Misdee

From the photo, its difficult to tell if the bass has it's original finish, or if it has been stripped and refinished as natural. If it has been refinished then that will approximately halve the value of the instrument as a vintage piece. How fair a price you paid depends entirely on how original the bass is and it's overall structural condition. To be honest with you, it is impossible to tell that just looking at the photo. I'm not trying to sound negative at all - if you enjoy playing this bass then great - but accurately assessing vintage Fenders is a bit of a "detective" job at the best of times.

The BB2025 is indeed a beast! I would prefer 19mm spacing, but then again maybe it wouldn't have such a great neck profile so I should be careful what I wish for. Regarding the BBNE2, I've never played one, probably because I am a recent reluctant convert to the world of 5 strings ( I am, very sorry to say, old enough to remember the world of bass before such fripperies were even thought of). Also, in the past few years I have been gravitating much more towards passive basses, albeit ones with supercharged hot pickups. I am sure the NE2s are great basses, just not my cup of tea. All that might change if I played one, though.

I concur with those who say that the Steinberger XL was not lightweight. It's a long time since I played one, but I distinctly remember being surprised how substantial they felt, probably a similar weight to a typical P Bass. The Streamline, in comparison, is very light, maybe about 7 1/2 lbs. In terms of whether the Status improves on the XL design, I have to say it is probably better in some respects, but not as good in others. The Steinberger, to my ears at least, had a very distinctive tone. I would describe it as being quite dry,and even a bit hard in the midrange. That was part of its appeal. The Streamline sounds like graphite but is a bit warmer. Also, the Status obviates the need for the "balance flipper" and leg rest, although whether the Streamline is ultimately as comfortable to use as the Steinberger is a matter of opinion. To be honest with you, it really is so long since I played a Steinberger I can't give an accurate evaluation. What I can remember with total clarity. is what fantastic instruments those original Steinbergers were, how great they sounded and how much I wanted one! I think a big part of why these basses are not currently in production is because they were so difficult to manufacture. Even if Ned could buy the patent back perhaps he doesn't want the hassle.

I finally got to have a go on a P34. Very nicely made bass with a lovely slim neck profile and a great sound, but the one I played was just a little bit too heavy for me. I was rather surprised by that, considering that the P34 has got the new lightweight tuners, etc. Maybe the Maple core is to blame? Anyway, if you don't mind a moderately heavy bass, I really don't think you can do better for the money if you want a first-rate professional quality instrument.

They were fantastic basses. I always wanted one but could never afford one back then. I find it hard to understand why somebody ( preferably Ned Steinberger) isn't making a version of these basses today. It is a classic design with a unique tone that other graphite basses can't really reproduce. I've got a Status Streamline as a kind of homage to the Steinberger. It is a lovely bass, but it sounds a bit warmer than the typical Steinberger. The Steinberger had a very substantial feel, despite it's svelte design, and some folks found the neck a bit too chunky. Suited me just fine, though. I remember the UK retail price in 1982 when they first arrived in the shops, ( Soundwave in Romford was the UK outlet, if I remember correctly) was £999. That was a lot of money for a bass in those days. Much more than I had anyway!

If I remember correctly, it was around the time they were promoting Wings Of A Dove. It may well have been on the Tube, Must have been 1983, the same year as EC.

I remember seeing Bruce Thomas playing that bass live with EC around this time. The bass player from Madness had one in an identical finish about exactly the same time.

Most of the ones i've seen in shops online are over 10 lbs, unfortunately. My eyes are peeled for a Classic in the 9 - 91/2 lb range. In the right colour. I might be waiting a while!

I cannot play any bass over 9 1/2 lbs. It would just be a useless ornament to me. Pity, but I've learned from experience.

This thread has fuelled my Stingray longing no end. I spent much of this morning pining over Stingray Classics, all of which were way too heavy.

That 5 string in Cruise Teal is absolutely stunning. From what I can make out, the 4 string will only be available in that colour with black hardware, and I want chrome on the 4 string! A Bongo in that colour would be sublime. Maybe EBMM will offer that option. To be fair, I am sure that these new basses will sound pretty much like MM Stingrays always did give or take some very slight subtle differences. It will be very interesting to see what the UK pricing is on these in the current economic climate. I doubt we will be pleasantly surprised.

Funnily enough, I'm after a Rickenbacker too! More than likely, I'm going to opt for a single H Bongo (absolutely love my HH Bongo, amazing bass). The only problem is, coming up to retirement age, I feel a bit like mutton dressed up as lamb with the Bongo design. I like it tremendously but I'm worried I look a bit silly playing it.

Lighter wood is not necessarily more expensive. Employing somebody to sort lighter wood from that which is too heavy is significantly more expensive. Rejecting the wood which would be too heavy is also a very expensive process. Wood is bought in bulk and EBMM would be stuck with a lot of useless planks.

