Rick's Fine '52

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1356874348' post='1914527'] Rick , I think you are a little bit confused here . Firstly , I agree with you wholeheartedly that Adam Clayton is a perfectly good bass player within the context of U2 as a band , and went so far as to defend AC and his contribution to bass playing earlier in this thread . It was me who said that Adam was no Stanley Clarke , but I said he was all the better for that . The point was made as one of contrast , not comparison . However , when you start saying Adam isn't a bad bass player because he always looks cool ( not to me he doesn't ) , dates supermodels and earns lots of money then there we have to part company . None of those things make one iota of difference to how good or bad Adam Clayton is as a bass player . They are all a complete irrelevance . The only thing that has any bearing on how good a player he is is what he [b]plays [/b]and how he plays it -the rest is sophistry . Put another way , the only thing that separates a bass player from any other member of the general public who cannot is their ability to play the bass guitar , nothing else . Furthermore , when you start speculating about how much Stanley Clarke might envy Adam Claytons lifestyle , I can't see what bearing that would have on eithers [i]playing , [/i]or anything else that might be pertinant . Just for your information , Stanley Clarke is a millionaire and last I heard , had luxury homes in Long Island and LA ,( although his divorce a while back may have impacted on that slightly !) . Besides that , even if it's a question of image , who could be cooler than Stanley Clarke ? He took on the world armed only with an Alembic bass , his prodigious talent and a very impressive afro hairstyle . Looks like a stylish man to me . [/quote] I'm not confused at all, it's interesting that you pick on the non-serious points i made about adam, and not the bass related ones. I forgot it's difficult to get across any level of humour in a hastily written word. Of course i dont think having money, dating supermodels, or being cool has anything to do with someones ability, I'm not 4, and i assumed everyone else wasnt either. So I apologise. This whole topic is pointless anyway, and wholly subjective, which is why my only contribution was to defend someone, and not be critical. Its like asking if there are any sandwiches out there with bad fillings. Who is cool and who isnt?, again,pointless debate, as we both disagree entirely, and we're just 2 people, although that pic you posted of stanley did little to defend your point!!! Having only played in originals bands (No covers), the hardest thing about being a bass player in an original band, and writing your own lines, is what and when to play, and what and when [i]not[/i] to play. Personally I think Adam is fantastic at that. Anyway, I'm off to find a bass related thread, they tend to be more sensible, yet less serious.

I'm also amazed at some of the negative comments about Adam Clayton on here, from apparently fellow bass players. he's very melodic, and more than competent bass player always produces the perfect bass line to some fantastic, and classic songs can be in the front of the mix when needed, like Vertigo, or more in the back, whatever suits has managed to change to suit the era and sound of the time, over 5 decades recorded a more varied back catalogue than almost any other band i can think of over a similar period always looks uber cool dates supermodels earns gazillions someone compared him to stanley clarke on this thread? really? i bet stanley sometimes wishes he had Adam's life, I bet Adam never wishes he had Stanley's!! Too many bass snobs i think. I'd rather listen to Adam play bass in his home studio than Stanley bore me to death any day of the week. I'm not a big U2 fan by the way, just feel he's being unfairly criticised. its all subjective though isnt it, oh, and following some other comments, of course U2 are a supergroup. I think threads like this always turn into a 'who i don't like' thread. I'll save my own thoughts on that one for the appropriate thread. To comment on the thread, albeit rather boringly, there arent many supergroups to begin with are there (By my definition anyway), and i can't think of any with a poor bass player, i think they're all great, and very different, and all doing what we probably all want to do. I agree with previous coldplay comments though, although they arent a supergroup, but fair play to the guy, he's got his dream job, and he hasnt been found out yet, good luck to him.

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1356709926' post='1912770'] He never touched the bass again after Hendrix gave him the heave ho. He preferred guitar. [/quote] Thats because he's a guitarist. I've actually had the privilige of chatting with Noel for a couple of hours in a pub once, just me and him, it was great. He wouldnt consider himself lucky, or stumbled upon success. He enjoyed his time with Jimi & Mitch, but always wanted to play guitar. He was a more than capable bassist though, and acccompanied Jimi perfectly.

Less than 300 made, some records say as little as 250, either way, very scarce, 15 fret necks werent popular. One for collectors more than players. Made from '65 to '73 (I think, it may be '72). They came with both wide bridge and pickup covers, and it's rare to find them with both still. Necks followed the usual bass format, with dot necks up to '66, then short period of dots and binding, then block n bound. There's even one example (Maybe more, but I've only seen one), with maple neck and black blocks/binding. Most are sunburst, but there's various different colours out there. I actually quite like them, they're not easy to play though.

