Bassassin

I'm inclined to think those are not the original pickups - the wood surrounds look like an afterthought. and don't match the build quality of the rest, to my eyes. I'd guess they're a later modification & are covering older routes. Another bass displaying exceptional craftsmanship (aside from the wonky pup rings) but ultimately ending up pretty ugly - although this one's very much of its time. Anyone else clock the Aria Pro style bridge?

Properly cool, always fancied one of these but never actually seen one in real life. The guitar versions however, are pretty common. I think they were sold as Austin Hatchet in the US, Kay in the UK - but they're actually Corts - sharing the neck-through construction , brass triple-dot inlays & brass hardware with a range of Corts from the late 70s/early 80s. They were sold under the Cort brand as "Cort 45". Lol.

That's astonishingly well-crafted and meticulously detailed, a genuinely jaw-droppoing level of craftsmanship. It's also really, really ugly.

Cheapo bass strings in shonky packaging. Speaking as someone who got burned a couple of years ago - and mine weren't quite that absurdly cheap!

Did a lot of reading about Watkins after I picked up a Rapier III at a car boot for £6.50! It was designed from the ground up to be a Strat-style guitar, simply because real ones weren't available in the UK at the time. Think Hank Marvin played a Rapier before he got that red Strat.

Justice was the album that made me a Metallica fan & got me back into metal - I'd also say it represents a seminal moment in the birth of the prog metal genre. So I was just a little bit excitable when I read about this - right up until I listened to the Dyer's Eve stream. Gutted. Same old same old, and (from an ex-fan's POV at least) another slap in the face for Jason. Really, from the point of the Napster thing onwards, it's been hard to shake the feeling that Metallica had become a cynical, profit-motivated business being run by a bunch of cnuts. A proper remaster/remix of Justice would've gone a long way redress that feeling - but all this does is reinforce it.

And finished at £77. Someone likes a challenge. And chucking money away.

Yes - should be a separate single saddle sitting on top of the base plate, with the string(s) passing over that . Can't quite work out what's going on here.

Bear in mind it lacks a nut or a functioning bridge. A £15 car boot project, but will be massively compromised by also being a wretchedly abused 45-year old cheapo with an unreinforced hollow body that's too flimsy for the one string it has. Will be amusing to see what it sells for.

This is a knockoff of the old Valco Airline, right? Basically a guitar strung with bass strings to make a pocket-money starter bass for kids. Only this one's £866.

Apparently "Grief has a shaft stiffness". Y'know - I really don't think I needed to know that.

I've fancied doing something similar for a while - I really like the idea of a lefty maple/pearl blocks neck with the headstock re-shaped to a Tele style. More to the point with this - what's going on with the string alignment/bridge position? Also a bit lazy bodging r/h tuners on - they've had to cut a chunk off the backplate of the G to make it fit. Whole thing looks a bit of a lash-up.

A couple of pics:

I don't think so - Cimar was owned by the same trading company (Hoshino Gakki) which owns Ibanez, but all of the copy-era instruments appear to be from a different factory to Ibanez. I'd say it was broadly a lower-tier range - or at least there were "starter" level instruments in the line up, which there wasn't in the Ibby range. That said, there were top-end Cimars which were easily on a par with Ibanez - their Rick 4001 copy was a rebrand of the Chushin-built Shaftesburys which are pretty common in the UK - these are way more accurate than the early Ibanez versions and easily as good quality-wise. The only exact crossover between Cimar & Ibanez that I'm aware of was the Cimar Stinger from 1980 - this was the exact same bass (and guitar) as the short-lived Mk 1 Ibanez Blazer - even the marketing materials were identical. Weird or what?

