warwick necks

[budget bassist]

So i played a warwick jazzman FNA 4 string today in search of THE bass for me. It looked lovely, felt really nice on my lap, nice weight to it, the string spacing was almost perfect (close enough to do some fast widdly stuff but wide enough for some slappin'), and it sounded really nice. Thing is the neck had a really fat profile as in front to back. And i didn't like that one bit aside from that the rest of the bass was near perfect. Are all warwick necks like that?

Ya see i'm looking for something (4 or 5 i'm not sure yet) that has a neck and a feel like my tobias (really thin neck and assymetrical, small body too with 24 frets so it feels nice and small in my hands) but it sounds really ballsy like my musicman and obviously looks really nice. I'd replace the pickups in my toby but the wings on the body don't match at all and i just wouldn't be happy with that Any suggestions? (i'm looking for sub £700 used probably). It may not become a reality but it's nice to have a target. I'm trying to get a job too.

Please keep in mind i'm not asking for someone to sell me a bass as i can't afford anything now, but i just want something to mull over.

Edited April 15, 2008 by budget bassist

[WithoutRisk_BassPlayer]

[quote]Ya see i'm looking for something (4 or 5 i'm not sure yet) that has a neck and a feel like my tobias (really thin neck and assymetrical, small body too with 24 frets so it feels nice and small in my hands) but it sounds really ballsy like my musicman and obviously looks really nice.[/quote]

What you are after is a Fender Stu Hamm Urge II, small body (thinner than p bass lighter than a jazz bass) has a fast assymetrical neck, its lightweight, has a never ending tonal variety...I was after the same as you and it was the Fender Urge II that had it all!

Brand new they're about £1100 - £1300, second hand (if you can find one) theyre about £700 - 900

Oh and all the warwicks I played did have the same fat neck (corvettes, streamer stage 1 and a thumb thru neck 4)

Hope that helps,

Will

[budget bassist]

They look really ugly to me. As good as it sounds on paper it's a bit of a no-no. Plus a bit too expensive.

[ped]

Weird one, this - some of the warwicks I have tried felt very baseball bat like and others pencil thin. G77's thumb for example was just lovely (I like them about jazz size). The idea that all warwick necks are thick is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps it is the more common off the shelf ones that are fatter?

[budget bassist]

I dunno, i was under the impression the one i tried wasn't all that generic. Certainly didn't look it.

I'm not just thinking of trying to find a cheap standard MIM jazz and upgrade the bridge and pickups etc. Or maybe find a cheap active one if possible but that could be hard.... Is it possible to install an active preamp into a standard jazz without much difficulty?

EDIT: i think i found something. There was one of these on ebay not long ago and i wish i could have snapped it up. jazz body with QM top in cherry sunburst or tobacco burst (all of which has always appealed to me, apart from the tobacco burst but it looks nice on this), also 24 frets, active electronics, seymour duncan basslines... yum, and a heftier bridge than the standard fender one and only £500 new, i like!




Ignore the bass on the left there, i prefer the cherry burst tbh... Thoughts? anyone tried one?

Edited April 15, 2008 by budget bassist

[The Burpster]

I'm not normally a J fan....

However that is 'effing gorgeous......


(The top one of the 3!)

[tauzero]

[quote name='budget bassist' post='177412' date='Apr 15 2008, 09:56 PM']So i played a warwick jazzman FNA 4 string today in search of THE bass for me. It looked lovely, felt really nice on my lap, nice weight to it, the string spacing was almost perfect (close enough to do some fast widdly stuff but wide enough for some slappin'), and it sounded really nice. Thing is the neck had a really fat profile as in front to back. And i didn't like that one bit aside from that the rest of the bass was near perfect. Are all warwick necks like that?[/quote]
No. The neck on the JD Thumbs are nice and shallow. And someone on here is flogging one for £800 - seeing as I paid £900 for mine 20 years ago (and got rid of all my other basses to afford it), that's a bit of a bargain.

[gafbass02]

Strange, ive owned four warwicks and they all had thin necks, the fattest was my FNA jazzman, but not much fatter than a jazz.

Edited April 16, 2008 by gafbass02

[Ray]

I had a Corvette Proline 5 and the neck on that was well chunky. I also tried a 4 string Proline with a pretty fat neck.

[TheRinser]

My old housemate had one of those Jazz 24s. Beatiful bass, great tone, great variety with the electronics, felt lovely. Sounds sweet live and in the studio. All round good bass.

[budget bassist]

Yeah i may just have to go with one of them unless i find a warwick i like

Edited April 16, 2008 by budget bassist

[sshorepunk]

Try a neck through warwick, the necks are far batter, more so on the earlier basses.
Someone said in a previous post, that they all felt the same including Stage 1 etc, not correct IMHO
I've owned many warwicks, probably not as many as WH, but a good few and they do vary

Some bargain Stage 1's out there, also consider, if you find a bass like that and it is right apart from a slightly thick neck, a "neck shave" by someone like the Bass Gallery isn't a lot of money and by removing a relativley small amount of wood, it can make a huge difference.

