Happy Jack Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 [url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Bravewood-1966-J-type-bass-relic-Fender-Jazz-case-WOW-/110550400902?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item19bd513f86"]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Bravewood-1966-J-typ...=item19bd513f86[/url] Not my cup of tea (I don't do relic'ing and I prefer P-basses) but may be of interest ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 Needs £300 knocking off the price to cover the cost of a refin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairobill Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 (edited) These basses are great. I think this might be the seller who tried to flog this bass for way too much a while back. If it hits 1.5 K it would be worth it. While it is true that some of the details look a bit suspect i.e. tantamount to forgery, I think that response is a bit shrill and lacking in imagination. Elliott (and Nash, for that matter) do not consider current FMIC guitars, including Custom Shop reissues etc as in the same ballpark as those from the sixties. Elliott builds them from scratch to emulate the feel and tone of the older guitars and the detail is present throughout the guitar right down to the neck stamp in this case. I think he succeeds where Nash doesn't but then Nash isn't in control of the whole process. The neck on my Bravewood is very good indeed whereas the Nash necks are off the shelf and a bit chunky for my tastes. Barring aesthetic objections to the relic repro, these basses are totally amazing. However, I have just picked up a second hand 75RI and it is a beautifully made bass.... Cairo Edited June 27, 2010 by Cairobill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warwickhunt Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 Unless I've missed something the neck on this is NOT a 66 fender... correct? In which case I find that stamping the neck with a date stamp is just wrong! Fair does that if you want it to look all the world like a pukka 66 Fender that you get the period correct 'visuals' but what on earth is the point of stamping the bass of the neck that will never be seen by anyone other than if you are taking it apart to verify what it is/isn't. Sorry but IMHO that smacks of con/scam to me. As an aside; why, if the bass is put together with so many non-original/disconnected parts would you put in 40 year old pots? What's the point, there are better and potentially less troublesome/noisy alternatives and again they don't affect the aesthetics of the bass... or could they be used by a less scrupulous future seller to pass it off as a 'Vintage' Fender? I should add that I'm not knocking the bass per se, it may well be a great playing bass but there are practices and issues here that I find dubious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesfinn Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 I agree with you there .though I make replicas myself I wouldn't go as far as stamping the heel! Infact I put markers in my basses to indicate that they are not originals. in about 30 years this will be in the market somewhere as an 'original' most likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul_C Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 has the headstock shot been cut so it doesn't show a "Fender" logo on it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesfinn Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 most likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 I think it looks fantastic..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 [quote name='Cairobill' post='878364' date='Jun 26 2010, 07:12 PM']it is true that some of the details look a bit suspect i.e. tantamount to forgery[/quote] +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesfinn Posted June 26, 2010 Share Posted June 26, 2010 Johns basses are great and I've always been inspired by his relicing work. I also make replicas out of love for the originals but I feel that there should be markings on the bass to state that it isn't what it may be mistaken for. You could always put the current years date on in the same style stamp. It's just worrying that someone may decide to sell this on to somebody as a Fender in the future for a very large sum of money and the buyer would be none the wiser and very much out of pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassBod Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 Yes - there should be some makers mark there, it won't put off a determined fraudster but at least it makes it a bit harder! I like the idea of a current date stamp, but in the style of an old one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 FWIW, apart from the body relicing (I'm not keen on BW's body relicing) I think it's blimmin' lovely. The neck stamp pushes it into overly dubious territory, though. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 [quote name='warwickhunt' post='878038' date='Jun 26 2010, 11:14 AM']....Unless I've missed something the neck on this is NOT a 66 fender... correct? In which case I find that stamping the neck with a date stamp is just wrong!....