Adapted models

[josie]

Spawned from Grangur's "fretless 5 anyone?" thread: when the big names like Fender bring out an adapted model - a 5-string version of a 4, or a fretless version of a fretted - how far do they think through the adaptations? My pet hate is the Fender 5s, which (as I said on that thread) have four tuning pegs on top of the headstock and one below, which to me just looks like an afterthought. (Apart from the Jazz Plus 5, which has a longer headstock to fit all five on top and just looks right to me, although mine is really too heavy for me partly as a result ).

[Norris]

It's a bit of a balancing act (see what I did there?!). Five tuners are never easy to get looking good. Five in a row means the headstock needs to be longer, which affects the weight and balance. Tuners either side of the headstock are difficult to balance visually because there's an odd number of them. Hence the 4+1 is a compromise to keep the headstock looking similar to the familiar 4 string variety

[stingrayPete1977]

Most of the earlier five in a row fender five string basses were unplayable anyway! I tried one years ago, like a four string jazz with a B string added badly, put me off them for ages then I tried one again but with the four and one head, dual graphite rods, high mass bridge, string through body etc, it's now my gigging bass!

[Grangur]

I would imagine this problem that Fender have tried to get round here is really one of marketing. The Fender headstock was designed in a shape that on a bass supports 4 tuners.

Fashion then changes and proves that Leo didn't "get it totally right" and Fender are faced with the dilemma of should they abandon their iconic headstock shape or make a compromise?

[BigRedX]

Five in a row for big bass tuners just doesn't work IMO. The G-string tuner is already a big stretch for me on a Fender-style bass so adding another one is not going to make things any easier. I prefer 3+2 or 2+3 on headstock designed especially to fit a 5-string bass, and not something that's been cobbled together from the 4-string version.

[Trueno]

In the spirit of the OP I'm trying to think of other adaptations other than 5 string headstocks. Maybe fretless versions if a rosewood board is retained and may be too soft (don't know about that one as mine have all been ebony or phenolic).
How about an active version of a well established passive?
Or PJ basses... already well covered, but some suggest they're neither P or J... never tried one of those either.
Arguably, some of the Fender signatures have diddled with Leo's original design. Does that count? Personally I wouldn't mind a Badass bridge pre-fitted, rather than the BBOS.

[josie]

[attachment=232128:GMR_headstocks.JPG]

J/P - my J/P Jazz Aerodyne with its P pup turned up has more "P" punch than the straight Jazz, but never gets a real P sound. It does adds a useful bit more versatility.