bassaussie

[quote name='slazman' post='137446' date='Feb 10 2008, 07:42 AM']Really good advice thanks. The bass was delievered in a cardboard case with additional packaging so I will use that.[/quote] That would be perfect, although (leads onto next comment )...... [quote name='slazman' post='137446' date='Feb 10 2008, 07:42 AM']Only slight issue is that US Immigration tend to open up cases to check contents - especially those with any electrical type stuff in them. Shouldn't be a problem though.[/quote] This is actually true, and I've had the chance to see first hand what the US customs people are willing to do. A friend of mine here in Lisbon brought a bass back from the US, and put it into the hold. He'd locked the case, so they simply broke the lock, and attached a sticker to the case saying that under US law, they were entitled to do this! When I wrote my post above, I forgot about this, so maybe packing quite as comprehensively as I suggested might end up being pointless. Still, pack it well in the case, and maybe put the case into the cardboard box without any additional packing inside the cardboard box, and they might simply repack it as you had it.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='137297' date='Feb 9 2008, 08:39 PM']If you're putting a bass in the luggage, should you slacken off (i.e. de-tune) the strings?[/quote] That was traditionally the belief, but recently I've read a lot of stuff on the internet saying this is actually a bad thing to do. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure which is correct, so I just stick to what I've always done - I detune the bass by a few notes, so to D or C, just to take a bit of pressure off the neck. That's always worked for me. When I've sent a bass to a buyer in another country, I do that as well, and I've never had any complaints.

slazman, I do a lot of travelling on planes, and my advice would be to put it in the hold. You've said you've got the original case, which I assume is a rectangular case. The hassle you'll go through trying to find space in the overhead compartment will be unbelievable, as most travellers these days like to carry as much onto a plane as possible, meaning there's very little room available for larger items. Unless you can be sure of being one of the first people onto the plane, I'd say you won't get it into the overheads. If you pack the bass right in the case, it should be reasonably safe. What I tend to do is pack a lot of clothing around the bass to stop it from moving in the case - underwear, socks and t-shirts work perfectly, as you can pack the bass in very tight. And make sure the neck is well supported. On top of this, if your friend in the US can find a cardboad packing box to put the case into, that's even better. Finally, when you check the bass in, get it put into oversize packages, don't let it go on the luggage belt with all the other luggage.

[quote name='99ster' post='133173' date='Feb 3 2008, 06:25 PM'][url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1967-68-FENDER-JAZZ-BASS-RARE-100-original-w-case_W0QQitemZ170191126812QQihZ007QQcategoryZ64400QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD2VQQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p1638.m122"]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1967-68-FENDER-JAZZ-...ksid=p1638.m122[/url] What a beauty! I've bought a number of things from this seller - he's definitely 'one of the good guys' on eBay - 100% trustworthy.[/quote] Nice bass, 99ster. It's actually got a feature that maybe you could she some light on. As you (and the auction) have said, it's 67-8. I notice it's got the round tuners on it, which are correct for the period. However, in my (limited!) experience, I've noticed that the round tuners seem to only appear on 1966 Jazz basses, while they seem more prevalent on Precisions and Telecasters for the years '67 and '68. Have I observed this correctly, or have I just encountered an unusual selection of instruments?

[quote name='ARGH' post='119351' date='Jan 12 2008, 11:53 PM']Ok To settle the Duranie debate once and for all 1st Lp.....Simons on it (and hes chorused out to hell and back,coz hes out of tune)...Johns on it,and Nicks on there in parts. 2nd lp Everyones on there,but theres session drums,some geezer took a £50 hushbung to play a few tracks,same with a few guitar tracks,and Nicks not doing EVERYTHING keys wise. 3rd lp,They are all on it (and the coke too). Out of all of them Johns ALWAYS had the most musical talent,followed by Nick. The rest are debatable.[/quote] Thanks for the details. I guess it's one of those things I've always wondered about. Just out of curiosity, how do you know this so definitely? Not questioning what you've said at all, I'm just curious as to the source. Also, just to confirm - you're saying that Andy didn't play on the first album?

