neepheid

[quote name='ezbass' post='971878' date='Sep 29 2010, 04:08 PM']Yep that's pretty much "the" fix. For a proper pro job a correct sized piece of dowel should be wood glued in, allowed to dry and then redrilled, but who has the time (or the right piece of dowel) for that?[/quote] Me, for one

Is this a UK wide thing or just an England and Wales thing?

Still looking for the right neck. In the meantime I have been thinking about ways to improve the dusty end access - one of the quirks of the Thunderbird - without harming the overall aesthetic. This was my first thought which should give about 1.5" of improved access by following the angle of the bottom horn much further and ending in a tighter turn near the neck: Is it still arguably a Thunderbird? Is it subtle enough?

[quote name='jarvmasterc' post='1155225' date='Mar 9 2011, 01:01 PM']Hi all, looking for a bit of advice. I'm currently trying to fix up ressurect an Epiphone Thunderbird bass that i've recently acquired - The bass itself is in good nick, the body and neck are fine as are the electronics. The only issue is the bridge which is missing 3 saddles. I've tried to track down spares via the interweb but to no avail. Does anyone know the best route to go down to get some spare saddles or a website that might stock them? If not any ideas on a replacement bridge that would suit it? Cheers![/quote] I have a bridge off an Epi Goth Thunderbird that I don't need. PM me for details.

I had this discussion with Rich ^^^ in a slightly different guise of "if you could only keep one bass, which would it be?" and for all my love of weirdy Gibson basses, I'd have to say that my G&L Tribute L-2000 would be the last one to go.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='1153549' date='Mar 8 2011, 10:57 AM']If you're offered a high-quality bass for £500 this week because the seller is bone skint and needs the cash right now, why should that leave you open to accusations of profiteering in 2014 when you sell it on for £750?[/quote] It shouldn't. The fact that it's even mentioned as a possibility saddens me. Are you suggesting that there could be users here who see it as their job to "regulate" the market when the market is quite capable of regulating itself? Sarcasm aside, I'd rather the info was left up, as long as people realise that it's historical trend information rather than an absolute hard and fast rule.

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1153175' date='Mar 7 2011, 11:15 PM']Won't a 21 fret neck require more routing of the neck pocket? Or are you hoping that by not having a headstock plus the extra body mass of the bridge/tuner assembly you'll be able to counteract the potential for neck dive caused by shifting the string witness points further from the end of the body. For me it's not the 21st fret that is so essential. When I'm playing that far up the neck it normally involves two note chords with open string drones so the 19th fret (2 octaves above the open string below) is the important one for me. After that if there are any more I'll want to go all the way to the 24th fret.[/quote] That would depend upon the neck I guess. If the 21st fret is on an overhanging fretboard then it won't be so much of a problem. However, I'm about to bring together two things which were never designed for one another so I'm expecting neck pocket alteration anyway. I've already outlined my reason for wanting 21 frets, they may be frivolous and spurious, but the customer is me, and the customer is king

I can't fit the neck I have because I want 21 frets, the normal neck has 20. Also I've already flogged it, which makes it extra difficult to fit

Regret to report that a single acoustic guitar will easily drown out an acoustic bass guitar - they just don't produce enough volume on their own. I had a rehearsal round someone's house with an ABG versus a single acoustic guitar and a singer. Couldn't hear myself at all - had to plug in anyway.

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1152333' date='Mar 7 2011, 11:11 AM']That's terrible, and probably good to know next time I get the urge to consider buying an Epiphone bass. Normally the fact that they're part of the Gibson "empire" and what Gibson did to Opcode in the 90s is enough to dissuade me! Does that mean that you'll be reshaping the lower horn to improve upper fret access? My experience with T-Bird shapes is that you can't reach all the frets that are there at the moment. And it just goes to show how differently people play. I have no use for front face fingerboard markers and just use the side dots. In fact on my Traben Phoenix Bass with it's extravagantly inlaid fingerboard, I find that if I look at the front of the fingerboard it puts me off. Good luck with build. I'll be following with interest as the Gibson Victory restoration was fantastic.[/quote] It's pretty bad, especially since I wasn't planning on using a neck plate but individual recessed bushings on the screws for a slightly less chunky heel area. Of course, you won't have this particular issue with any of Epiphone's set or thru neck offerings I will be reshaping the lower horn. I'm not sure exactly what shape yet but I have a couple of ideas rolling around in my head. I'll get a better idea once I get a neck fitted. I must confess that I look at the front markers from time to time when playing, I probably shouldn't. But it's also an aesthetic thing for me - guitars without markers don't seem completed to me. It's like someone couldn't be bothered putting them in. It doesn't look clean to me, it looks lazy