Warwick are offering custom neck profiles but the upcharge was HUGE last time I looked

T

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='sshorepunk' post='180309' date='Apr 19 2008, 08:35 AM']Try a neck through warwick, the necks are far batter, more so on the earlier basses.
Someone said in a previous post, that they all felt the same including Stage 1 etc, not correct IMHO
I've owned many warwicks, probably not as many as WH, but a good few and they do vary

Some bargain Stage 1's out there, also consider, if you find a bass like that and it is right apart from a slightly thick neck, a "neck shave" by someone like the Bass Gallery isn't a lot of money and by removing a relativley small amount of wood, it can make a huge difference.

Warwick are offering custom neck profiles but the upcharge was HUGE last time I looked

T[/quote]

Did someone say my name

If I had £1 for each time I've contributed to an on-line discussion about Warwick necks and their dimensions I'd have... eleventy twelve pence!

In all seriousness you can find earlier NT Warwicks that have got slim profiles and some of the later BO necks are quite chunky, you'd have to go through them to ascertain what suited best. I can say that WoT has very kindly loaned me one of his wonderful 70's P basses and the width at the nut is identical to my 91 Streamer 40mm. My 87 Streamer Stage I has a 38mm nut width and is very slim in depth, whereas my '88 Stage II is 40mm at the nut and a little bit fuller (not much) but they are all so subtly different on these early instruments you'd again have to try before you buy.

In summary; Warwick necks are not fat however they can be phat (what a sad barsteward I am).

[sshorepunk]

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='180373' date='Apr 19 2008, 10:53 AM']Did someone say my name

If I had £1 for each time I've contributed to an on-line discussion about Warwick necks and their dimensions I'd have... eleventy twelve pence!

In all seriousness you can find earlier NT Warwicks that have got slim profiles and some of the later BO necks are quite chunky, you'd have to go through them to ascertain what suited best. I can say that WoT has very kindly loaned me one of his wonderful 70's P basses and the width at the nut is identical to my 91 Streamer 40mm. My 87 Streamer Stage I has a 38mm nut width and is very slim in depth, whereas my '88 Stage II is 40mm at the nut and a little bit fuller (not much) but they are all so subtly different on these early instruments you'd again have to try before you buy.

In summary; Warwick necks are not fat however they can be phat (what a sad barsteward I am).[/quote]

I would have elenty ten pence if I had the same income stream!

T

[Dubs]

This is an interesting topic. I guess warwickhunt is going to be the most knowledgeable on the subject having many different Warwicks differing in age/model etc, but I've found Warwick necks to be quite a bit thinner than a lot of other makes. I've had a few Warwicks and I've loved the way they all feel (except for when my Streamer Standard had a smashed in headstock!). I'd recommend trying it again maybe and definitely trying a few others including a thru but under £700 it is likely that the only thru neck Warwick you will find will be a Streamer Stage I.
It would take something very special for me to stop playing Warwicks, you cannot beat "The Sound of Wood".

One man's Ferrari is another man's Lada... it's all personal preference at the end of the day.

[BassBod]

My experience has been that W necks shapes vary - over time and between neck-through / bolt-ons. My ex-Streamer Stage I (now with our very own Luke Ward) had a great neck, a bit deep (front to back) but very comfy - one of the best basses I've owned.

One thing to remember is that your tastes can change - I used to be a J bass person, thin and fast. Now I find that a bit uncomfortable/tiring and prefer a more chunky profile. There's middle age for you! Actually, what made the difference was my Clifton shortscale - it was made with a pretty meaty neck, as anything else on a 30" scale feels like a toy. After playing that for a few weeks I was converted.

Good point about having a Warwick neck shape changed - with an oil finish its really not a big job to have it shaved down a bit, as long as its done carefully. A little wood off the back can make a big difference.

BB

[spacecowboy]

The neck on my 88' stage II is fantastic not to thin but definitely not thick and incredibly playable, however the neck on my corvette double buck was thick and the edges on the fretboard where sharp, but saying that it wasn't terrible, the neck on my streamer lx was a bore, incredibly dry for some weird reason and thick, i played a fna jazzman in a local sound control and i put it straight back, i love love love warwick but that particular model was awfully unplayable, it didn't help that the strings where a good 7mm off the board and loaded with dead strings ! i think what I'm trying to get across is they all differ greatly really, but in general rule the older the warwick the better the neck.

[gilmour]

I quite like the fat Warwick necks, but... Have you thought about a Spector - similar style to the Warwicks, but very different necks. I'm sure I read somewhere that Warwick pinched the streamer design off of Spector, but I may have made that up.