[quote name='gub' timestamp='1356800808' post='1913770'] Do you do tea and biscuits ? On my way [/quote] It's a long way Gub!!

[quote name='cloudburst' timestamp='1356776137' post='1913390'] Hey Rick - enjoy it mate. Not trying to take anything away from your purchase at all - I was really just wondering what it gave you over and above the original. Law of Diminishing Returns - it's just about your first bass/drink/whatever giving you a big buzz and each successive one giving you progressively less of a hit. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns"]http://en.wikipedia....nishing_returns[/url] CB [/quote] The main thing it gives me over the original, is that i can play it on a daily basis. Diminishing Returns, right, with you now. That certainly exists, although a CS reissue is never going to give you a great buzz if you already have an original is it? It does get harder to be satisfied, the more you get, but we all have a wants list, and anything that gets ticked off, is a big buzz. The 4005 i bought only last month was a huge buzz, as I've wanted one for 20+ years. The '58 Mandocaster was the same, and that was a relatively cheap purchase, so it doesnt have to be a big money buy to be rewarding, likewise, finding a matching 1st series JV Precision to go with my Jazz was also a great day indeed, and that cost me £300. Finding a near mint pink paisley tele bass was another satisfying day. And there will be others, as a collector/player, you're always on the hunt, and just tracking some of these things down is a challenge in itself, so actually finding one for sale, and getting it, is extremely satisfying and rewarding, like the '52 TV Bassman amp, impossible to find, only made for 5 months, I'd only ever seen 2 before, neither of which were for sale, both were in books, so getting one of those was just amazing. So yes, there is an element of diminishing returns, but never on the 'real' stuff, far from it. The Custom Shop Relic '51 will probably be sold/traded within the next 12 months, because it is my 3rd one, and it's surplus to requirements, I buy many items because of their value for money, and they are then sold/traded to help fund the next 'real' one on my list. The '51 CS is one of those. Rick.

[quote name='Mr H' timestamp='1356731679' post='1913107'] So, it's between me, grumble, and BetaFunk at the moment... [/quote] You're welcome to it, at £112, it's already £100 more than I'd pay for it! (I'm joking by the way, I'm sure its an excellent sounding and playing bass for that money)

[quote name='grumble' timestamp='1356707777' post='1912726'] Looking at your sig i would make a wild stab-in-the-dark guess and say that beauty in your eyes would involve the letter 'F' on the headstock [/quote] Amongst dozens of others, yes, and there are also dozens of Fenders i hate This one just looks like a 10 year old's first bass......to me anyway, oh, after he designed, and made it himself of course. The OP stated the 'eye of the beholder' comment, clearly aware that this is a marmite bass. I'm just in the 'not for me' camp on this one, although i do love marmite!

"Eye of the beholder"......you got that right!

[quote name='Chris Horton' timestamp='1356635850' post='1911911'] I've got real GAS for a '58 precision at the moment. Maple neck and gold plate looks sweeeeeeeet ! [/quote] My fave Fender combo too Chris, can't beat it.

[quote name='cloudburst' timestamp='1356652339' post='1912174'] Rick, That's a really lovely instrument. But what's your motivation, given the original (and similar) '52 that you have? Surely you're experiencing the law of diminishing returns? CB [/quote] Thanks. Diminishing returns?, not sure what you mean by that exactly, perhaps you can elaborate? Motivation?, that's an easy one to answer. I love slab P basses from '51 to '53, I've owned a few, and have 2 already, but these are very limited (15 examples made), and are the most authentic looking model bass I've ever seen from the Custom Shop, bar none. Its a stunning instrument, I saw it, played it, loved it, wanted it, so bought it, does there need to be any other motivation? Isn't this the same way most of us buy our basses?, Oh, and it was a bargain, which took the usual period of deliberation away from me!

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1356556626' post='1911212'] P-Bass Heaven in the privacy of your own home... so much better than a telly. [/quote] Yep, even christmas telly!!

here's my P's all together at last! '52; '56; '58; '60, '66 Slab. (Excuse the bad pics)

[quote name='Chris Horton' timestamp='1355972777' post='1905245'] It is fantastic to see part of your lovely collection. I can't wait for the wall full of precision history to be in full display !! [/quote] Here it is Chris, Father Christmas bought me a batch of String Swings (my good lady never fails to deliver!!!), so a couple of hours this morning, and the wall is complete, from left to right: '52; '56; '58; '60; '66 Slab. there's a few tweaks to do, the '52 needs the covers, and the '56 needs new strings (in the post). I'll add another pic when the strings and covers are fitted. I think it looks pretty cool. Closer up (Excuse the crap photography!)

