Bassassin

That's a lovely bass and if I was in the market for a J spec bass in that price range, it would be the first one I looked at. The bridge is interesting, not seen that design before - looks like it's heavily derived from the Schaller 3D (my usual choice of bridge on Fender-style basses) - does it have adjustable spacing? Jon.

Personally I'm amazed that apart from the cords that need repacing, and its overall resonable condition, it appears to be neither accoustic nor a guiter. Or indeed an acustic gitar. Jon.

[quote name='daz' post='1186676' date='Apr 3 2011, 01:01 PM'][b]Krohurte:[/b] If you go to [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=270&st=1640&start=1640"]this thread [/url]and put up a pic and details and ask [b]bassassin[/b] he will help, im sure. He knows his [i]Rickenfakers[/i] inside out. (PS the thread is over 80 pages long so unless you have a spare 4 hours just zip to the last page )[/quote] It's a pity I didn't see this earlier, hopefully Krohurte will check this thread out. The bass is a through-neck 4001 copy made by Matsumoku in Japan, unless there's a serial number it's hard to put a precise date on this because these were made from approximately 1973/4 until the early/mid 80s. It is probably mid 70s because Japanese manufacturers broadly stopped exporting copies from about 1978 onwards, due to a move towards original designs, and the rising costs of manufacturing meaning "cheap" instruments were more likely to be sourced from places like Korea. Anyway I have a Matsumoku-made 4001 copy, almost identical to this one (mine has a rosewood board) so I know a bit about these: These are pretty much the most accurate Rick 4001 copies made, right down to the twin truss rods and accurate copies of the "wavy" Grover tuners featured on many 70s 4001s. Reviews at the time actually claimed the Matsumoku 4001 was built to a higher standard than the genuine article - certainly the modern truss rod design & poly finish are much less prone to self-destruction than those used on the real 4001, these elements being unevolved since the 1950s. They were also very consistent, Matsumoku was one of the first guitar manufacturers to use CNC routers so they all feel & play the same, unlike proper Ricks, which can vary in shape, weight & neck proportion depending on the time of the month, seemingly. Unfortunately, being a very accurate copy, it also inherited some of the 4001's design flaws - an unadjustably high action is common, due to the vast neck pickup route situated at the very end of the fretboard. Combine this & the very thin body with years of being strung with high-tension roundwound strings, and the neck simply pulls forward at this natural weak point - and there's little one can do to fix this. On real 4001s, delamination of the body wings is a common side effect too, although much less frequently seen on copies - one assumes this is down to use of more efficient modern adhesives. I have encountered the "DIA" brand name before - I post of a few vintage guitar forums & have seen instruments with this brand come up. I don't know which country Krohurte's from but it will be a domestic importer's own brand, I'd guess most likely the company's initials, much like CMI or CSL in the UK. These brand names on old MIJ copies are very seldom connected to the actual manufacturer in any way. Anyway here's my Unholy Trinity: The Mat is on the left, the other two are The Frankenbugger, assembled from numerous desecrated bass-corpses, and The Rickenbugger - a somewhat pimped Kasuga EB-750. They're all very much at home in this thread because what I paid for 'em wouldn't cover half a real Rick. Just as well I have no wish to own one - besides, these are massively more interesting & individual. Jon.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' post='1185496' date='Apr 2 2011, 02:34 AM'][url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RARE-JOHN-BIRCH-Vintage-Custom-Bass-Guitar-70s-/250797910419?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item3a64b86993"]John Birch.[/url][/quote] That's bloody lovely, that is. Plus better-made & 100 times more exclusive than any poxy Rickenbacker. J.

[quote name='kurcatovium' post='1183927' date='Mar 31 2011, 09:13 PM']I don't know whether it is bargain or not, the seller wants about 100 pounds for it. I think I should give it a try...[/quote] Good plan - I think I'd be sorely tempted to drop £100 on that - looks lovely. J.

Looks a lovely bass to me, aesthetically at least. Depends what you want to know, it's likely mid-80s to mid-90s, probably Korean, it's active, I'd expect the controls are the same as the Jack & later versions of the B2A - 2x volume, and coaxial treble/bass. Can't be 100% sure from the pic but it looks like a single-piece neck rather than a glued-on board - nice! Does want a setup, though. The serial is probably on the neckplate - these are hefty cast metal with the Hohner Pro logo & stamped on serial number. A C prefix will almost certainly mean Cort in Korea, sorry but I don't know how to date these from serials. Anyway, in my experience the Hohner Pro range is consistently very good, & if this bass is any sort of bargain I doubt you'd go far wrong. Jon.

[quote name='hillbilly deluxe' post='1183442' date='Mar 31 2011, 03:32 PM']It is a P J,Pile of Junk.[/quote] You know what - you're dead right there. My first bass was identical to this, apart from having two pickups & "Grant" on the headstock. Bought new in 1978, so bollocks to this being from 1969. I'm the first person to try & find merit in even the worst JapCrap - but this was pure, unmitigated & unrelenting sh!te. In a perfect world it would have completely put me off playing bass or any other instrument, and my life would undoubtedly have been much more simple, straightforward, stable and fulfilled as a result. J.

[quote name='3below' post='1182739' date='Mar 30 2011, 09:34 PM']Simple mistake, seller has not noticed that decimal place was wrong in start price[/quote] The price is a BIN - very much doubt he wants to sell it for £99! Would be a cracking bargain, though. J.

