warwickhunt

[quote name='WalMan' post='759566' date='Feb 28 2010, 03:55 AM']or did he just think he'd been sussed and get cold feet? I've become such a cynic in my old age[/quote] [quote name='Gunsfreddy2003' post='759576' date='Feb 28 2010, 07:22 AM']Would have to agree with you there WalMan.[/quote] I have to confess that's my take on it to!

Not sure that the block and bound fingerboard was available on this model!

So now that the auction is ended it does make me wonder why most of the images have been removed... Oh no I remember: taken from the previous time it was listed and discussed! [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=70234"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=70234[/url] [quote name='wateroftyne' post='680255' date='Dec 10 2009, 01:59 PM']...but if you're hosting the images yourself, you can include as many as you like in the main description with no charge. Why the seller would go to the effort of typing a description as text, pasting it into an image, saving it out, hosting it and then linking to it is a mystery to me. Unless being able to delete the image after the auction closes, and therefore all record of the text of the auction, is useful to them... [/quote] I'm a skeptical owld git but when stuff like that happens (as predicted) it does make you wonder.

His feedback recently showed that he'd also sold a vintage Fender gold sparkle P bass but as it has slipped past the 90 days you can no longer view the link! Considering how rare they must be he's one hell of a lucky guy to have found a matching pair!

Has it been established if the neck was genuine late 70's B&B?

[quote name='The Bass Doc' post='755347' date='Feb 23 2010, 07:26 PM']I have seen necks that clean before - it's the fingerboard pics that convince me it's genuine.[/quote] I agree that it's sooooo hard to 'relic' that look on a fingerboard (I've never ever seen a good copy) and the inlay dots just appear so right with that aged (almost sunken/shrunk) look to the rosewood and I have to confess I'd defer to you with regard to the condition of the neck. I know that the maple neck on my oldest Warwick (the one I got via you Howie) got sealed by DW and it looked as new and shiny when I sold it 15 years (and thousands of hours use) later... I still managed to ding the headstock now and again though!

First (1979/80): Marshall Superbass 100 + Marshall 4x12 'guitar' cab which I cut the baffle out of and fitted an 18" driver mounted on a new baffle (got the driver free off a mate). footnote - that amp spent more time in the TV repair shop than at gigs; yes, once upon a time people repaired TVs rather than throw them in the skip when they broke... oh and the people that fixed TVs fixed your amps! Last (2010): Thunderfunk 550B + x2 Aguilar 112's footnote - this amp had better not break down but if it does I'm sure that they are made in the same way that they made the old TVs so I'll get it repaired rather than bin it!

I have to say the patina on the fingerboard (and the colour of the dots), body, scratchplate etc. all look very period correct; even the rust on the pup slugs BUT in comparison that headstock and rear of the neck look 'quite' new and shiny! My main concern is the number of people involved in taking the last photograph... I spot feet belonging to at least 3 people!

Mind I'd be knocking £20-£30 off for a new set of strings... saying that you could probably sell a set of 47 year old flats on here!

I'm seeing that as still active with 4 days left to go and a bid of £25!

That's a bit of an odd one that. Very cheap without a doubt but it didn't start life off as fretless. The pups are unusual in as much as the Dolphin 5 'normally' has a twin J @ the bridge and a single J @ the neck. I also seriously doubt that the bass is a 94; I'd have put that as a very early 5 string Dolphin, not as late as 94!

You'll require some form of active X-over to do this any justice G, added to which what cabs do you intend utilising? There's an almost identical thread/question asked every couple of months (in fact an identical one started today on the Warwick forum) so it might be of use to search the site for previous suggestions/ideas.

[quote name='deej' post='752310' date='Feb 20 2010, 11:02 PM']How much grit you can get out of these amps? Im not looking for pure filth, but a bit of bite would be nice.[/quote] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGQyKIdyO30&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGQyKIdyO30...feature=related[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bay-1nv_5Q4&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bay-1nv_5Q4...feature=related[/url]

[quote name='alanbass1' post='752345' date='Feb 20 2010, 11:31 PM']if not, and they should be prepared to receive get bad feedback. so be it.[/quote] Whether you think this is wrong or right is another debate/matter but the seller CAN'T leave the buyer negative feedback even if they wanted to! I personally think that if someone had lived close enough to go and verify what exactly this is, then it would have been fine for them to decide whether to bid or not. However, for someone to bid so high on something that is in doubt (cheap mind if it is what it 'could' be) shows recklessness or greed and they now have to make that decision as to what they do. I have to say that the seller gave all the warning signs in the listing that this probably isn't a pukka late 70's Jazz so I'm not sure that you can lay blame at their door, the seller is certainly guilty of being economical with the truth, enough to leave it ambiguous to draw in the unwary... though if anyone had read this thread in the lead up the end of the listing they'd hardly have been unaware of the potential for a big fat FAIL!