People who don't 'get' the vintage market

[Sibob]

This is provoked by a couple of comments in the '64 Jazz thread in the FS section , but thought I'd post here so as not to derail it.

[quote]See, this is the problem right, there is a lot of bullshit talked about old Fenders. If it plays like Andy says it does, it's worth the money, or thereabouts, to a real bass player, refin or not. For £2000 you can get yourself an early '70s three bolt with more problems than your local alky. Massive hand routed neck sockets for instance, because they pressed the neck adjuster disk badly. baseball bat necks, crap fretscales.

I'm thinking this might be the business, but the refin crowd will shout it down to two-five. Who knows?[/quote]

[quote]Voice of reason as always Nig, I never understand how doing something to improve a product can reduce it's value.[/quote]

Surely it's fairly obvious that in any 'vintage' market, regardless of whether you agree with said market, if you replace something original with a reproduction, it will reduce its worth to an investor!?.
Refinishes to collectors are worthless because they are not as the instrument was at it's inception. They're great for players obviously, a good friend of mine has just bought a '63 Precision with a stunning fiesta red refin for a price that would have been beyond him had it been original, he's happy because he's out playing a great bass each night.

Absolutely not a comment on the price of the refinish '64 in the FS section, because I think it looks great, but as a comparison, Kings Road Guitars recently had an all original '64 Jazz in Candy Apple Red (rare custom colour), matching headstock, OHSC and that sold for £8600. Refins in the 'vintage' market....again, whether you agree with it or not....are generally considered to be half off.

Then again, the vintage market is an anomaly with regards to pricing, it's not as if you can go to a different shop and get the same model off the shelf for cheaper...if you want something specific, you pay the price smile.gif

Nige also mentions the stigma attached to refinishes....but surely in your post mate you attach a similar stigma to 70's Fenders . It's not directly related obviously, but there are some great refinishes, and there are some great mid-late 70's Fenders . So if it's fair to say that 70's fenders were general sub-par, isn't it also fair to allow that refinishes are going to be less attractive to collectors/investors!?

Si

[Bloodaxe]

The thing I really don't get is that this only seems to apply to Fenders.

How is it that a knackered /damaged finish on a Fender = "Mojo" and doesn't noticably detract from the value (it may even add to it), whereas on virtually any other brand it's labelled as "Damage" (& photographed/described as such) and downgrades the value accordingly.

Baffled.

[retroman]

I have to admit, this does have me scratching my head a little as well.........

I have a real fetish for the vintage stuff, and pride of my basses are a '67 Gibson EB2, '76 Thunderbird, and '80 Rickenbacker 4001. None of these basses are what I would describle as "Mojo'd", or Reliced. They have all been really well looked after through the years, sure, they have the odd ding and scratch, but nothing that would get the vintage Fender gang drooling.

I do understand the argument that a vintage bass that looks like it has been to hell and back is probably a serious player. Some years back, I came across a seriously battered '64 Fiesta Red Precision. It really did look horrible! It did inspire me to pick it up, and have a play, and wow!! Still the nicest playing Precision I have ever played. Lovely tone, seriously low action with no buzz.....

Just to throw something else in; some of you may have noticed that I have a fetish for classic cars, and use golden oldies everyday. Don't own a modern car! The newest car Mrs Retroman and I own was built in 1978. We have 3 Mk2 Escort's, a Rover P6 V8, and an old Morris 1800. One of the Escorts must be worth a fortune! We bought it off an old lady of 97 years old, and although it is a very solid car underneath, she must have hit just about everything on the road with it.....doors are dented in, rear wing dented in, vinyl roof seen better days. How far do you think I would get listing the car on Ebay, and describing it as a "Heavy Relic"!

Guitars have to be one of a few niche markets where battered condition can add to the value.

FWIW, I would rather own a restored guitar, than a battered one. All my vintage basses get stripped down fully once a year, and given a serious service, clean, and polish. And I do mean every screw, nut and bolt. I really don't have a problem with a refin on a vintage bass, as long as the refin is period correct, and done with the correct finsihing materials

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Bloodaxe' post='753431' date='Feb 22 2010, 01:03 AM']How is it that a knackered /damaged finish on a Fender = "Mojo" and doesn't noticably detract from the value (it may even add to it)[/quote]
Yes it does...?

Refin = halved value in some cases.

A mojo'd bass = worth significantly less than a similar-era museum piece.

But yes, some people just don't 'get' the vintage market. That's just how it is.

[MacDaddy]

what I don't get is when people talk about players having a vintage tone. At the time they were not using vintage instruments.