I cannot help but wonder why other manufacturers manage to make traditional Stingray -style basses of a reasonable weight and yet it seems to elude EBMM. US- made 44-94 series Lakland basses consistently weigh in at between 8 and 9 lbs, for example. They are essentially the same shape as a Stingray and are made out of the same woods. These new Stingrays look and sound ok, I suppose, but ultimately they appear to be a compromise designed to protect EBMM's profit margins whilst addressing the increasingly pressing need to make a lighter bass for a more fussy modern consumer. The design of these basses is as much to do with the politics and economics of manufacturing as it is to do with the efficacies of guitar design.Rather than use lighter hardware it would be preferable to select lighter wood. But that would cost more. Similarly, they will have chosen neodynium for the pickup because they can adapt the spec they are already using for the Bongo.I am reserving judgement until I have tried one, of course, but to my sensibilities these basses look uncomfortably close to being a "diet" Stingray. From a personal point of view, Stingrays just don't look right without the traditional mute bridge. Black hardware also looks wrong on a four string Stingray to me. I am in the market for a Stingray at the moment, but these new hybrids might be a bit too much of a compromise,to my taste anyway.

These are very nice basses. The narrower-than-usual nut width seems to make the fat neck more playable. The '74 Jazz pickups are fantastic, too. I notice that Fender are offering these pickups as a separate item now. This range was recently discontinued and it will be interesting to see what Fender replace them with, if at all.

I had a '73 P Bass identical to DeeDee back in the '80s. I sold it for £200 when I moved house in late 1988 . I thought I had done a good deal. ( Although, to be fair, £200 was the going rate back then.) There's lots of great P Bass pups on the market nowadays, but to my ears the DiMarzio Model P is still one of the growliest and obnoxious.

All with the proviso that if you have a nice old vintage bass that works well for you ( like a genuine 64 P Bass! ) don't give it up for scrap.

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with this view. I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember when an increasing amount of the gear which is now considered "vintage" was new and current. When I see mid- to- late 70s Fenders selling for thousands of pounds I am a bit aghast. Then again, I think Mk 1 Wal Custom Basses are grotesquely over-priced at 4k+ on the second-hand market. Because I am well familiar with basses from that era they hold no particular mystique for me. At the risk of stating the obvious, the problem with a lot of vintage instruments is that they are old and worn. A lot of these instruments were made without any thought of longevity. No one suspected they would become holy relics. More often than not, once the romance has worn off you are left with something not particularly special, riddled with niggling problems that you have paid over the odds for.

I've got a fairly recent 4402 fretless with Lakland/Hanson pickups and electronics and it sounds fantastic. No problem with the A and D strings whatsoever. A very, very versatile bass.

I've got one of these basses and they are indeed fantastic instruments. They do have lots of great tones available as someone else has noted, but I find them to be relentlessly "modern". The Bongo isn't a bass I would choose for retro tones. It has its own signature sound and is all the better for that! A refreshing change from the plethora of basses on the market desperately trying to evoke a fashionably "vintage" vibe.

The maple core of the P34 could be pretty heavy. I suppose a lot depends on luck! Less chrome on the P34 but it still has metal knobs and a scratch plate.

Just to clarify, you'll get no lack of punch from a Spector - they're one of the most powerful sounding basses out there - but it doesn't sound like a traditional Fender P Bass. Probably because it sounds too powerful!

They may both be PJ's, but comparing Spector and Yamaha is not comparing like with like. Both great basses in their own way, but very different, in terms of construction, overall feel and tone. The Yamaha will give you more of a traditional P Bass sound and feel. The Spector NS2 is much more of a modern hifi tone and a unique ergonomic, feel due to the curved, compact body. Not necessarily neck-heavy but definitely a different balance to a conventional Fender- style bass.

Beautiful bass, Chris, exactly the same as mine! I can honestly say these Yamaha BB's are one of those rare instances in life where the value of something becomes even more apparent over time. I hope you get as much enjoyment as I do with mine. May I ask if you have any impression how the weight of the new P34 compares with the 2024X? The 2024X's tend to weigh in at about 9 1/2 lbs in my experience.

In the interest of clarity, I've got a 2024X and a 2024. The major difference apart from the obvious cosmetic ones, is that the 2024 is over 1/2 lb lighter in weight. As a relatively old bloke from the pre-computer age, I am not very au fait with digital technology, but I will try post a picture when I can get one of my kids to help me. To be honest with you, I haven't played any of the 10 Series basses so I can't comment on the relative merits in relation to the 20 Series, but I am perfectly willing to believe that the 10 Series offers a great deal of the same qualities for a fraction of the price. What I can say with conviction is that the 20 Series compares very favourably with much more expensive high-end "boutique" basses I own and have had in the past. For example, I've got a USA-made Lakland PJ with a Jazz-width neck that is a lovely bass, but it has a far more conventional Fender-style tone and overall vibe .These Yamahas, in contrast, sound effortlessly huge and surprisingly un-Fenderish considering that, at face value they are share many similarities in construction. The Lakland has essentially the same tone as the PJ 5 string that Paul Turner is playing in the video Funkydario posted .In comparison, these Yamahas have a unique tone that you really wouldn't want to change. There are so many basses on the market that sound like Fenders but the Yamahas are refreshingly different.