Belka

And there was see-through blonde, although I'm not sure if that was considered a standard or custom colour. They seem to be pretty rare on 1960s basses but they were the standard for Telecasters for a long time.

I used to think so too, but after being corrected by Fender experts it seems that actually the vast majority, if not all, of the custom colours Jazzes came with matching headstocks as standard, at least from 1963 until around 1969. The only exception is see-through blonde. So any time you see a 1963-1969 Jazz bass in a custom colour with an unpainted headstock, you can assume it to be a refinish. Again, I'm not that much of a vintage expert so happy to be corrected.

i know what you mean; you used to see them for not much money at all back in the '90s when I started playing. I would add a couple of caveats though. Firstly, I don't think they were ever as bad as some say they were. Some exhibited poor routing/assembly but the vast majority didn't. Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with the three bolt neck construction or bullet truss rods, and yes, they were heavy, but a lot of things were back then. I would also say that '70s Jazz basses, and to a lesser extent the Precisions, have a very different sound to the '60s ones. If you want to get the Marcus Miller tone you have to forget about anything made prior to 1972, which could also be a factor in their increasing value. Of course, I'm sure that nostalgia and the fact they are now old are also reasons why they're going up in price, but the same would be true for the pre-CBS instruments as well.

I may be wrong but I think that Fender produced a relatively large amount of basses in 1966, which probably accounts for the large sample size of those you see. There are practically no 1967 and relatively fewer 1968 Fenders around; 1969 is when you start seeing larger numbers of instruments with the TV logos showing up, so I'd guess a lot of 1966 serial numbered stock was probably assembled/sold in the subsequent two years. I think the same thing happened in 1978. You hardly see any basses with '79, '80, '81 or '82 serial numbers, but there are loads of 'S8' basses around, with later neck pocket stamps/pot codes etc.

To be fair I did say 'in my opinion', although yours as a fellow user of the amp is just as valid. I still maintain that it sounded bland and nasal to me, but my 'bland and nasal' could be your 'clear and punchy'. You did actually say that you used the graphic EQ with some minor adjustments, so that wouldn't be the flat tone either. The tone with the graphic EQ engaged, even if the sliders were set flat, was still beefier than the tone with nothing engaged. I wasn't the biggest fan of the presets myself; I would use the graphic EQ more for tonal adjustment, although I do think the presets could sound good if used in the right applications. Also, although the first preset was the classic Trace Elliot mid cut, the second one actually provided a low mid boost. I neither loved it nor hated it to be honest. I'm certainly glad I had it back then; there wasn't the choice you get now and it certainly served me well. However, I'm not going to let nostalgia for my lost youth make me think it's somehow the holy grail of amplification (not saying that about you, but I do think this phenomenon exists). If you love the Trace tone and nothing else will do, it may be for you, and that's great, but I would never consider that they are at all superior to modern amps. Amplification has come on a lot in the last 30 years and there is so much choice out there now. I still stand by my comment regarding price; it's a supply and demand thing - if the value of these goes up, which it might, then by all means pay what you think it's worth, but at present, if someone has a budget of more than £100, they would be better off going for a model with more power, or a separate head/speaker stack.

I gigged one of these for years. It served me well for those years. I could say the following pluses and minuses with regard to it: Pros Very well made, pretty much indestructible and never let me down on a gig. Loud considering its wattage (although it says 130, it would be what modern manufacturers consider to be 260/300 watts). It was basically fine for small-medium pub gigs - but struggled at larger venues, although this isn't really a criticism as the 250/400/500 model would cover those. Versatile EQ section with lots of tone shaping options - you should be able to make any bass cut through the mix. These days they're really cheap. Cons Really heavy by modern standards. I could lift it by myself but it was pretty uncomfortable. It's a very coloured amp. If you love the sound of the Trace Elliot presets, then you'll love the the tone. If you want something transparent, this will not be for you. I guess connected to the last point is the issue that the flat tone of the amp without any presets/graphic EQ is really quite poor in my opinion. Thin, nasal, and bland would be words that spring to mind. It's almost like they designed it that way - to make you go 'wow, that's cool' when you engage the presets/graphic. If you can get it for a decent price (don't pay more than £100), then go for it - it's worth a try for sure.

Does yer missus let yer back in 'ouse when yer get 'ome or does she mek yer sleep in the ff...ff..fff'in shed?

You're both mistaken. Meddle is the best, although unlike any of their later work it doesn't have the concepts running through it. I think the Wall and Animals are ok overall and brilliant in places, but when Rick Wright checked out they were missing a key musical ingredient. Just my opinion of course.

Demis Roussos - not a lot of people know he played bass. Or that he was in a progressive rock band (Aprodite's Child) before becoming a '70s suburban housewife staple.

I remember reading copies of Bass guitar back in the '90s. You would see used Wals in the classifieds for under £1000 all the time. Yes, they became unobtainable new around the time the whole Tool thing took off; back in the '90s they were just basses rooted firmly in the 1980s, and were no more sought after than Jaydees and so prices were similar. I used to see them at pub gigs all the time back then. However, those electronics are unique and if you want that sound I feel too that nothing else will do. Also, with a waiting list like they have, they have no choice but to ask high prices. If they came down to even around the £3000 mark they would be inundated with orders and would either have to outsource production or see the waiting time for a build stretch even further into the future. Also, if you do spend money on a Wal, new or used and don't like it, you won't lose any money if you sell it on (although who knows what COVID might do to the market). @CamdenRob , your bass looks great; sure it sounds great too.