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1152305' date='Mar 7 2011, 10:42 AM']Looking good. What was the big hole in the neck pocket and the small holes under the bridge for? Also why aren't you using the Thunderbird neck with the head sawn off?[/quote] The big hole in the neck pocket was a dirty nasty one disguised by the neck plate which was probably used at the factory to hang the body from while painting. The small holes were from the previous owner's attempt to fit a Fender style bridge. A few reasons for not using the original neck - 1) I want 21 frets because it makes sense to me that a 4 string bass fingerboard should start with an E and end with an E. One doesn't sing "do-re-me-fa-so-la-te" without the last "do" does one? 2) I don't like fingerboards with no front markers, and I like even less ones with a single inlay at the twelfth fret.

Heh, if only I had money like that to throw at a silly project like this! Some quick and dirty phone pics:

[quote name='NURZE' post='1151937' date='Mar 6 2011, 09:55 PM']I've owned a grabber g3, two regular grabbers and two rippers. I always liked the grabbers the most. The g3's sounded brighter but the grabbers were just awesoms players. The rippers had only one decent setting... One thing I didn't like about the grabbers though was the muddy sound. And there was nooooooooooooo way that sound could be altered. For the style i was playing back then it was alright (loads of hardcore bands play grabbers) The newer version sounds brighter, and a lil punchier, and in my ears it sounds awesome. More like a fender P. The old bridge was just awful, it was made as cheap as possible so the 3-point upgrade was defintely a good move if you ask me. Al the features the grabber II has were things I hoped they'd placed on it 30 + years ago. Brian Cook from Russian Circles plays one now. And I think he used 1 (or 2) regular grabber(s) for over ten years... the ony thing i don't like about the grabber II is the headstock. the old one was cooler.[/quote] I think your assessment of the Grabber/G-3 bridge is harsh. "Just awful" without any qualification does paint a rather over negative picture. At least the old bridge allowed individual string height adjustment - the 3 point bridge only allows you to tilt the whole unit. No through body stringing either on the "reissue"? The old bridge was no different to any other Fender bridge of the day, except that it had walls which prevented side to side movement of the saddles. My only beef with it is the use of slotted grub screws - some of mine have broken at the slot. Despite that small niggle, I still feel compelled to register my disagreement with your statements that the original bridge is "just awful" and that the 3 point bridge is an "upgrade" - for balanced argument if nothing else.

Another +1 for a G&L L-2000. I have a Tribute L-2000 - it's my only "sensible" bass and despite owning some excellent weirdo Gibsons, if I only could keep one bass, it would be the G&L. The Tribute has a baseball bat for a neck too, which suits me

Quick late update - all neck pocket and bridge related holes have been drilled out, filled with mahogany dowel and trimmed almost flush. Yay, there's a lot of sanding in my near future, got all that matt black to get rid of. Still need a neck!

You have three fine Gibsons there, so I would say (as a fellow Gibson owner/player) that I would be disappointed by the Epiphone EB-3. That is not to say that all Epis are bad - I love my Epi Les Paul Standard and see no need whatsoever to get a Gibson of that kind. But having owned an Epiphone EB-3 in the past and long since sold it, I wouldn't want one back again, no matter how much I wanted some EB action in my life. Also, I'd find an old Gibson EB-3 and not the SG reissue. Gibson's current output is so uninspiring to me - half baked reissues which fall well short of the mark in terms of the spirit of the original basses they are supposed to be paying tribute to.

[quote name='icastle' post='1148314' date='Mar 3 2011, 01:15 PM']Yes, I was in two minds as to whether I should include the BT and BQ systems in there. It just seemed easier to include them to avoid 'early onset confusion'. [/quote] Yes, but the point is you CAN plonk any old thing into the "control"s, just not to the "system"s, and even if you end up with a system, just make your own arrangements for volume/blend/switching and feed the results of that into the control, I'm pretty sure that the EQ bit is identical. I have a BQC control in my Epi Les Paul - EMG pickups but going through 2 volumes and a 3 way switch then onto the BQC.

[quote name='icastle' post='1148291' date='Mar 3 2011, 12:50 PM']EMG active circuits are pretty standard and most of them even support the use of passive pups. The one's that you probably can't just plonk any old thing in are: EMG-EXG EMG-EXB EMG-BTC EMG-BTS EMG-BQC EMG-BQS[/quote] This is not entirely correct - you can use the BTC/BTS/BQC/BQS [i][b]control [/b][/i]with any pickup. It's the BTC/BTS/BQC/BQS [i][b]system [/b][/i]which mandates the use of EMG pickups - probably because of the blend control.

Boo to you all, this is reminding me how much I miss my old band