[quote name='Matte_black' timestamp='1405617971' post='2503743']
I owned several old ones and played a few of the new ones. As I said in a private message, in the last years Warwick tried to re-gain its old status but the period between late 90s and 2000s is definitely worse, with the zama hardware, the graphite nut and the vynil glue. Not sure about the necks but I still guess the old ones have thinner necks.
Never experienced a rattling slot on the Just-a-nut I, to be honest. And I'd never gig a bass with MECs, it's certainly a personal taste thing but I find them just ugly.
The only thing I'm according to is the weaker truss-rod but luckily these ones are in perfect shape and in the worst case, I've replaced the rod on a friend's '86 4 strings and it was a 3 minutes job. The replacement costs something like £20.
[/quote]
I would agree with the late nineties/00's comments, unfortunately these are probably the most common Warwicks due to the quantity built and have been the basis many have formed opinion on the Warwick brand, which is a shame as for me (and you by the sounds of things) they were probably the 'worse' basses Warwick have made, with exception to the signature series and some of the LTD basses.
As a general rule of thumb (see what I did there), the really old Warwicks and the really new Warwicks are the ones to go for