little cheesy - but the wood was lively. Upgrade the electronics in one of these winners and you've got a fine instrument. But, according to market values, that crappy '66 Strat is worth 10 - 20 x what the Mexican versions are worth. |