[quote name='andyonbass' timestamp='1356352002' post='1909389'] I think the photos got lost when I had a PC virus issue a while back, and like a fool I hadn't done a back up, but I have a spare neck around somewhere, so I will endeavour to re-create the pics when I get a minute. Rick, I would always undo the truss rod nut with a gentle back and forth motion initially if there is any resistance, I've been lucky so far and not had the problem you describe. Dont forget a little copper ease or vaseline on the threads on re-assembly, which should help prevent it happening in the future [/quote] It was last April when i was contemplating buying a truss rod max'd '65 Jazz. I decided against it, as I thought the cons far outweighed the pro's, and it wasnt overly cheap either. Thanks for the response though, and Merry Christmas!

[quote name='gilmour' timestamp='1356174711' post='1907602'] Great project, thanks for sharing. [/quote] Thanks.

Not sure why it's been stained around the guard, and then the same stain used for the front only of the headstock, looks a bit orangy for my taste. Because the face of the headstock has been done, it will be difficult to change the refin to one of your own choice, kinda stuck with that really! I also think it's a little pricey for what it is. I'm sure it plays well, even if it looks a bit odd.

This year. In. Alembic Series 1 '58 Mandocaster '51 Custom Shop Relic Precision Rickenbacker 4005 '66 Slab Precision (Project) '52 Fender TV Bassman Out. Alembic Series 1 Project Build '55 P Project Build '58 P Orange SuperBass Head '68 Telecaster Blue Flower (Sold today) Next year will be quieter, although the Blue Flower was sold to fund a new (old) one......more on that in the new year......hopefully!

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1356119061' post='1907220'] Coo, that`s a tough one, but after thinking about it: In: Fender MIM Precision 2010 Sterling by Musicman Ray 34 EBMM Stingray Fender US Precision 2008 Fender US Precision 1978 Fender CIJ Precision Fender US 2011 Precision - definite keeper (yeah, I know we`ve all heard it before, but this time I mean it) Out: Fender MIM Precision 2010 Sterling by Musicman Ray 34 EBMM Stingray Fender US Precision 2008 Squier CV 60s Precision Fender US Precision 1977 Fender US Precision 1998 And with any luck, my Fender US Precision 1978 as there are still 10 days to go. And don`t get me started on amps & cabs.................. [/quote] You don't keep stuff long then, almost the same lists!

[quote name='tredders' timestamp='1356026348' post='1906010'] It's an all original '73 in blonde, with original case. Just got some pics through and it looks lovely. [/quote] I had one of those many years ago, BIG sound from those humbuckers. I always preferred the single coil's though, so it didnt stay with me long, px'd it at V&R when they were in Kenway St(?). Nice basses.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1356022085' post='1905902'] Wow, that's right - I'd better come and pick it up this evening, Rick. It'll be quite safe in my nuclear bunker... [/quote] Damn, forgot about that , ok, see you at 8!

[quote name='Seb_C' timestamp='1356000655' post='1905436'] Is the headstock thinner as a result of this, or is there more meat on the back of the headstock to compensate? How thick it the neck at 1st and 12th frets? [/quote] No, not at all, it's just the internal radius routing on the top side, is smaller, the headtsock thickness will be, and is, the same. The reissues, and even the original Telecaster basses have a much slower radius, which shows the walnut cap as much more elongated. Hope this makes sense, it just drops away from just past the nut, much sharper, less smooth than the newer ones. This profile was used, i believe, until the rosewood came in, in '59. The neck is approx 22mm at the 1st, and 12th frets (Tape measure used, as i don't have a micrometer, which would be more precisie obviously). nOt sure how that compares with my original, I must check, but i would bet it's very similar, it certainly feels the same. It's certainly not a V-neck like my '56, or super slim like my '58. Not a baseball bat either, like many say about the early P's. In my experience, thats a bit of a myth anyway, I've played clumpier necked Telecasters than the early P's I've played..

[quote name='tredders' timestamp='1356015000' post='1905738'] Well, if I change my mind about the Telecaster and don't plan on bringing anything back with me, I'll let you know [/quote] Cool. Which Tele do you have your eye on, or aren't you saying??