Frank Blank

1 minute ago, Woodinblack said:

There is obviously a lot of imagination put to some instruments, when I started playing in the late 70s, early 80s the prevailing logic was you didn't buy a 70s fender or an early 80s gibson as they were basically firewood. Now they are revered objects. Time has made them so.

However, I think there is a good reason that vintage instruments can be on average better (to play, lets face it they mostly sound the same).

Because a lot of things were hand made or had more hand assembly then there was a variation in the quality of things, and the types of wood and how things matched. Over the years, the ones that were stinky poo got broken, or lost or hacked apart, the ones that were good were looked after and still persist. So now, as a percentage, there are more good ones than there were.

 

So are we to assume that hand assembly makes the instrument better if, in the final analysis they mostly sound the same? It is an interesting thought about the quality instruments surviving and the older ones not making it.

2 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Completely and utterly subjective.

Yes, I think this is the perfect summation of the thread really.

1 minute ago, ambient said:

G-Plan and Ercol from the 1970s are hugely popular and fetch very good money. So you're quite possibly correct.

I think this is an important differentiation. I buy instruments to play, as I am sure everyone contributing to this thread does too but is there something in the vintage instruments (other than future investment potential) that makes it worth having over a modern instrument? I think, if I found a very expensive vintage bass that I loved, before I bought it I would seek out a very similar modern version and see if there was any difference.

1 minute ago, BigRedX said:

Are you losing money though?

How much would those instruments cost to rent for the time that you have owned them? I'm sure the rental cost would far offset the price difference between what you paid new for those instruments and what you would get for them if you sold them today.

Just because an instrument is old shouldn't automatically make it worth more money. IMO it is getting to the point where many vintage instruments are seriously overpriced when considered from any point of view that isn't a collector's.

An excellent point. See, your last line is what niggles me, I don't think I have the knowledge or experience (and I am not, for a moment, suggesting you do not btw) to know if vintage instruments are worth the price or not. Common sense tells me not but am I missing out on something revelatory?

1 hour ago, josie said:

I love my 1966 Gibson EB2 partly because it's 50 years old, and it's been part of such a long history of music and makes me feel part of it too. It's slightly faded and worn and rubbed, as you'd expect,  mostly on the back, but just enough to feel comfortable and genuine. From the front and from not very far away it looks immaculate. But I mostly love it because it's a joy to play and sounds wonderful. The only other EB2 I tried, also a 1966, was just dead wood.

The down side is that I can't gig it - it's too fragile (and valuable, and hard to replace) to take anyplace I'm likely to be able to play.

I do gig my 1992 Jazz Aerodyne, which is visibly better finished than the 2005 Aerodyne I saw for sale recently (and didn't try, so I can't speak for any other comparison).

Ok, can't resist a bit of a brag:

Man that's a beautiful bass. I've just bought an Aerodyne that is currently being set up, I purchased it about a week before I had the short-scale revelation so I expect it will be on sale here within the month. I am interested in your choice of words comfortable and genuine. Comfortable I understand within the context of your post but genuine? Genuine in what sense that a modern instrument isn't?

2 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

Yep, there's the investment angle as well.

I bought a pair of Maruzczyks over the last couple of years - great basses both, but I have to accept that I'm going to lose money if/when I come to sell them (as I've already done with one).

Because I've only really had vintage stuff in recent years, it's a new experience, and it hurts a bit.

I am losing money in reselling too at the moment but I think that's par for the course when you are seeking exactly the right instrument, at least they go to people who are possibly on a similar search, if not at least they may get played by someone else and that's better than them sitting in a rack gathering dust.

1 hour ago, Sibob said:

I don't think it's a lot of people who broadly think vintage instruments are 'better', I think those who play 'vintage' instruments (and I'd probably suggest that means pre 1980 in the context of this discussion) are the minority and a LOT more people play new/modern instruments, and those who ONLY play vintage instruments because of a perceived superiority is even fewer than that. I imagine, in most cases, any instrument used at a given time is seen to be the best instrument for that purpose for that player, be it vintage or otherwise.

I bought a 1971 Precision because I was interested in an instrument that would hold (and increase) it's value, that said, I've never played a better sounding Precision with flats than this....and that includes a 1963 Precision I borrowed for a few gigs. There are probably modern Precisions that are as good, but I've yet to play them. 
Conversely, I've never found a vintage Jazz bass that I've gelled with, so my very new Lakland 44-94 does that job for me, lovely bass and nicer than any vintage Jazz I've played.

