bassaussie

I have an L2, and what you've said in that sentence sums it up for me. There's something very special about the instrument. It's not for everyone, especially these days, when the look is pretty dated by current fashions, but it's such a well made, well thought out instrument. I'm going through a bit of a period of moving things out the door, but whenever I think about the L2, I just can't see myself selling it.

I didn't think there were that many 12 string basses in the world!

If you're into old Gibsons, then you probably already know this site, but I'll link to it anyway. I think it's as good a resource as any on the net for vintage details. http://www.guitarhq.com/shippin4.html

Hi. I think the shipping total for 1958 Les Paul Standards (434) includes both gold top and sunburst finishes. Gibson transitioned during 1958 from gold top to sunburst, and didn't keep a record of the specific number shipped for each finish.

Thanks Bill!

I'm not going to agree or disagree with this, but if you look at where the collectable markets started with both Gibson and Fender, there's an argument that the original reason, which in both cases was a practical solution to a developing problem, no longer applies. With Fender, it was mentioned above that in the late 60s, players felt that the CBS instruments didn't match up to the instruments that had been produced while Leo Fender was still at the company, so some players started looking for older instruments. Ironically, the man we most associate with the Stratocaster, Jimi Hendrix, is mostly photographed using CBS era Fenders, so make of that what you will. Anyway, moving forward, the general opinion was that quality continued to drop during the 70s, so the earlier instruments became more and more desirable. With Gibson, it's similar, although not quite the same. Late 60s, various big name guitar players were attracted to the Les Pauls that had been discontinued in 1960, and especially so the sunburst models from 1958-1960. The guitars from that period had features such as the PAF pickups that became more and more desirable, and so a market arose from that. Moving into the 70s, it's a similar story to Fender, where the public felt that quality dropped, and players went after the earlier instruments. I do think that, these days, we're very fortunate in that it is possible to get very good instruments for very little money, which is why I don't think the original reason for the rise of a vintage market still applies. But the vintage market no longer represents a practical solution to a problem, as it did in the 60s and 70s. It's now become a collectable market, pure and simple, therefore things like playability are not a deciding factor on value.

I have a 1966 P as well, and I agree, it's a sensational bass. When I play it, it sounds exactly how I think a P should sound, and playing it brings out the Jamerson in me (albeit a very poor version of that! )

Someone mentioned above that 1960 was the first year of the Jazz, which is correct, so that definitely puts a premium on the instrument. But there's a special point about 1960-61 Jazz Basses that makes them very desirable for collectors. In those first years, the Jazz was produced with 2 sets of stack knobs - ie. a volume and tone stacked into a single unit. If you look at the bass mentioned in the OP, you can see that it looks like there's only 2 knobs on the control plate, but on closer inspection, it's actually four controls - one stack (V/T) for each pickup. Starting 1962, the Jazz then changes to the 3 control setup that has been standard until today (ie. V/V/T). I can't remember the specific reason for the change, but vaguely, it was something to do with some sort of "bleeding" effect when you used each tone, so that it had an impact on the other pickup - maybe someone else can clarify that. So .... when you see these basses advertised, they'll often make a specific point of mentioning that it's a "Stack knob" Jazz. Year wise, they started in 1960, and ended late 1961. The thing with Fender that you have to remember, though, is that they always used every part that had been made, so you can often get a crossover of features that are associated with one year, but appear on a later year. For example - you might have a bass that has a neck stamped for 1965, and set of pickups for 1966, pots with 1965 stamps, and a serial number from 1966. If that was what was in front of the guy putting it together on that day, then that was what was used. From a collectable point of view, you then have the question - what year is that bass? The way it was explained to me, by a well-known vintage bass dealer that most people on here would know of, is that the part with the latest date on it designates the year. When you think about it, it makes sense - if a bass (or guitar) has a part on it that says 1966, then clearly the instrument wasn't completed before that date. But I'm sure that's a subject that would probably get debated extensively. There are other desirable features associated with those early Jazz basses, though. The serial number would be a "pre-L" - so preceding the L-Series. L-Series Fenders are very desirable because they preceded the CBS takeover, so "pre-L" numbers get people even more excited. I think L-Series starts around 1962, something like that. Also, the rosewood on the neck is a slab board. In 1962, Fender decides to start making a curved rosewood board, as opposed to a piece that was a flat bottom and a curved face. I've heard various reasons for this - one is that it was a cost-cutting method, another is that the slab board didn't stick to the maple neck very well. For whatever reason, this happened, and again, it's a desirable point for collectors. Rosewood boards on any Fenders only appeared around 1959 (I'm pretty sure that applies to guitars as well, but please correct me if I'm wrong), so these slab boards have a fairly short window of about 4 years, from 1959-1962. Most of this information is available on the internet, if you know where to look. However, there's a brilliant book by Black and Molinaro called "The Fender Bass - An Illustrated History" that I'd recommend reading. As for what I've written, this is all off the top of my head, so if there's any mistakes, please correct me.