Really delighted you appreciate it Brendon! I owned this bass for about 14 years & did a fair bit of head-scratching & research. It does help (if you can call it help) that I have a neurotic preoccupation with old Japanese basses & guitars. So - a bit of info for anyone who's interested - although be aware this will get really boring really quickly... This is an Ibanez 2366B - like all copy-era Ibanezes, these were built exclusively by Fujigen Gakki, the model first appearing in Ibanez catalogues in 1971 and remaining part of the brand's range until export of copy instruments ended, around 1978 or 9. Specifications changed over the years & this is part of how it's possible to put an approximate date on a pre-serial bass such as this. Here's the '71 catalogue - you'll notice that all the basses in the early literature are unbranded - that's because these were Fujigen factory shots - the same images (and often model numbers too) were used by other brands who sourced from Fujigen: The most obvious difference is the rosewood fretboard, although maple would also have been available at that time. Look a bit closer & there are other noticeable differences - the tuners & truss rod cover. Fujigen stopped using this style of hardware by'73 - the bass in this '73 brochure is the same as Breadbin's apart from the fretboard wood, and is the closest in the existing catalogue record that I can find: What I do know from the occasional very early 2366B that turns up is that the first ones didn't have accurate P-style pickups - like many 70s MIJ basses, they were fitted with chrome 8-pole single-coils, like this: Typically these have a date code on the back which makes age verification easy - unfortunately in my experience the accurate P & J style units introduced from '72/3 don't have these codes. So in order to date the bass we need to look at other details. A trait of many early 70s MIJ copies (not just basses or Fender copies) is that fretboard inlays often stopped at the 17th position - it's by no means general, but does apply to the Fujigen P copies. Over successive years the accuracy of all good quality MIJ copies got better, and by '74 the truncated position dots were broadly updated across the board. Here's were the catalogue record becomes unrepresentative - existing examples of '73 & '74 blurbs all re-use the '72-era pic, and it's not until 1976 that we get an updated Ibby 2366B image, complete with full set of position dots & headstock logo: What this bass will also have is a dateable serial number - these were introduced in late 1975. Anyway, in a rather longwinded way, that's how I'm sure the bass is '73 of possibly late '72 - it has no serial, proper P pickup, dots to the 17th position, a small white trc and open-gear tuners. Well - I know what I'm banging on about... I think. The only change I made to the bass while I had it was to re-wire it & replace pots & cap - the ones fitted when I got it weren't original, and were beyond salvage. I'm confident that the bass is otherwise all original - the ashtrays were fitted when I got it and are probably replacements - they are pretty much like new. However they do fit perfectly in the original screwholes and could have been removed & kept in the case from new. The bass was in great condition when I got it and gives an impression of being well looked-after rather than restored, so I'm unsure. I think one of the reasons I like the old 70s copies is the way they're not trying to be replicas - this one's a good example of how the higher-end MIJ instruments were made in the early 70s, the body is mahogany butcher-block, with front & back birch veneers, and the neck's 3-part quarter-sawn maple, with the centre section turned through 90 degrees to help resist warping. Use of poorly-seasoned timbers in cheap early guitars led to the bad reputation that "Japcrap" had during the 70s, and factories like Fujigen, Kasuga & Matsumoku were early adopters of this technique to ensure their instruments were more durable. Anyway - I'll shut up now, you've probably passed out trying to get through this. This is a ludicrously pretty bass and I'll post some pics in a bit - although they don't really do it justice.

Didn't really get the first track (although the video's great) but Evil In Your Eye is deliriously unhinged. Fantastic stuff!

Incomprehensible. This is is a low-end generic early 70s cheapo in not-very-good condition. What's odd is that the same seller has a lot of other vintage MIJ stuff for sale - largely more desireable stuff in my opinion/experience - for much more reasonable money, considering he's a trade seller. Almost convinced that it's a misprice, but for the fact a similar bass (same design but an Italian-made Shaftesbury) has been listed on one of the FB for sale groups for £675! World's gone mad, I tell ya.

Squier's an actual, proper name, from the Olden Days & everything: https://www.houseofnames.com/squier-family-crest The Squier brand originated in 1890 - string manufacturer V C Squier, which was acquired by Fender in 1965. Obviously what's happened is that The Internet has realised that a gross spelling mistake has been being perpetuated for several centuries, and using the power of popular usage of the correct spelling, predominantly through its Ebay instrument, is righting that wrong. This is, of course how all language evolves. In the future it'll be perfectly normal and acceptable to have a Squire base gitar with a frettles kneck and bone knut, fitted with upgraded turners. You'll need a chord to plug it in, too.

Lovely - never seen one of these before. And I think you stole that one, @bigdumby!

Also - can I request the poll be amended to include a "maybe" or "it depends" option? I'm probably not alone in being into the idea in principle but it really does depend on what - if anything - we can agreee on.

I've toyed with the idea of trying to build an Ibis-influenced bass myself - always felt the headstock proportion, rather than the shape was what looks "off" about it. Just needs to be smaller, I think. I'd probably slim down the top bout of the body a bit to make it look a little less bulbous, too. I quite like the ashtray on the original but wouldn't envisage a contemporary version having one in the first place!

There's a thought - a shortscale Nobbly Ned. Would have to be shortscale to counteract the stumpy top horn. Or headless, which is not a bad idea considering how little flair was displayed by Mr Cook's original headstock. Actually the more I think about that, the more I like it - the Basschat Headless Ned...

I don't think anyone's suggesting a "Serek copy". Simply the concept of an attractive, contemporary-looking shortscale (of which the Serek is an example) appears to be a popular one. However since Eastwood specialise in knocking off - sorry, deriving inspiration from - unusual, out-of-production designs, how about something like the Fenix SH from the 90s? I am getting the impression though that you already have a personal preconception of what you'd like the bass to be & perhaps a contemporary shortscale isn't it. Fair enough - anyone else here a fan of the Maton Ibis? Australian-made bass from the 60s, I first encountered these about 20 years ago when I met an ex-pat Aussie bassist in a rehearsal room, he had a gorgeous, immculate white Ibis, which I guess from his age he'd had from new. I was particularly taken by the aesthetic & he was keen to tell me all about it. Wouldn't let me play it though - and certainly wouldn't let me buy it! So if it has to be a re-hash of an oldie - I want one of these:

Cool idea in principle and it will certainly be interesting to see what - if anything - the Basschat Hive Mind will agree on. Fwiw I'd definitely be interested in that Serek-esque shortscale, and off the top of my head, will also propose a compact & lightweight headless double-neck (fretted/fretless), with neck(s) through construction. Don't want much, do I? One question though - why Eastwood? They're a brand I've observed with some little interest over the years, and broadly speaking they're purveyors of modern re-hashes of quirky retro tat, and do seem to ask some pretty eye-watering prices for what I'm sure are inexpensively-made Chinese / Indonesian etc instruments. Considering we have brands like Chowny & Retrovibe right here on BC, wouldn't approaching them with this suggestion be more sensible?