Si

I agree with you entirely but I think people like me who write and play music but have very little technical knowledge about their instruments sometimes feel they are possibly missing out on some great instruments that would somehow make the job of writing and performing easier. Obviously common sense makes a nonsense of this but still I get a niggling feeling sometimes when I see someone like Gillian Welch (an artist I really like) using a 1956 Gibson J-50 or her musical partner David Rawlings playing a 1935 Epiphone that they know something I don't, yet when I listen to their recordings I think there is nothing in the tone of their recorded guitars that suggests that you couldn't get the same sound from modern cheaper instruments. This always leaves me on the horns of a dilemma, do they know something I don't? Or do they use such old instruments because they think they should? Or (more than two horns here, obv.) are they genuinely playing such instrument because they love the feel of them, a feel that cannot be found in a modern instrument?

1 hour ago, silverfoxnik said:

Great thread this ☺

And with some very well-constructed, well-reasoned points about 'vintage' versus 'modern' instruments that have really got me thinking.

Having thought about it, my 2p worth is this..

I'm kind of with Shaggy on this (as in his original post) in that I just enjoy the whole aesthetic of older, over-engineered instruments that look like they've been used a lot over time to make music with...

So, 'Bass Nirvana' for me is when I find an instrument that fits with how I like it to look, but also so that it fits with how I like it to feel and sound when I'm using it.

All three of those determining factors are completely subjective to me and are undermined by my poor hearing and tinnitus in my right ear, my lack of good (or proper)  playing technique and my own quirky sense of what looks good and what doesn't.

Having said all that, one of my favourite basses that I really enjoy playing is a 5 year old Schecter Diamond P5 that doesn't look at all like my other basses, is way too big for me and will never gain any kind of classic status I expect. But I just love the way it plays in my hands and the sound I make when using it.

What's it worth? Probably about £300. Yet it's outlasted some much more expensive basses that I've had over the last 5 years.

I remember having a '66 Fender Jazz in the early nineties that I never really bonded with, much preferring an '80s Tokai Jazz Sound that I had for three years, which I then rather foolishly traded for a Music Man 5 string with a John East preamp that I never liked at all and which I sold on quite quickly...

Hence my conclusion is that I have no set perspective on this topic that I could reasonably offer to anyone that will be of any objective value, and that in the end, my preference for any particular bass I buy will be based on my mood and my finances at the time I'm buying it.

I doubt that all this will help move the debate along much though, but I'm looking forward to reading more comments as the debate continues. ☺

 

I actually think it helps the debate a lot in that there is no set perspective, one can have one's own taste and preferences about an instrument but I think if this thread has highlighted anything it is that there is no definitive set of criteria that make a vintage bass superior to a modern one or vice versa. There may be something about the materials used in construction, the manner of it's manufacture, but in the end personal preference seems to hugely outweigh any other factor, somehow that pleases me a lot. One thing I do know is that the reasoned arguments and totally friendly discussion on this thread has kind of warmed an old misanthrope's heart! If I were ever attracted to a bass that was considered vintage I'd be straight on here asking for advice, that's for sure.

2 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

I haven't read the thread - apologies - but my view is this:

All other things being equal, IMO this:

...looks a million times nicer than this:

A million...

12 minutes ago, Cato said:

First mass produced solid bodied fretted bass guitar?

I can't imagine that there are many bass players who wouldn't be interested in that slice of history. 

Apart from me. 

19 minutes ago, SH73 said:

Some people swear that drink taste better out of can than bottle and triangle cut sandwiches taste better than rectangular cut.

I prefer drinking bottled  beer out of a bottle not a glass. Sure it tastes the same.

 

I’m all for the square cut sandwich but profess no preference with beer.

1 minute ago, Cat Burrito said:

I've had both and there are definitely good and bad examples of everything. I think everything I own now is 21st century but with classic / retro stylings. I had some great 70s basses though. Were they better? No. But I get that people want a bit of vintage mojo to get closer to their idols / the classic era. We live in the consumer age and players can have whatever they can afford. I wouldn't knock a player for spending £6k on a classic Fender anymore than I would a friend having a modern PRS, which although not to my tastes I have to remind myself it wouldn't be my instrument! 

I suppose we are settling for the instrument that we like in the end, if that is vintage so be it, if it is modern then likewise, so be it. In the end we are satisfying ourselves and if part of that is to own something older with some history or some nice wear then that's part of what you are paying for.

5 minutes ago, Chiliwailer said:

I’m not sure if I believe in the perfect Jazz Bass, (or any bass) I’ve played too many Jazzes that are great in very different ways. 

Though having owned very nice pre CBS and Custom Shop Jazzes in the past it’s nice to say that the one I’ve bonded with the most is my current 2015 USA Std, it’s far from perfect, but it’s my most played bass these days. 

Its good that you’re not ruling out a vintage, of what you can afford, a good bass is a good bass after all. 

Refinish a battered 51? Crikey!  

