| Author | Message | ||
| bkbass
Intermediate Member Username: bkbass Post Number: 112 Registered: 11-2003 |
As I was reading through one of the threads,someone had referenced Fender as Blender and cautioned that SWR'S quality was not as good as it had been. I'm not writing this dis any one brand but rather had the muse of bragging rights. We've all heard pre-CBS and now there is those of us who can brag pre-Fender as a selling point.Any comments? | ||
| 2400wattman
Advanced Member Username: 2400wattman Post Number: 241 Registered: 11-2005 |
I made the "Blender" comment in refernce to them buying up other guitar/amp companies and as a consequence the quality of such products suffering. I had purchased an SM-900 and it did sound great, the d.i. was buzzing like a bee. Also, the bass player in the opening band the other night played a U.S. made P-bass w/ a two piece ash body. Come on, that's a $900.00-1,000.00 bass and you get a two piece body? Not where I want to put my money. Quality gear costs an awful lot of money & when problems with something right out of the box(like I have many times)it's aggravating. No intention of bragging rights were meant nor implied from dealing w/ a bogus piece of gear, I was merely trying to pass on some advice from my experiences. | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 776 Registered: 2-2006 |
I'm with Adam here. Anytime a manufacturer puts quantity in front of quality the product suffers. I am not saying you can't get a good or even great Fender guitar or SWR/Fender amp. I am saying how ever that you are more apt to get an inferior product from a mass producer than a hand a built item. I do believe that there are persons that get the "Holier than thou" attitude based (pun intended) the brand they play. While the tool can make you a better craftsman it is ultimately your skills and talents that make you what your are. (Message edited by olieoliver on October 02, 2006) | ||
| 811952
Senior Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 831 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think it's funny when people flaunt their mid-70's Jazz basses and such. I thought the mid-70's were horrible years for Fender! That said, I really wouldn't mind a pre-Gibson Toby or a pre-Norlin Thunderbird!  John | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 1676 Registered: 7-2004 |
I too am amazed at the prices mid-70s strats are commending these days. These are the 3 bolt neck Fenders which went out of tune if you dug in a little too hard. (boy, I'll bet CBS saved a fortune by decreasing the production cost by one screw per guitar). The marketplace can boggle the mind sometimes. Bill, tgo | ||
| grateful
Intermediate Member Username: grateful Post Number: 164 Registered: 12-2004 |
Bill The three bolt design was Leo's and it wouldn't have cut production cost: the third bolt screws into a threaded insert in the neck: i.e it really is a bolt, not a screw. G&L still use this method. Mark | ||
| 811952
Senior Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 832 Registered: 10-2003 |
G&L basses were wonderful instruments, back in the day. I had one I used as my main backup for a couple of years that was like playing butter (as opposed to butter flavored Crisco). I haven't played any of the newer ones. John | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 1677 Registered: 7-2004 |
Mark: For all I know, it may have been Leo's design, but it wasn't instituted until many years after CBS bought him out. (If it was Leo's design, and he never put in into production with Fender, that may tell us something, at least about the Fender version). What I do know is that the design sucks in comparision with the traditional 4 bolt neck - and that Fnder went back to the 4 bolt after a few years. As for cutting production costs, I was being facetious. Bill, tgo | ||
| 811952
Senior Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 833 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think the issue with Fender instruments wasn't so much the design as the execution. For many years, sloppy neck joints were the norm. By comparison, other bolt-on manufacturers necks (MusicMan, G&L, even Carvin) fit tightly in the pocket and couldn't move from side-to-side like Fender necks often did. When Fender started using the 3-bolt (2-screws and 1-bolt) design, I think it was the sloppy manufacturing that soiled it. John | ||
| southpaw
Member Username: southpaw Post Number: 81 Registered: 12-2004 |
I was told by an old Fender fanatic that the 3 bolt got a bad rap because the same wooden templates were used for many years and the neck pocket portion of the template had worn away from use, causing sloppy neck joints. I have 2 G&L's, both with 3 bolt necks and they are great, no movement at all. FYI... I believe George Fullerton invented the 3 bolt/tilt neck, he remained with CBS/Fender after Leo left. George's book is an excellent read, he contributed greatly to Fender's success. Leo was the one who insisted on The "G" coming first in "G&L" (George & Leo)because he felt George deserved it. http://www.amazon.com/Guitars-George-Leo-Fender-Built/dp/0634069225/sr=8-10/qid=1159895653/ref=sr_1_10/104-5905792-3083952?ie=UTF8&s=books | ||
| southpaw
Member Username: southpaw Post Number: 82 Registered: 12-2004 |
One other point... The main reason for the 3 bolt design was the tilt feature, not a reduction in screws. Many old Fenders had shims placed in the neck pockets at the factory. The 3 bolt tilt allows the neck angle to be adjusted easily without removing the neck. An invention that took a beating due to the sloppy neck joints in the 70's but somewhat redeemed itself later when Leo & George used it on the Music Man & G&L instruments. (Message edited by southpaw on October 03, 2006) | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 1045 Registered: 9-2002 |