Oh man, that's just f@cking squalid. You'd catch a disease off that. I wouldn't feel happy about buying a bass off someone who plainly shuns the practice of using toilet paper and has never washed their hands, ever. Jon.

Looking forward to seeing it! Good plan with the pup mount - my Matsumoku copy had a J pup mounted like this when I got it, & I subsequently used the same mounting plate to attach a little mini 'bucker sized pup to my Frankenbugger faker. Thinking about it, the pup route's probably too deep to screw to the actual wood anyway. J.

[quote name='Annoying Twit' post='1181073' date='Mar 29 2011, 05:46 PM']Here's an interesting looking one. [url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Stafford-TEISCO-Hollow-Body-Semi-Bass-Guitar-MIJ-JAPAN-/400205844298?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item5d2e208f4a"]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Stafford-TEISCO-Holl...=item5d2e208f4a[/url][/quote] Not 100% sure but I think that's been through before - I remember very much liking the checker-bound fretboard & then being a bit put off by some of the structural issues. Which is exactly what I think now. Don't think it's a Teisco, mostly due to the lack of it saying "Teisco" anywhere. J.

No reason why having a separate bridge & tuners wouldn't work - the principle would only be the same as the separate bridge & string retainer you get on Warwicks & such. If your headless bridge is the Steinberger/Hohner type, the saddles are only held into the tuner assembly with a single allen screw anyway, so would work perfectly well as just tuners. The separate bridge idea sounds fine to me. Very interesting project, btw. Jon.

[quote name='Soloshchenko' post='1178402' date='Mar 27 2011, 03:52 PM']Well I suppose it's each it his own regarding the TRC, I wasn't particularly bothered whether it said Rickenbacker or not, just needed a TRC and saw this one available so snapped it up. Personally speaking I think it looks fine, I'd never try to pass off the bass as a real one anyway so it's purely aesthetic to cover the truss rods. As regards the pickup surround I might still be interested in that Jon, I'll see how the new one feels and if I don't get on with it I'll sell it and get one off you. I do prefer the look of the originals but if it gets in the way it's going off![/quote] The good thing about a perspex surround is that you lose the big hole where your thumb should go - and all that lovely sharp metal too. Less of a problem if you're still going to use a J pup but there will still be big gaps. How would you fit a J pup - just screw it into the wood like on a Jazz? Btw I have been known to make the odd Rickenfaker trc as well. J.

[quote name='ras52' post='1180161' date='Mar 28 2011, 10:10 PM']Re. licing, oops, I mean re. re-licing, surely the correct spelling would be RELICKING - c.f. panic => panicking, etc.[/quote] Correct in principle, I'd think - but this would engender considerable confusion should something (for example the avatar lady being discussed above), having been licked, require subsequent - indeed repeated - licking. As would very likely be the case. J.

I expect the original '51 P had a scratchplate so it would look consistent with the Fender Telecaster, which has a plate to suspend a pickup from, hide some routing & protect the lacquer from all that strummy guitarist nonsense. After that, I suppose it just became a tradition on most basses. Jon.

[quote name='tino' post='1179755' date='Mar 28 2011, 05:10 PM']On its way needs a signature,hopeful of delivery tomorrow tracking info on PP acct...............Enjoy[/quote] Splendid, will give you a shout once it arrives! J.

[quote name='waynepunkdude' post='1179594' date='Mar 28 2011, 03:08 PM']Would an LP have a neck plate?[/quote] Not a real one - but he does call it LP style in the listing. Anyway this must be the next logical step after the MM roasted neck thing. J.

I asked if it had a flame top. /coat. Jon.

[quote name='uke' post='1179013' date='Mar 28 2011, 12:01 AM']My favourite is "Relicing"! A word that many feel exists, if it did wouldn't it mean replacing Lice? [/quote] I do wish this would go away - despite not existing it's impossible to express in any kind of semantically appropriate way; random apostrophes & hyphens don't make it read any better. Besides, it's completely redundant as the English language furnishes us with so many useful words & phrases which perfectly encapsulate the end result of this process: ruining, wrecking, f@cking up, making a total dog's arse of, destroying, cocking up, trashing, buggering up... So much choice - so little imagination. J.

[quote name='karlfer' post='1178702' date='Mar 27 2011, 08:33 PM']Ah, bring back Halo of Flies!!!!![/quote] And Gutter Cat vs The Jets, Blue Turk, Generation Landslide, Billion $ Babies... J.

[quote name='tino' post='1178749' date='Mar 27 2011, 09:01 PM']I heard the tight sod swims it to save a quid [/quote] ...says King of the Bin Divers! J.

I never consciously avoid open strings, unless an open note would ring over a subsequent note on a lower string - playing that note in a fretted position is usually simpler than muting an open one. I wouldn't say I notice any significant tonal differences between open & fretted notes, particularly in a band context. A good few years ago it occurred to me I was habitually playing a lot of parts unnecessarily clumsily, moving my hand up & down the board to get to notes rather than crossing & using open strings - this was particularly awkward when singing & playing. I ended up re-learning a lot of my lines using more logical positional playing & open strings where possible. This has stuck when composing or learning parts - I always try to work something out so I play it with the most economy of movement - one finger per fret, open strings, crossing strings etc. Jon.