[quote name='Bass_In_Yer_Face' post='117943' date='Jan 10 2008, 04:19 PM']Without putting on an anorak, I was under the impression that JT played the majority of stuff on the first PS album and Bernard Edwards added some 'twiddly bits' etc as well, slaps etc.[/quote] That's what I've always been lead to believe as well. There's a video of the two of them going over the "Get it On" solo, where Edwards is suggesting what might be good for the solo. JT liked the example so much, it's what ended up going down as the solo. About the whole "did they play/didn't they play" thing with Duran Duran, I once had a conversation with a bass player in Australia who did some of the support slots when Duran Duran first toured Australia back in 1983 or thereabouts. She told me she'd often watch them from backstage, and said that there was no doubt in her mind that JT was actually quite a decent bassist. She said that one of the guys was a bit suspect, although didn't let on who that was. Since it would be hard to hide Simon's ability or lack there of, that leaves Nick, Roger or Andy.

Peter Hook from Joy Division/New Order. I guess he wasn't much chop technically, but he had this amazing melodic style that always fit the songs. Also a very distinctive sound - you always knew it was him playing.

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='114159' date='Jan 5 2008, 05:01 PM']Listing in the wrong section... change of item being sold... listing format change... etc etc My concern is whether Mistahbenn's account has been jacked as well? If not hopefully he isn't the highest bidder [/quote] Don't forget the length of the auction. This is a 5 grand bass, easy. 3 days is far too short for a typical Ebayer to advertise this for. That doesn't in itself mean the auction is a scam, but it's always one of the warning signs. I think Misthbenn needs to be given a heads up about this, and then he can make his own decision.

[quote name='99ster' post='114157' date='Jan 5 2008, 04:58 PM']Spot on I would say - a classic account hijack scam. They want shooting.[/quote] We have a thread somewhere about "how to spot a scam", and I think this would be a great example to include. At first glance, it looks legit, but a little digging and things start to look questionable. Having said all that - the bass is a great looking instrument!!

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='114148' date='Jan 5 2008, 04:46 PM']I'm sure this is just me and I'm that kind of bloke but... Perusing the eBay sellers feedback you can see that 'every single one' of his identifiable sales (500+ that you are able to check) is for a piece of vinyl or a CD. Not one single other form of sale; Nada, Zilch! Then a 63 Fender... that rings alarm bells with me. Sorry where did this thread originate?[/quote] LMAO!! Beat me to it!! But yeah, as I indicated above, I totally agree with you.

I've got a feeling this is a hijacked account scam. Something doesn't look right. Check out the auction in question, then look at his finished auctions. The seller (ie. the real seller) has a style to the way he sets up his auctions, and this one doesn't fit in with those. He's also got a trumpet up, and from checking out other Ebay auctions, it appears the brand, Monette, is a very expensive brand. I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.

[quote name='dood' post='113990' date='Jan 5 2008, 12:18 PM']Ahh that must be it! Thanks. I haven't measured the two, but they are practically the same on my P and my J. Which is good.. Very comfy![/quote] There's a string likelihood your P might be a B sized neck. Depending on the age, the neck stamp should indicate what size it is. I had a '68 P that had a B neck (Birdy took this off me, then it got passed off to some other people) and the neck was amazing. The bass had been modified a bit, so when it came time to unload a P, I decided to keep my '66 P which is all original and also sounded better, but it was difficult to let that neck go, as it felt so good.

[quote name='dood' post='113978' date='Jan 5 2008, 12:02 PM']a question: Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the skinnier Precision necks that feel like Jazz ones are 'A' style? My CIJ P neck feels very close to the skinniness (is that even a word? lol) of my Fender Jazz neck. It is described as an 'A' neck profile.[/quote] If you're talking about the width at the nut, a C is 1-3/4" (50s and 60s Precision), a B is 1-5/8" (special order 60s Precision, became the norm around early 70s), and an A is 1-1/2" (Jazz, special order Precision).

Personally, I love old Fenders, and I've got the basses to prove it!! But I do agree that I think the whole mystique thing has gone too far. Let's be honest - there's some vintage dealers who are making a fortune out of the vintage market place, and they have no problems about driving the prices up on good quality pieces. As the good quality (or, should I say, the more desirable) stuff get's out of reach of the average buyer, then the lesser pieces become focussed upon, and, in turn, their prices go up. What irks me isn't so much people paying larger amounts for a nice late 70s instrument, it's when people go nuts over a piece that's been routed, refinished, and bastardised to death, and is still being labelled as a 60s or early 70s instrument. with a price to match. I guess a person has to really pinpoint why they want an older instrument. If it's for investment, then playability isn't as much of an issue - it's all about originality, and having as few modifications as possible. But if it's to play, then the buyer has to look at what they're getting for their money, and if there isn't a modern alternative that's going to do the job just as well, or better, for the same, or less, money.

