Mokl

Having a snoop around google, does anyone think it could be a BC Rich Eagle?

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABLwmYI09Lw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABLwmYI09Lw[/url] (Sorry, don't know how to embed it since they messed about with youtube!) Can you help me work out what Jerry Preston is playing here? I first thought it might be a BC Rich or an Alembic, but I really have no clue. Aside from that, check out the unbelievable groove of these guys... my God. Ta in advance.

Dave Dearnaley in Cardiff would probably do a good job for you. He reretted my Stingray some years back and I was pleased with the results. I don't have his details but think they are on a luthier sticky somewhere on this site.

On a purely practical note, you will probably find that you get more out of your gear as you are forced to "make-do" ("make -do" seems a little inappropriate given your great gear, but you get what I mean) with what you have. I have found myself in this position for the last 18 months now, mainly due to a change in personal circumstances meaning I have zero disposable income. I was already in the fortunate position to have some great stuff, but frankly was guilty of chopping and changing basses, sometimes without even having gigged them. I have grown to appreciate my gear a lot more, and learnt how to get the most sound-wise from it. The results have been so satisfying that I don't even find myself suffering the constant GAS cycle any more, in fact I am much happier. This is very convenient considering that I have no spare cash to indulge myself anyway! Good luck!

Nothing like a bit of gig pressure to tighten a band up, ime.

I can't imagine it will ever look perfect due to the difference in string widths. If I stare at my basses, the gap between the E and A strings looks less than the D and G. Switching to different gauges of string will exacerbate the optical effect, but in real terms this perceived "imbalance" will make no discernible difference to playability or sound. As for the break angle of the strings from the anchor point at the bridge to the saddle, all that stringing through the back has done is visually amplified any divergence in the path of the string which would not be so noticeable when strung through the body.

What about ebony?

I honestly wouldn't bother with a badass - the Gotoh is a great unit. I don't think you'll feel wanting sustain-wise on a Modulus!

Not my usual cup of tea, but I really enjoyed that. Loved his up-beat style.

[quote name='AndyTravis' post='978793' date='Oct 5 2010, 08:42 PM'][url="http://www.kijiji.it/annunci/strumenti-musicali/treviso-annunci-treviso/wal-mach-1-custom-4-string-sims-led/3878850"]http://www.kijiji.it/annunci/strumenti-mus...ims-led/3878850[/url] Do you know what, this is pretty cool, except the bass clef inlay. "Look, it's a bass clef, i'm a bass player, can i play you a song on my bass? can't you see?! I'm a bass player." I wonder if Paul Herman would do a Mach 1 with a Maple Fingerboard...did Pete Stevens?[/quote] Yes, he did a couple as special orders, although I understand he didn't really like to. Fairly spectacular results in my opinion.

Thanks for all the comments. To be fair it didn't look bad in black, I was just keen to see what was underneath and get the bass fully up together. Plus, I have always wanted a schedua-topped Wal, so I just couldn't resist getting it done forever. I don't know if the refinish has affected the tone, although it definitely sounds richer than it did before. This could be due to different strings, Paul re-setting the pickup heights, anything I guess. Gigged it last night and I couldn't be happier with the sound - it always had a nice low mid growl, but it seems fuller across the whole frequency spectrum, if that makes any sense?

My 5 string Wal Mach II from May `88. It was refinished in the 90`s in black poly by a previous owner, although the control cavity informed me that it originally had schedua facings. I finally decided to take the plunge and sent it to Paul Herman for a strip down and refinish. I was a little nervous, not having any idea what it would look like underneath, but I was confident that Paul would make something decent of it even if he found horrible repairs or marks. About 12 weeks later I got the bass back, and I was amazed with how it turned out! Needless to say I'm very happy with the result. I also asked Paul to slightly shave the neck down and finish it in satin as opposed to gloss. I'm glad I did, it feels great.

Just got my Wal back from Paul after he'd had it for a refin. It has come out absolutely stunning! Simply incredible job he did on it. I'll bung some pics in the porn section when I get the chance. I have to say, he was great to deal with.

FWIW my `89 Stingray has a large gap (couple business cards) on the bass side of the neck pocket. It's still one of the most resonant and acoustically "lively" basses I've played, and had no trouble with it at all since I bought it from the original owner in about 1993! I wouldn't have thought this would be the cause of fret buzz on your bass,

Funny enough I've found the necks on the 2 Wals I've owned very chunky, with the Mach I being a very pronounced "V". I understand they do vary a fair bit though... I had a Thumb BO which although chunky depth-wise, felt quite fast to me! My current bass has just been refinished by Paul H. and I asked him to shave the back of the neck for me, so I'm hoping it'll be less "clubby" than it was before. Anyway, sorry for the ramble, lovely bass and admirable playing there!

I've got a fretless that John made for me several years ago now. It's a wonderful instrument and beautifully constructed.

A modulus Flea (now Funk Unlimited), would give you what you want, I think. I had one at the same time as a Stingray so was able to compare them. The modulus could really cut in the high end (mine was SD pup / Aguilar pre).

Looking at the pics it looks as though there is quite a bit of wear on the edges of the fingerboard. Just wondering if the photo's might flatter the condition a bit? It also seems a little odd that they're willing to do a straight swap to me if they are really standing behind the price. As lovely as your CS Jazz must be I find it a bit surprising - especially from a shop. The other thing I'd be slightly wary of is that the strings look quite badly off-centre to me - something you see quite a lot in Jazzes from this era and I think is often due to misplaced bridges (although sometimes a wobbly neck joint). Many will be quick to point at the supposedly dodgy QC from this era.... It may not be critical playability wise, but it would bug the hell out of me! I suppose you just need to try it, but personally I wouldn't worry if this one isn't perfect, if you hold out long enough there are surely enough of these about that you will come across "the one" sooner rather than later. Good luck! P.S. If you wanted to try my `77 as a comparison you'd be welcome - looks like you live pretty near to me.

Just to add to the above, I bought my 77 as a player, not as an investment. That's one thing I like about 70`s Fenders, they're not unattainable price wise - in fact mine cost less than a new 70`s reissue! I like that I can take it out and gig it regularly and not worry too much about it. For me, the tone of a good 70`s Jazz is hard to beat, mine has clarity and punch for days... I also had a stunning `76 P that I wish I hadn't sold.

I love my `77, it is a superb bass. I paid a little more for mine than that one is going for, although that was a year ago and mine hasn't had the controls modded like yours (although neck pickup isn't original on mine). As Beedster said, best to try it out really as they do vary a lot from this era.

If they are Barts in there that might be part of the problem. That's one of the reasons I sold my Sei... I just couldn't take to the tone at all, it was quite lifeless and lacking in useful top-end. I would do as suggested and take it to The Gallery.

If it has 24 frets it is possibly a Mexican Jazz 24 QMT which were released a few years back. Should be a nice bass, but £900 sounds quite high to me as they were a lot less than that new. Of course it may be something else and I could be wrong!