Of course Fender (and WHOEVER happened to own it over the years) has a lot of 'tradition' to honor. But to my mind they've run so many variations over the years they've lost their identity, inasmuch that serious player-collectors are left with two less than optimal choices to the get the 'really good stuff': You either pay an arm and a leg for a Custom Shop/masterbuilt/etc, or take your chances in the vintage market, where you may be buying a brilliant fake. Fender even undermines this selling the 'aged' guitars, the Closet Classics. Then of course, there is no end to the Sadowskys, Lulls, and on and on and on. Then MusicMan. Then G+L. It's really become like Harleys, everybody wants one as long as it's a litlle different from every other one: Ultimately the whole population is just one big blurred mess with a vague identity. The feature set is just as blurred. Why did they never settle on micro-tilt, the bullet truss rod, and four neck BOLTS with inserts? I could have NEVER taught myself adjustment on a Fender without a GREAT deal of aggravation. I would have surely stripped out the neck SCREW holes by the time I figured out shimming a neck. They only recently got around to building a 3+2 P pickup for five-strings; Yamaha did this in the late 80s! I've never owned a Fender in 30 years of bass playing. I've never seen the point, and while I admire the business resurgence that Mr. Schultz engineered (Rest in Peace, Mr. Schultz), I still have no compelling reason to ever want one. J o e y | ||
| keith_h
Senior Member Username: keith_h Post Number: 583 Registered: 2-2005 |
I have a '76' Jazz Bass with the 3 bolt neck. To be honest the bolt pattern has never been a problem. The area that caused me grief was the micro-tilt. It never supported the full neck and allowed it to wobble in the pocket. To resolve this I backed it off and used shims which allow the neck to be fully supported and tightened into the pocket. As for the bullet truss rod I had mine replaced by Gene Liberty along with some inlay work while I lived in Illinois . It still adjusts from the top but sure beats the old way of remove neck, tweak truss rod, reinstall neck, retune and pray you got it right. Keith | ||
| keith_h
Senior Member Username: keith_h Post Number: 584 Registered: 2-2005 |
I forgot to mention that I think the current prices being sought for earlier Fenders is ridiculous. I would never pay the $1000 - $2000 price some folks are getting for used 70's era basses. Likewise I can't see paying the prices they charge for a new USA built Fender either. Keith | ||
| ajdover
Senior Member Username: ajdover Post Number: 403 Registered: 11-2003 |
I have a 1973 Fender Jazz Bass which Keith has played. It is a four bolt (screw, if you will), and there is a 1/8 to 1/4 space on the body where the neck meets it. However, I've never had the neck move side to side - the four bolt/screw took care of that. I think I agree with Keith that the prices for '70s Fenders is ridiculous. I paid about $1350 for mine, and I had to do some work on it. I've seen some going for $2-3K, and that's way too much IMHO. Unlike today's Fenders (well, some of them, anyway), the '70s era was not a benchmark of quality. It was even more hit or miss than what we have today. As I've said in a lot of places, any instrument is only worth what one is willing to pay. My '73 was worth it for me. It remains possibly the only bass I would want on a deserted island. It's not perfect, but it's what I grew up with and it's comfortable. For this, I might pay more just for the nostalgia factor. Alan | ||
| the_mule
Senior Member Username: the_mule Post Number: 595 Registered: 1-2004 |
I know I felt sad when I heard that Fender bought Guild. I always had great sympathies for that brand. Now some Guild models are produced in China, for crying out loud... Wilfred | ||
| gtrguy
Member Username: gtrguy Post Number: 94 Registered: 9-2004 |
I have a 78 Strat with the 3 bolt neck and it plays OK. I bought a Tele new in 1971 and it was a 'so so' guitar from new, plus the neck holes were not drilled straight from the factory. I laugh to see what they go for now ($3200). A lot of the old stuff was not very good, and a lot of the folks buying it did not grow up with it. Quality was hit or miss. That's what I like about PRS, despite all the griping about computerized CNC machines, etc. They build them right. However, I once swapped out my 78 Strat pickups with various new and used ones to see what they would sound like, and was very surprised to see that except for the new noiseless ones, the original ones did sound best. I think perfect computer designed and wound pickups might lose some MoJo somehow. Another example, I also think that Fender's amp goal in the 60's and 70's was to make them sound as clean and powerful as possible, and they saw the Fender amps of the 60's and 70's as an improvement over, say, the 59 Fender bassman. I played a real '59 last month, and it had one really great sound. Sound enginers often have goals that players don't. Dave | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 783 Registered: 2-2006 |
Amen to that Dave. I had a mid 60's Marshall 100 watt guitar head. Sure you had to crank it to get any distortion but it sounded soooo much better than the later ones that had the master volume added. |