I'd go along with what WOT said. I think if you wanted to apply some sort of general rule, the best way to approach 70s Fenders is that, the later the bass is, the more you'll want to check it out. QC slowly slipped as the 70s progressed, and instrument weight definitely increased. Now, having said that, it is possible to find a nice instrument from the late 70s, and the weight issue can be two sided - I know people who prefer a heavy instrument, so what I consider a negative point, they consider a positive. I guess at the end of the day, it's the same old rule - try the instrument, and if it works for you, great.

I voted for the Streamer. I've owned both a Streamer Stage I and a Thumb NT. From a looks point of view, I actually prefer the Thumb, but I always had a problem with neck dive. The Streamer, on the other hand, is really nicely balanced.

I've always been intrigued by the idea of having effects either onboard, or attached on a strap (which was what the original Zoom tried to do), but the thing that always put me off was that I could never figure out how to easily turn the effects on and off while playing at the same time. So (!!!) my question to you is how would you go about doing that? Please, this is definitely not meant as a criticism, I'm just curious to know how other people approach this.

[quote name='birdy' post='110435' date='Dec 29 2007, 03:08 AM']Hi Mark, good to hear from you. Drop me a mail or PM me your new eMail address when you get sorted. I don't think my bass has the chambered body or graphite in the necks - I would be interested to see how that affects the basses. I presume that yours don't either as they are 4 or 5 years old? I gigged for the second time with it tonight and was really impressed at the sound. Steve[/quote] Mine definitely don't have those features. I think your's might've been made prior to those changes as well. I've sent you a PM with my home address.

Hey Steve - I only just saw this post!! Congratulations, that's a cracking looking bass!!! I don't know if you tried to contact me in Ireland about this, but I'm no longer working in Dublin. Funny enough, the first thing I wanted to ask was this ..... [quote name='Crazykiwi' post='109049' date='Dec 24 2007, 06:31 PM']lovely looking axe mate how does it compare to the white metro you had a while back? I thought that was a pretty sweet instrument.[/quote] .... and your answer is nearly indentical to what I thought when I had that Metro and was comparing it to my NYC Sadowsky basses. [quote name='birdy' post='109049' date='Dec 24 2007, 07:13 PM']Hi Steve, I still have the white Metro (so glad I didn't sell it) and to be honest there isn't much between them at all which is what I expected as Roger Sadowsky says that the Metros are as good as the NYC basses if you don't want any special features. The NYC is to my ears slightly growlier maybe because its got a Brazilian Rosewood board whereas the Metro is Moraddo and I think the string spacing is slightly wider and its slightly lighter as well. Theres not much in it all but I think the NYC has an extra 5% that the Metro doesn't but its really hard to quantify.[/quote] The Metro seems to be nearly everything that the NYC is, yet I found my NYC basses just had "something" that I couldn't quite put my finger on. I actually wrote it off to the fact that my basses are both maple fingerboards and ash bodies, versus the morado/alder combination of the Metro. It's strange, because I thought the Metro was a perfect bass - just such a nice bass to play, and yet the NYC basses just seem to be better - 105% perfection, maybe?!!! I dunno, it starts to sound a bit silly when we talk about basses being "perfect", yet I've had both my basses for around 4 or 5 years, and I still love them, and my biggest regret over the last 5 years, as far as bass purchases and sales go, is giving that Metro back to you!!

Can't say exactly what it is, but I'd say it's from the old Eastern bloc. I've done some research on basses originating from there, and it just reminds me of the sorts of instruments I cam to expect from there. EDIT: Check out this site, you'll see what I mean about the styling [url="http://www.meatexz.com/cheesyguitars/index.html"]<a href="http://www.meatexz.com/cheesyguitars/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.meatexz.com/cheesyguitars/index.html[/url]</a> EDIT: HA!! What d'you know?!!! First page I clicked on, and there's the bass!! [url="http://www.meatexz.com/cheesyguitars/ussr_bass_unknown.html"]http://www.meatexz.com/cheesyguitars/ussr_bass_unknown.html[/url]