Kev

I guess it depends how you want to use the preamp. If you are looking for a clean tone then the Aguilar would be a great choice. Dirty tone, nothing beats the B7K or even comes close for me, and I reckon iv tried all of them. But of course, totally depends on the player, bass and amp

Nice buy, they don't really go for too much, seen a few on here for £40/£45 odd, so you could probably make 100% on it!

Well iv had a little time with my vintage now, albeit not in a band situation, and I enjoy it quite a lot. I find it really nice as a low gain drive just to warm up the signal, era knob is really good, almost like an elaborate tone knob. It's fantastic at driving the B7K too, the pair really can get almost any kind of overdrive tone between them, well chuffed. Just gotta wait for Doug to design a fuzz...

Stunning bass mate, do give me a bell if you ever decide to move it on! Take it it's tuned E-C?

Wow. What with more and more coated string alternatives being released all the time, what a way to shoot yourself in the foot. Unless everyone is about to do this?

Allianz have advised me they accept photos as proof of ownership without valuations so i will get a quote from them. Ill look into New Moon also, cheers

How very odd! Never seen anything like it, but i think there is very little chance it isn't genuine. If it was one of the very first JDs then i would just put it down to early experimenting with design, but it isn't.

And sadly, insurance is becoming so expensive for two reasons: to counter the significant increase in the number of people claiming on their insurance and, by far the most significant, PPI claims and the subsequent massive increase in FCA fees. Anyways, this is getting a little off topic, anyone with positive experiences with claims on specialist music insurance?

Again, it is because on the higher risk of a more expensive risk. The Underwriters would indeed reduce settlement by the percentage of inder insurance, but they can also declare under insurance so great that they will void the policy from inception. how about this: If the house was only insured for half it's value and, for the sake of discussion, half of the house suffered fire damage and would cost half the house's value (or the full sum insured) to repair, why should the insurers pay as if it were a total loss? They would quite appropriately pay 50% towards the repairs, as you have chosen to insure 50% of the value of your house.

Insurers will always opt to replace the instrument, rather than give a cash settlement. Almost always, if cash in lieu of repair/replacement is considered, it will be on a contribution basis only. That's certainly one reason why things need to be insured for what they are worth. Why should an insurer allow you to under-insure? For example, if you choose to insure a £5000 bass for £100, yes the insurance company will only pay £100 in the event of a claim for theft. But think also of the increase in risk, a bass worth £5000 is a lot more likely to be stolen than a bass worth £100, so the insurer would want a higher premium for that extra risk.

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1370798208' post='2105683'] You could be disappointed if you took out a "New for old" policy and claimed for a modest 1970's USA Fender and got paid out for a modest New replacement. Allianz are the insurers that most of the classical orchestras use for their stuff, or so I'm informed. [/quote] Yeah, as i said they look at vintage instrument differently and claims are based on valuations, usually a couple of years old at worst.

Just looked at the Allianz policy, looks okay but i prefer the wording of the Musicguard policy. I also think £15 MTA charge is very excessive (musicguard only charge for any additional premium). I was perfectly happy with the Musicguard policy, i just want to make sure they don't cause problems for items not owned from new in the event of a claim.

When i had the Policy, i was insuring two basses that i had bought second hand. They insure all equipment new for old regardless of if you have owned from new or not. The issue was proving ownership, which they said i could not do without either a receipt for the second hand purchase, a bank statement showing the payment going out for the instrument, or a valuation. Given that i bought both off here and i took money out from different places to pay for both so no lump sum, they would only indemnify me if i had valuations from them, which they accepted as proof of ownership (not value). Having contributed towards a few policy wordings myself i know what to look for, and what annoyed me is this was not stressed in the wording nearly enough, so i felt i wasted a couple of years premium. I don't have that issue now as i can prove ownership with receipts and a bank transfer receipt which i trust they will find to be in order, however this thread is just asking what peoples experiences are when it comes to proving ownership when it comes to a claim. I'll have a look at that Allianz policy,

Well that wouldn't be an issue as the Policies i am looking at are New for Old so you are insuring for the new replacement cost (obviously valuation make total sense for vintage/rare instruments, which mine were not). It's purely proof of ownership i am struggling with.

To be fair, as i say i work in insurance and you wouldn't believe the kind of things you deal with. You would certainly realise why certain conditions are put into Policies and why it may seem hard work to claim at times! I did, however, just think Musicguard were out of touch with the market with the proof of ownership thing and i told them so. I just wonder if they are okay in the event of a claim before i give them or anyone else any more money.