[cetera]

[quote name='gilmour' post='181585' date='Apr 21 2008, 10:02 AM']I quite like the fat Warwick necks, but... Have you thought about a Spector - similar style to the Warwicks, but very different necks. I'm sure I read somewhere that Warwick pinched the streamer design off of Spector, but I may have made that up.[/quote]

True, if you liked the Warwick but not the neck then you need to check a Spector Euro/LX

Warwick didn't pinch the design, they licensed it for a short time from Stuart Spector/Ned Steinberger then just stopped paying.....! I believe a settlement was reached some years ago for their illegal use of the design...

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='cetera' post='181624' date='Apr 21 2008, 10:41 AM']True, if you liked the Warwick but not the neck then you need to check a Spector Euro/LX

Warwick didn't pinch the design, they licensed it for a short time from Stuart Spector/Ned Steinberger then just stopped paying.....! I believe a settlement was reached some years ago for their illegal use of the design...[/quote]

Being an owner of both designs yourself, do you find significant differences between them?

I'm not doubting or querying your guidance, it's just that I had a Spector Euro a couple of years back and the neck dimensions weren't massively different to a few of my Warwicks. Main difference I found was that the early Warwicks had a smoothed/rolled fingerboard edge and the Spector was quite squared off (similar to some of the recent Warwicks that I've tried).

<edit> Ooops sorry I genuinely thought you had a Wick in your collection at the minute

Edited April 21, 2008 by warwickhunt

[ednaplate]

[quote name='budget bassist' post='177495' date='Apr 16 2008, 12:07 AM']I dunno, i was under the impression the one i tried wasn't all that generic. Certainly didn't look it.

I'm not just thinking of trying to find a cheap standard MIM jazz and upgrade the bridge and pickups etc. Or maybe find a cheap active one if possible but that could be hard.... Is it possible to install an active preamp into a standard jazz without much difficulty?

EDIT: i think i found something. There was one of these on ebay not long ago and i wish i could have snapped it up. jazz body with QM top in cherry sunburst or tobacco burst (all of which has always appealed to me, apart from the tobacco burst but it looks nice on this), also 24 frets, active electronics, seymour duncan basslines... yum, and a heftier bridge than the standard fender one and only £500 new, i like!




Ignore the bass on the left there, i prefer the cherry burst tbh... Thoughts? anyone tried one?[/quote]

I love the one on the left. If you don't want it please will you give it to me?

[budget bassist]

[quote name='gilmour' post='181585' date='Apr 21 2008, 10:02 AM']I quite like the fat Warwick necks, but... Have you thought about a Spector - similar style to the Warwicks, but very different necks. I'm sure I read somewhere that Warwick pinched the streamer design off of Spector, but I may have made that up.[/quote]
Tried a eurostar 5 before the warwick, the neck was better but nothing special and i just didn't like the tone much. I don't really get along with EMGs

@ above post.... they're not mine, i wish they were though!

Edited April 21, 2008 by budget bassist

[cetera]

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='181975' date='Apr 21 2008, 04:45 PM']Being an owner of both designs yourself, do you find significant differences between them?

I'm not doubting or querying your guidance, it's just that I had a Spector Euro a couple of years back and the neck dimensions weren't massively different to a few of my Warwicks. Main difference I found was that the early Warwicks had a smoothed/rolled fingerboard edge and the Spector was quite squared off (similar to some of the recent Warwicks that I've tried).

<edit> Ooops sorry I genuinely thought you had a Wick in your collection at the minute [/quote]


Actually I've always fancied a late 80's/early 90's Streamer with EMGs..... I played one once and it was lovely....

Tbh, Spectors seem to have had a variety of neck profiles over the years. They went through a period a few years back when their necks were rounder/thicker (more like Warwicks) but they have slimmed down again now.....

[alanbass1]

I've got a thumb thru' neck and this is more of a Jazz profile, definately not flat.

[gilmour]

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='181975' date='Apr 21 2008, 04:45 PM']Being an owner of both designs yourself, do you find significant differences between them?

I'm not doubting or querying your guidance, it's just that I had a Spector Euro a couple of years back and the neck dimensions weren't massively different to a few of my Warwicks. Main difference I found was that the early Warwicks had a smoothed/rolled fingerboard edge and the Spector was quite squared off (similar to some of the recent Warwicks that I've tried).

<edit> Ooops sorry I genuinely thought you had a Wick in your collection at the minute [/quote]

I own both, I have a Spector NS94, and a Warwick thumb Dirty Blonde 5. The necks are totally different, the Spector has a very slim thin neck, whilst the Warwick has a really chunky D shaped neck, however from what I've read above the profile of Spectors varies.

TBH I play either very little and am thinking about getting rid of the Warwick (I'll keep the Spector as it's good to have a 4 string), but they both play very nicely in different ways, I don't really find one faster or easier to play than the other. I supose they aren't ideal basses to compare the two brands as neither is a 'standard' model.