Jimmyfingers

[quote name='White Cloud' timestamp='1427314702' post='2728877'] Really...thought it was just my isolated bad luck. To be honest mine was spectacularly beautiful, the prettiest bass that I have ever owned. The neck was fine to begin with but bent like a banana after a few weeks. I was desperately sad as I guess you were too! I still think they look amazing though. [/quote] Jaydee did have a period of real issues with the necks. Anything from the mid 80's was fine but towards the end of the 80's they went from being a one man operation to 10 people trying to keep up with the demand generated by Mark King. They were trying out some new ideas and the necks became notoriously whippy. I had an 84 model that was brilliant. When I sold it in 2008 the neck was still perfect. It had an amazing tone and the most brilliant ability to just play it with my left hand. Its a shame about yours, but as I said, the early (and probably current ) ones are superb. They just look quite dated now. About 15 years ago you could pick them up second hand for £350-400. Now they've gone back up to £1200+

Why is that when people go on about older guitars sounding better they are only ever talking about Fenders? Back in the 80's you'd get people crowing on about 62 Precision or whatever, and I suppose they were pretty much the only brand that could have much of a vintage being the first production basses. So somehow a 20 year old Fender sounded better than a new one. But now, you can get Warwick's or Status that are 20+ years of, and yet I've never heard anybody making claims for them sounding better. Weird. My first post, and I'm chuffed because I've just bought a 9 year old Warwick. My first bass since stopping playing about 10 years ago.