[OldGit]

[quote name='MacDaddy' post='753478' date='Feb 22 2010, 08:03 AM']what I don't get is when people talk about players having a vintage tone. At the time they were not using vintage instruments.[/quote]

Just as a '64 Jazz bass, for example, is a vintage bass, the sound it makes is also vintage.

Re the vintage bass market, people confuse playability and desirability.
The factors that make a bass desirable are many and varied but being a great player is not top of the list in the collectors' market which largely determins the prices.

[MacDaddy]

[quote name='OldGit' post='753485' date='Feb 22 2010, 08:41 AM']Just as a '64 Jazz bass, for example, is a vintage bass, the sound it makes is also vintage.[/quote]

but it wasn't a vintage bass in the 60's and the sound a '64 Jazz made in '64 would be different to the sound it makes over 50 years later.

The players using basses in the 60's were not using vintage instruments, therefore could not have had a vintage tone. The concept didn't exist.

[chris_b]

What I don't get about the "vintage" market is how I completely missed the point of buying 60's Fender basses when they were cheap!! I still kick myself over that one!

[Rich]

Ah yes Chris. That'd be a bit like the £200 pre-EB Stingray and the £180 mint Shergold 8-string, both of which I walked straight past many years ago... *kick, kick*

[retroman]

[quote name='MacDaddy' post='753493' date='Feb 22 2010, 09:02 AM']but it wasn't a vintage bass in the 60's and the sound a '64 Jazz made in '64 would be different to the sound it makes over 50 years later.

The players using basses in the 60's were not using vintage instruments, therefore could not have had a vintage tone. The concept didn't exist.[/quote]

Good post

Truth of the matter is, in '64 there weren't that many dedicated bass amps about, so a lot of guys used guitar amps,etc. Throw into the mix how much speaker and cab design has changed, modern amps with compression, etc..... and suddenly your prized pre CBS Fender doesn't sound quite so vintage.

Want the vintage tone? Get a hairy old valve amp, and an ancient, battered cab. That'll about do it.

[johnny_frog]

seems to me that there are 2 different markets for these instruments...

A "players" market were the key is how well the instrument plays/sounds

and

A "collectors" market where the point of interest is how original the instrument is, it may play/sound like a dog but has a high £ value as it is un modified.

[OldGit]

[quote name='MacDaddy' post='753493' date='Feb 22 2010, 09:02 AM']but it wasn't a vintage bass in the 60's and the sound a '64 Jazz made in '64 would be different to the sound it makes over 50 years later.

The players using basses in the 60's were not using vintage instruments, therefore could not have had a vintage tone. The concept didn't exist.[/quote]

Ah I see what you mean.
Sure, as they mature and age they will sound different. They will always sound different to the records anyway as the strings, amps and fingers are all different too.

[OldGit]

[quote name='chris_b' post='753495' date='Feb 22 2010, 09:06 AM']What I don't get about the "vintage" market is how I completely missed the point of buying 60's Fender basses when they were cheap!! I still kick myself over that one![/quote]

They weren't cheap in the 60's. Fenders were an arm and a leg back then.
You could buy a street in Chelsea for 5 shilling', of course, and all this were fields...

[chris_b]

[quote name='OldGit' post='753544' date='Feb 22 2010, 10:14 AM']....They weren't cheap in the 60's. Fenders were an arm and a leg back then....[/quote]
True, but at various times in the 70's, when the 50's and 60's players started dropping out and selling their gear, Fender basses were relatively cheaper than they’d ever be again!

[JTUK]

It seems to me that the makers were very capable of making crap back then, it is just that the good ones have survived, been used loads and played etc.
I had mid 70's jazz that I fondly recall, but if I put beside my basses now, I'd get real huge reality check, I am sure....but someone might pay £1350 for it..and I'd bite their hands off if I still owned it.
There was a reason I sold it and I sometimes forget that.

If you must have one for whatever reason, then its your choice. The cool factor seems to be not too far away from the equation though. IMO.

[xilddx]

The thing is, with any vintage or antique market, deep knowledge of your subject is rewarded, both as a buyer and a seller and as a predictor of the market. It is also a study of human behaviour.

As I see it, there are three reasons to buy a vintage Fender:

- Inexplicable desire to own a piece of heritage.
- Belief that they are the best and it's the only way to achieve "that tone" and will be used as a player.
- Investment.

All three require some knowledge to different degrees. But the first one is probably the biggest market, although you can combine some or all of the three.

