Headless Dingwalls are coming!

[horrorshowbass]

Good to see Dingwall follow the trail blazed by Ibanez.

[Hellzero]

19 minutes ago, horrorshowbass said:

Good to see Dingwall follow the trail blazed by Ibanez.

With a latency of 40 years for the both of them...

 

I've been playing mostly headless fretless sixers over around the same period, so Ibanez and Dingwall are a bit late to the party, aren't they.

[Woodinblack]

28 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

With a latency of 40 years for the both of them...

 

Hardly, the Ibanez Axestar AXB50 was released in 1985, that was headless.

[Hellzero]

33 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Hardly, the Ibanez Axestar AXB50 was released in 1985, that was headless.

I was waiting for THAT comment.

 

And it was such a success that Ibanez decided to stop the production of headless basses just after for a very, very, very long period.

[horrorshowbass]

Lads, this one was too easy.

Ibby did do a headless multiscale first I believe...

[wavemaker]

I have no horse in this race as I don’t do headless basses any more. I‘d like to correct two points made before, though:

 

I‘ve  had Afterburners clocking in at 3.4 kg that were perfectly balanced. I also own one of eight "Afterburner Heavy Solids" / ABHS weighing 5.5 kg and while it certainly is more stone than feather, it feels lighter than most Les Pauls on a strap. 

Like it or not in terms of its aesthetic - but ergonomically, the AB design is perfect. (I‘ll give you the first few frets being hard to reach if you’re of smaller limb but that’s what the reach reducing pin is for.)

 

Also, Strandberg basses were released in February 2019, not 2007. 

[Machines]

Combustions and NGs i've had (a total of 5) were 9-10lb, my D-Roc being just under 10lb. My SP-1 was 9lb.

 

I've picked up some Combustions in shops that were 10+, I think wood variation was the issue here.

 

However my ash ABZ is under 8lb, this headless Effigy I would expect to be the same or even less.

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Machines

[attackbass]

I walked past Sheldon Dingwall yesterday morning walking around with that bass on the way to soundcheck. I quite like the look of the bass but would probably never buy one.

 

It's funny seeing all these basses in real life in one place. Didn't even attempt to play anything and quickly just walked around to say I've had a look. Think it cured me of any gas!

[tauzero]

23 hours ago, SumOne said:

Doesn't stop them being more innovative than a traditional headstock. e.g. this new Dingwall hanging mechanism, quite unique looking string clamps at the headstock end and a fairly unique looking tuning mechanism. More innovative than slapping some generic hipshot tunes onto a headstock.  Isn't that what Dingwall are saying - it took a long time because it is headless and needs new innovations?

 

It took a long time because it's headless and they wanted to make up new ways of it being headless rather than using something that's been around for 40 years, like they do with the headed basses?

 

Not sure about those string clamps - how secure are they against accidental release? And what real advantages do they offer over screw clamps for those of us whose time between string changes can be measured in months or years?

 

Headless basses do seem to have regained popularity, which is nice.

[Woodinblack]

33 minutes ago, tauzero said:

Not sure about those string clamps - how secure are they against accidental release? And what real advantages do they offer over screw clamps for those of us whose time between string changes can be measured in months or years?

 

Well, no reason it has to be hard to change the strings. I would certainly be happy to see them on other basses.

[MichaelDean]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Well, no reason it has to be hard to change the strings. I would certainly be happy to see them on other basses.

Yeah, and if you don't need a tool to do a quick string change, it seems like a better alternative. 

[Russ]

I'm sure the djent crowd will lap these up. And I like the idea of the flip-out "wings" so a regular guitar stand or hanger can be used. 

 

Only problem is, to my eyes, the aesthetics look wrong. The body shape is the same as the Combustion shape, and the proportions look wrong without a headstock. The body should have been downsized to compensate. 

[tauzero]

2 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Well, no reason it has to be hard to change the strings. I would certainly be happy to see them on other basses.

 

Even if it's easy to accidentally release them? I don't know whether it is or not, I'd like to find out. Not that I want one, I've found that I prefer parallel-fret basses.

[wavemaker]

13 minutes ago, Russ said:

Only problem is, to my eyes, the aesthetics look wrong. The body shape is the same as the Combustion shape, and the proportions look wrong without a headstock. The body should have been downsized to compensate. 

I fully agree. Doesn‘t help that there’s less contours and the edges are less radiused / more angular than on ABs. 

 

I‘d be pleasantly surprised if these were revealed to be hollow builds weighing in at 2.x kg - otherwise, I don’t really see a reason why these exist, except everyone and their mum urging Dingwall to come out with a headless. 

[prowla]

I like the look of them; a headless 5-string could be a goer for me.

I'm not sure about locking jacks - I thought they'd been and had their day in the 80s.

[prowla]

On 26/09/2025 at 16:33, horrorshowbass said:

Good to see Dingwall follow the trail blazed by Ibanez.

Erm, Status Graphite and Steinberger...

I'm not sure what date mine is.

Edited 3 hours ago by prowla

[crazycloud]

Mine has a low 2 digit S/N and I was told by Status it was 1984. There's an older one (sold) on Reverb with 388 S/n advertised as 1988 by BassBros, whom I think are pretty good store.