No idea. I'd guess it's probably real but has been refinished by an owner or perhaps the Japanese shop.The body doesn't look cheap to me, it doesn't have the neck heel carve but not all of them did. I just don't think the finish is particularly attractive. I don't think it's a carbon fibre neck either, just carbon effect lacquer as you say. I honestly don't think anyone would fake an NYC. Contrary to what some people believe, the vast majority of Fodera copies are poorly executed Chinese jobs that no-one would ever confuse with the real thing. If someone had access to Fodera pickups/hardware and the luthiery skills and wanted to fake a bass they'd probably do a custom, not an NYC, as they could charge a lot more money for it. So, it's almost certainly the real thing, with an unconventional refinish. The pickups with the Fodera butterfly on them are Lane Poors.

Couple of pictures to show what I mean. Here's one with the dual coils, and an early looking 4 string with the Schaller roller bridge and what look like Lane Poor pickups. There are probably quite a few exceptions to the standard and custom specs.

Yes, sending the wood there and back does sound odd, and I'm sure there is plenty of high quality wood in Japan, but Fodera take their wood stock very seriously (I've actually seen it) and I have no reason to doubt them. They inspect and select, and age all the wood they buy so purchasing and shipping directly to Japan wouldn't be an option. Back when the NYCs were being made, their shop was a lot smaller than it is now, with maybe only 4 or 5 people building there, and they had horrendous (2-3 year) waiting times for instruments, so it made sense to build them separately I suppose.

As far as I remember the deal was this: Fodera would send some woods to a custom shop in Japan. The same shop also had some links with F Clef and Bottomwave early on, but apparently in later years they were only building Fodera NYCs. The actual NYC model was designed (or more like refined, as it's basically a Jazz clone) by Vinnie Fodera, and the Japanese luthiers in question were trained at the Fodera shop. When the bodies and necks were carved, they would send then back to Brooklyn where Fodera would install the hardware, pickups and electronics, inspect the fit and finish and do the final setups. They mostly have Seymour Duncan Jazz pickups (probably the same models that go into the customs), although some seem to have dual coils, which I presume would also be Seymour Duncans from the custom series and would almost certainly have been an upcharge. They had a two band version of the Pope preamp. They seem to mostly be ash body/maple fingerboard and '70s pickup spacing, or alder body/rosewood fingerboard and '60s pickup spacing. They made both 4 and 5 string versions but the 5 strings seem to be more common.They are fine basses, although at that price point they were competing with Sadowsky, Mike Lull and the Fender custom shop. Victor does indeed have one. Also, I believe that Jamareo Artis played one on the recording of Uptown Funk, so no arguments about how good they sound in a track

The two biggest overrated offenders for me would have to be Pearl Jam and to a lesser extent the Foo Fighters. This is not simply because I don't like them; there are a few bands/artists who, while I personally do not enjoy their music (The Spice Girls, The Pogues, Free, Soundgarden, The Mavericks and Nickelback to name an eclectic few), I can at least appreciate why others would enjoy them. It's also not a genre thing, I happen to think Nirvana were brilliant writers and I like lots of alternative rock. But they're just so boring. The melodies, harmonies and dynamics are not necessarily bad, they're just complete cardboard. Utterly dull. The fog-grey 2005 Ford Mondeo of music. Serious music for people who don't really like music. In terms of underrated, rather than going for obscure acts whose lack of success eludes me, I would rather mention popular writer who are often dismissed as lightweight. Abba, Gary Barlow, Nick Kershaw, all are extremely skilled writers who craft great music. Take That's Everything Changes has more melodic and harmonic interest than Pearl Jam's entire back catalogue. I'm not the only one who seems to think so: https://www.laweekly.com/pearl-jam-are-the-most-boring-band-in-20-years/

I'm sure he played a Telecaster bass on this track, or perhaps an early single coil precision. It's not a split coil precision to my ears anyway. It also sounds like the tone control is wide open - I remember reading that Motown bassists would record like that, but the engineers/producers processed the sound the treble got rolled off Jamerson himself said something about it being better to be able to take treble away from a bright sound during mixing than having a signal you would have to add to later (I'm sure someone else could quote him better). These days people trying to get that '60s Motown vibe just keep their town all the way down.

Elites. I hated them in the '90s when I first tried them. Picked up a set to try again recently and still couldn't stand them. Can't really say I've disliked any other sets, although I don't like steels with brighter sounding basses.

If it's a rare or vintage instrument, especially one which is prone to headstock breakages (vintage Gibsons) the financial impact would be less (perhaps even minimal on something like a '52-'60 Gibson), providing the repair has been professionally done. On anything else I'd probably say at least 40%. I have a bass with a broken headstock, albeit professionally repaired, and I wouldn't even bother trying to sell it; the hassle of explaining the break and how it's been repaired and the money off I'd be willing to take a hit on means that any sale is just not worth my while.

It would definitely matter if ever he needed to take it or sell it abroad due to CITES regulations on rosewood.