[/quote] +1. He’s even put a Fender serial number on the neck plate. I wonder why Fender is letting him get away with this misrepresentation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hubrad Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 I'm not at all into relic distressing, but this one does look rather good.. not a sign of a power sander! On Bravewood's website, he does say 'Due to legal reasons I do not apply Fender decals' so it would be interesting to see if someone has put such a thing on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted June 27, 2010 Author Share Posted June 27, 2010 My Bravewood P-bass came to me with a very authentic-looking Fender decal on the headstock. There were two owners before me, so that's three people who could have placed it there. No one would ever mistake mine for an original vintage P-bass ... no relic'ing, superb birds-eye neck, Badass bridge, SD 1/4 lb pickups ... but I would actually have preferred a blank headstock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassaussie Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 [quote name='warwickhunt' post='878038' date='Jun 26 2010, 11:14 AM']Unless I've missed something the neck on this is NOT a 66 fender... correct? In which case I find that stamping the neck with a date stamp is just wrong! Fair does that if you want it to look all the world like a pukka 66 Fender that you get the period correct 'visuals' but what on earth is the point of stamping the bass of the neck that will never be seen by anyone other than if you are taking it apart to verify what it is/isn't. Sorry but IMHO that smacks of con/scam to me. As an aside; why, if the bass is put together with so many non-original/disconnected parts would you put in 40 year old pots? What's the point, there are better and potentially less troublesome/noisy alternatives and again they don't affect the aesthetics of the bass... or could they be used by a less scrupulous future seller to pass it off as a 'Vintage' Fender? I should add that I'm not knocking the bass per se, it may well be a great playing bass but there are practices and issues here that I find dubious.[/quote] I agree with you about the neck stamp, it does seem a step beyond normal relicing. However, if this was a bass made by the manufacturer for himself, there's always the chance that he was simply taking the relicing process to the Nth degree just as a challenge for himself, and never intended for the bass to be released for general sale. Having said that, maybe the correct thing to do would've been to remove that stamp when he did sell it on, just to ensure that there was no confusion about the instrument. Having said all that, it's an amazing looking bass. I've got a real '66 Jazz, although mine has block markers, and it's amazing how close the builder has got this to look like the real thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassBod Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 [quote name='Happy Jack' post='878788' date='Jun 27 2010, 01:15 PM']My Bravewood P-bass came to me with a very authentic-looking Fender decal on the headstock. There were two owners before me, so that's three people who could have placed it there. ... I would actually have preferred a blank headstock.[/quote] Umm...I think you'll be able to scratch that decal off - it wasn't sealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted June 27, 2010 Author Share Posted June 27, 2010 [quote name='BassBod' post='878891' date='Jun 27 2010, 03:35 PM']Umm...I think you'll be able to scratch that decal off - it wasn't sealed. [/quote] Interesting thought. As far as I can feel, the decal is on top of the finish so you may be right. What would you use to do the scratching? And how would you avoid wrecking the finish in the adjoining areas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 right, i can undestand relicing, i can get cloning vintage things, it's pretty cool if done right.... but why rob loads of 'genuine' fender parts? Why does an 'original' neckplate make any difference? Are real fender pups from the 80's better that new things made by someone else? Is it really worth sticking a £100 tugbar on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarky Posted June 27, 2010 Share Posted June 27, 2010 I own a relic'd Fender-alike but I absolutely agree about the criticism of the heel stamp - it does seem set up for a future scam attempt. My Nash 63 Jazz (seen by those at the BassBash today) has a Fender decal but has Bill Nash's signature in indelible marker on the back of the headstock and the edge of the headstock, thus can quickly be seen as a copy. And no heel stamp. Not that that would give the game away as it doesn't have a period-correct scratchplate or clay dot markers. It just has the general vibe of an old Jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassBod Posted June 28, 2010 Share Posted June 28, 2010 [quote name='Happy Jack' post='879011' date='Jun 27 2010, 05:49 PM']Interesting thought. What would you use to do the scratching? And how would you avoid wrecking the finish in the adjoining areas?[/quote] A drop of water, wait a few mins then use a fingernail - it should scratch off fairly easily without any damage. [attachment=53161:DSCN1107.JPG] This one came off with no hassle, before it went 70's style Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Luc Pickguard Posted June 30, 2010 Share Posted June 30, 2010 Love the Fender stamped lollypop tuners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted July 5, 2010 Author Share Posted July 5, 2010 Less than five hours to go, and I don't know which astonishes me more ... that the bidding has reached £1367, or that it's still [i]Reserve Not Met[/i]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Low End Bee Posted July 5, 2010 Share Posted July 5, 2010 I'm not fussed either way about relicing. Some I like some I don't. This one looks like it's got mange though. Yuk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.