There is no real logic to the market though is there. There's an assumption that old Fenders are better quality, better made with better woods, hardware and electronics - made by hand. Much closer to Leo's first visions. But this is where knowledge comes in, there were always dodgy ones. The bigger they got, the more corners were being cut. Leo only sold to CBS because of his health problems and they still retained him as a consultant. But like any big, remote corporation, the value to shareholders was the biggest concern, so naturally CBS wanted to cheapen materials and production, and put more ambitious marketing strategies in place. So Fenders in the '70s especially were all over the place in terms of build. Necks were very variable, so were neck sockets, hardware was being made from cheaper poor quality die cast metals on which the plating was said to be more durable than the metal underneath. Early Fenders are a minefield. But to some people this doesn't matter, it's a Fender, and it's old and it's got a custom colour and a matched headstock and its all original and comes with the OHSC and candy - if it plays and/or sounds like crap, it's not a big concern because there's always a mug out there who will give you a lot of wedge for it. However, it could be the best playing Fender out of the five thousand you've tried but it's a refin. Does it matter? Only to the investment market part of you. But the seller, if they are smart, will not budge much on the price. Are you really going to pass up the chance of owning the best playing Fender out there because the seller's overpriced it and won't move by much?

[Happy Jack]

Just re-visiting the "things used to be cheap" argument, there are some excellent sites out there that will give you the present value of old money, or the old value of present money. You get slightly different results depending on whether you use the RPI (retail prices index) or AEI (average earnings index). I prefer the AEI for this sort of thing, since we're trying to establish what you could have bought with your wages.

This does NOT apply to any specific item, of course. It's a "typical" calculation for a "typical" basket of goods. Please don't point out that "a Fender Precision didn't cost that in 1965" or whatever - I already know.

In order to have the same spending power THEN as earning £1000 a week gives you NOW, you would have needed a weekly wage of:

2005 - £892
2000 - £734
1995 - £590
1990 - £469
1985 - £310
1980 - £201
1975 - £101
1970 - £ 48
1965 - £ 33
1960 - £ 25

Do these numbers have any validity? Well, my first proper job started in January 1975 as a trainee book-keeper in a small travel agency in the West End. I was earning £1360 p.a. (plus LV's - don't forget the LV's!) which is £26 per week. The M/D of the firm certainly earned less than £101 per week - in modern terms he was on about £40k which is about right for that role in a firm of that size.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='silddx' post='753555' date='Feb 22 2010, 10:37 AM']As I see it, there are three reasons to buy a vintage Fender:

- Inexplicable desire to own a piece of heritage.
- Belief that they are the best and it's the only way to achieve "that tone" and will be used as a player.
- Investment.[/quote]
I'm #1 and #3, along with #4 which you forgot to list... they look cool.

[xilddx]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='753589' date='Feb 22 2010, 11:09 AM']along with #4 which you forgot to list... they look cool.[/quote]
Ah, you see that is highly subjective, and firmly bound up with #1

Are you able to explain WHY many people think they look "cool"?

[OldGit]

[quote name='chris_b' post='753552' date='Feb 22 2010, 10:26 AM']True, but at various times in the 70's, when the 50's and 60's players started dropping out and selling their gear, Fender basses were relatively cheaper than they’d ever be again![/quote]


Sure, but in real terms they were never as cheap as a US Fender is now.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='silddx' post='753599' date='Feb 22 2010, 11:14 AM']Ah, you see that is highly subjective, and firmly bound up with #1 [/quote]

You don't have to agree with it - I'm just saying it's a reason why many people choose to buy one.

[quote name='silddx' post='753599' date='Feb 22 2010, 11:14 AM']Are you able to explain WHY many people think they look "cool"?[/quote]

Nah - no more than I'm able to explain why people like tuna sandwiches, which I detest.

[Telebass]

Precisley. Why do they look cooler than a decent repro od the same instrument? If you don't know it's a repro, there no ability to judge the 'cool' effectively.
And, whatever anyone says, they DID NOT make them any better then than now, 'then' being and era you care to name. They made them differently, for a start. But not better.

[xilddx]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='753601' date='Feb 22 2010, 11:17 AM']You don't have to agree with it - I'm just saying it's a reason why many people choose to buy one.[/quote]
I don't agree, vintage Fenders don't look any cooler than newer ones really, The fact it's a 1965 may make it "feel" like it looks cooler, i'll give you that.

[wateroftyne]

Cool... Thanks for sharing!

[OldGit]

[quote name='silddx' post='753611' date='Feb 22 2010, 11:29 AM']I don't agree, vintage Fenders don't look any cooler than newer ones really, The fact it's a 1965 may make it "feel" like it looks cooler, i'll give you that.[/quote]

Felling it's better is a large part of the appeal.

As with many thing we like to join in with a prevailing belief (well lots do) so if the general belief is that a mojo'd 62 P bass in Jamerson sunburst with all orginal bits is considered a cool and valuable piece by enough people many more will agree to be part of the pack.