Having previously owned vintage basses with reliced ‘mojo’, it started to feel odd to me having a bass with someone else’s wear, these days I like near mint vintage or nothing. Never thought I’d say that years ago. 

I own my current 66 P Bass because I like the history more than anything else, it is an excellent sounding bass and a joy to play. Yet a decent modern bass would be just as fine for me too, but while I can it’s nice to own a part of the Fender history that I’m so fond of. 

I like that, owning part of the history, it's a kind of belonging isn't it. I feel it too, even having a modern Fender, its still a part of the lineage. All these musings are really helping.

18 minutes ago, Cato said:

Personally I'll take new and shiny over vintage with mojo everyday of the week.

I wouldn't turn down an original 51 p bass, mind, but I'd happily have it refinished if it wasn't in mint condition.

So what does a 51 P bass have over a 2017 P  bass?

6 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Hat's..? Can't abide hats. As a school kid, I picked up a trilby found on the grass, put it on my head and got stung by a bee that was in there. Can't abide hats. We are all nurture, as well as nature. Much of our character is set in stone before we're weaned.

How odd, I was stung by a wasp that alighted unnoticed on my ice cream between licks when I was a child, can't abide ice cream...

8 minutes ago, Roger2611 said:

Great avatar Frank! I think a lot of the vintage thing is snake oil nowadays, sure some of the early instruments were great instruments but as any dealer worth his salt will tell you whilst some are fantastic others can be total rubbish, take the fabled 59 Les Paul as an example, most are apparently fantastic examples and are rightly hugely desireable and sadly spend their lives locked in bank vaults, others were bland ordinary instruments that players owned, realised they didn't like them and sold them on, my bet would be that any 59 /60 Les Paul you see come up for sale on the open market will be one of the latter unspecial instruments!

We all acknowledge that both Gibson and Fender went through some serious build quality instruments back in the late 70's, I guess at that time it was easier for a buyer to guarentee a better instrument if they brought an older 60's instrument, not that all 70's Fenders were bad, that no doubt drove a lot of the move towards the vintage market.

I have a cracking 79 Precision that is a rarity because it weighs in at just under 9lbs and plays and sounds great, I had an exactly the same bass a couple of years ago that weighed in at 10.5 lbs and that sounded ok and played ok, two very different basses from the same year.

Now that Fender and Gibson have far better quality control (and they have to to compete with all the other manufacturers out there) the vintage desireabillity, at least on playing grounds, is somewhat diminished,  I have a custom shop 62 Precision that is perfect for me, it is beautifully built, with nice light woods, it has a nitro finish (which on Fender's I prefer) but is built with over 50 years of experience behind it and to me offers the best of both worlds, the next argument comes because it is a "heavy relic" which sparks the whole "why make a relic" debate but for me it is the best that Fender are currently offering so I brought it!

Crass, it's a must.

This is such good info. Although I am about to purchase a modern Chowny bass (I'm on a short scale mission at the moment) I still feel the perfect Jazz bass eludes me and I don't want to rule out a vintage model in case I miss a bass I love, if that makes sense?

14 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Well, there you are, you see..? I've not the slightest dress sense, and even less aesthetic 'taste' or interest in garments (except socks, maybe; I like to have warm feet...). Oddly, though..? No, quite the norme to be as different as we are all the same. 'I say potato' and all that. Don't sweat it; there's no kittens being harmed. Anyway, nostalgia isn't what it used to be. 

I have no dress sense either, but I do appreciate some old clothes, especially hats.

32 minutes ago, PaulWarning said:

maybe the language was a bit harsh, but deep down isn't that why people buy vintage things, to impress other people, it makes them feel good, there again it could be just me that just doesn't get it

Actually my use of the word harsh was, if anything, a bit harsh! What I actually meant was accurate or correct. I agree wholly with your statement, to impress, to feel good, it's a not often discussed motivator.

15 minutes ago, T-Bay said:

A lot of it is personal. I have my grandfathers tool kit that he saved up for as an apprentice. I would never sell it, it will be passed onto my daughter. But I wouldn’t buy someone else’s grandfathers tool set unless I needed the tools. Instruments are a bit different somehow, not really sure how but they just seem to be for me. I like the idea that have been making music, giving people a hobby/ living/ enjoyment for many years. I wouldn’t necessarily pay a premium for that though.

This is very interesting. I 'inherited' several items from my parents deaths but all were imbued with feelings of my childhood and family, whom I (hated is too strong a word as is despised...) shall we say didn't get along with, so (with relish in some cases) threw those things away, happily and cathartically. Whereas some people would be ontologically rooted by such artefacts I disliked any notion of my parents as a reference, maybe that has some bearing on my not understanding vintage and nostalgia.

5 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Yes, they do (to my cloth ears...), but only those sounds..!  Buzzes, hiss, crackles, pops and occasional smoke. What's not to like..? Oh, yes, and heavy, too...