Profile were available in Australia in the 80s, I remember seeing them. I think they were considered to be pretty decent instruments, people would buy them then upgrade them with new pickups and hardware. Haha - OK, just read the Talkbass thread. Pretty much covers what I said, and then adds a lot more. Good to know my memory isn't fading on me!

That would be amazing, but has the potential of having enough information to fill an entire forum all on it's own.

Bassassin, you mentioned the tuners and their similarity to Yamaha units of the time, which I'd noticed myself. I assumed you'd get to that at some point, so left it to you to bring up. However ....... now that you've posted that photo of your Cimar (which is incredible, as I've never seen that model before), it raises a question for me. Have you ever thought that the body shape of your Cimar has this vague Yamaha-ish quality to it? Maybe it's the angle, but it has this plumpness to it in the body that reminds of of the BB shape. As for your other posts - amazing as usual.

Yeah, it was a real battle for me. I wanted to keep it because it was lovely, but I was always worried about the neck. Fortunately it's now owned by a very good friend, so I can go visit when I need to! The tone of the bass was amazing - every time I played it, it was everything I wanted from a bass. I can imagine a 65 version would be incredible. Funny thing - I've always heard that when older Gibsons (guitars and basses) suffer the inevitable break, they usually end up being a more stable instrument provided the fix is done correctly. I've had quite a few people say that to me, although whether it's correct or not I don't know.

I didn't know that about the pickups being the same as a Grabber. I'm not hugely into Gibson basses, but I do like Grabbers, they're sensational instruments. Also interesting what you said about the neck joint - again, something new to me. I had an Anniversary Thunderbird for a while, from 1976 - absolutely mint condition, so beautiful, and with a great tone. But I ended up selling it as I was always terrified of it falling over and have the headstock snap off.

Thanks Tony. Great description, really explains the choice. I've always been a big Musicman fan, I think they make fantastic instruments, and they seem very consistent with their QA, so I can see why you'd be drawn to them. And yes, they do have fantastic necks.

Hi. Question for the OP. I've been really curious about these basses ever since they first came out, and I've always wondered what the appeal is for them. I'm sure you've heard this a million times, but the question for me is ..... if you wanted a P/J, why not get a Fender, or one of the brands known for that style of bass? Why go with a brand that is so closely identified with the Stingray? Just to be clear, in no way is this meant as a criticism - I'm genuinely interested in the thinking behind it.

You summed this up perfectly. I was thinking about the same thing - that in 10 years time (you said 30! ) this might end up in the "Ebay Weird and Wonderful" area, with people speculating why such sacrilege was performed! But the OP gives such a great explanation of why he would do it - that combination of loving the bass to bits, yet wanting something a little extra from it, and not being in a financial position to do an entire project to create a replica bass with additional features.

Regarding the bridge, around the time the bass was made, Gibson was using a bridge that appeared to be a Gibson version of a Schaller 3D. It functions exactly the same as a 3D, but has a slightly larger footprint. If you check out photos of Gibson Victory basses from this period, you can see the bridge on any of those. I'm not sure of the actual arrangement Gibson had with Schaller at the time, but the bridges are obviously connected, and I think they were also using their machineheads. Getting back to the Explorer, if you look closely at the closeup photo of the bridge, you can see a faint outline that shows the slightly larger footprint of the original bridge. So the new bridge they have on there would've been a direct swap for the original, with regard to screw placement. Personally, I think it's a great mod they've done, but like a few others have mentioned, I find the positioning of the strong retainers really odd. If you think of Gibsons, and the damage they would be most associated with, one that would spring to mind is a snapped headstock. So whoever did this either wasn't familiar with Gibson, or was supremely confident in their abilities to get it right.

Good point. So the thinking here is along the lines of un-earthing Hendrix's burnt Strat, or the guitar Peter Townshend smashed up US national TV. Makes sense now!

I think this seller's auctions have come up before. He's an odd case - some gear is actually not badly priced, other stuff is really overpriced. I just don't get where he sees £800 in this. You could imagine someone picking it up as a project, and doing something interesting with it - there's some guys on Basschat who do some amazing woodwork, so this could end up being nice in the hands of the right person. But it would have to be at a price that would make it worth the effort. The only redeemable quality this has is that it provides the basic foundation for a neck-thru instrument, so provided the neck isn't a mess, it could end up being interesting. But who ever does that needs to source EVERYTHING - pickups, hardware, whatever else, and then needs to spend a lot of time figuring out how to make this a decent bass again that doesn't have a prosthetic **** sticking out the top. Also noticed that whoever did this hatchet job also had a go at the headstock, so that classic Aria Pro II shape is gone as well.

LMAO! Nearly had a coffee on screen moment there! I'm referring to the kit they put out in the 80s, that sort of period, It was aimed at someone who doesn't want to invest in top end kit, say Trace Elliot. You were fortunate in England - you had a good selection of brands that were locally made and covered a good variety of price points. Laney springs to mind as well. We didn't have those options in Australia - we either massively overpaid for TE or GK, or we ended up with Peavey stuff. Which was good, but bland.

That's really smart. It's so obvious, yet so practical. If I remember correctly, wasn't this brand a similar quality level to something like Carlsboro? Not top of the line, but solid and reliable?