Ha ha. Superb, I'd have to drink several pints of cider, smoke 10 B&H and have a fight with a glued up skinhead to replicate the sounds of my youth. I haven't enough hair left to recreate the mohican...

6 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

To the left of the 'Quote' button is a 'Multi-quote' button (it has a '+' on it; hmm, not so intuitive, it seems...). Try it..? 

Not so intuitive to a dolt like me... Sheesh.

3 minutes ago, Skol303 said:

I think therein lies the root of your perspective on this topic. If you judge instruments purely as tools, then absolutely there is no benefit to playing a vintage bass that can’t be replicated by a modern counterpart. I myself am very much of the IKEA furniture mindset in this regard  

If you impart an instrument with other less practical qualities - heritage, nostalgia, mojo, a sense of comfort, etc - then it becomes something more personal.

If we could ask Nile Rogers why he still plays the same Fender Strat he’s been playing for 40+ years... when a modern Strat would be equally as good (if not better)... then I’d wager his answer would be based on emotions and other undefinable fluff, rather than anything practical. But I’d also wager that particular guitar brings out the best in his playing - not because it’s a better tool for the job, but because of how it makes him feel.

Not purely as tools, I very much appreciate them as tools but I am also almost fickle about the aesthetics, what I don't really comprehend is the heritage and nostalgia. I understand the comfort but I find that in new as well as old instruments, same with emotions, I respond emotionally to an instrument on several levels but not in the vintage, nostalgic, heritage sense and I'm wondering why I don't. Oddly enough I do with clothes and with books but not with basses or instruments per se. I agree totally btw about the Nile Rogers example, such a long familiarity with the guitar, his love of it must bring out the best in him.

6 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

T'weren't just the punks, lad; we all had to do with whatever came to hand (or that we built ourselves..!) I could afford little, with my apprentice wages, except cheap chipboard for making my own 4 x 12 cab, 36" x 36", with the cheapest cones I could get from Exchange & Mart ads, trailing all the way to Tottenham Court Road to get 'em..! Fun times, but our gear (and most of the folks I knew and played with...) were much the same. I never saw a Fender bass until coming to France in '75.

Happy daze. 

Yes it certainly wasn't only the punk era, I think all musicians, unless one comes from a reasonably privileged background, had to start with home made or scrounged gear. I never owned any quality equipment until I was in my 40s (apart from a Jaydee that I had when I was 25). I think I'm wondering more if using vintage equipment really reproduces the sounds of the times? You have way more experience in this than me.

1 minute ago, Shaggy said:

Yup - the real unfortunate thing is that wherever there is rarity and potential profit, the vintage market will be driven initially by collectors and then by investors, freezing the actual players out

Rock is always looking back - whether it's biker jackets or retro gear.   Didn't the La's obsess with getting the '60's vibe integral to their album recording to the extent that they had to use original 1960's recording desks complete with original 1960's dust?  And can anyone actually hear the difference?

 

How did you split those quotes btw?

Another good reason for going with modern instruments to shut out the collectors and investors?

I think those who can say they can discern the difference couldn't quantify that difference (not that it matters, all art is subjective after all) but more importantly not feel superior because they can. When people use these old equipment theories for recording I can't ever hear the difference. Then again I'm an old punk so pristine or vintage gear was never an option.

11 minutes ago, GuyR said:

The major manufacturers had what seems to be commonly acknowledged as a reduction in quality of their products in the late 60s/early 70s, bringing about a preference for the instruments from the previous era, which was perfectly sensible in the era of the 3 bolt boat-anchor Jazz bass, but less relevant now. 

It may well be that the availability of properly seasoned timber and exotic hardwoods might give older instruments a head-start, but I have to say, when I went to try, then buy, a 64 jazz bass, having a try on the owner's fodera 4 string was quite an eye-opener. It was much the more sophisticated, refined and versatile of the two instruments, but the vintage jazz felt more comfortable, worn-in and enabled me to make a sound that made me happy to part with a sizeable wad. warm and rounded, not harsh or aggressive, with great harmonics and very responsive. How much of that is my wanting to like it who knows, but perhaps no coincidence I spent an hour playing it unaccompanied earlier today.

I have played other pre cbs jazz basses that have been absolutely dead and have not "spoken to me"

How the median-quality pre cbs bass, when new, would compare with the median-quality custom shop current production, sadly is only the subject of conjecture. 

My guess is you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

excellent, good-natured thread btw.

...and this thread is that excellent, good natured conjecture. Again I think the whole subjective/objective schism is beautifully summed up here...

How the median-quality pre cbs bass, when new, would compare with the median-quality custom shop current production, sadly is only the subject of conjecture. 

My guess is you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.