noelk27

[quote name='Spoombung' post='787006' date='Mar 26 2010, 03:06 PM']You know, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a 5-string at a gig (and I go to a lot of gigs) or met anyone who owns one. Where are they then? They're all here in the 'For Sale' section or the Basschat 'Porn' section.[/quote] You didn't come to see me play in the mid 80s then - my main gigging bass was a Yamaha BB5000A. But seriously, from Bon Jovi to Garbage, Beyonce to Kylie, spotted plenty of bassists using 5-strings on stage.

[quote name='Annoying Twit' post='786012' date='Mar 25 2010, 04:36 PM']Yamaha BB1200. A quick google suggests that this is MIJ, while the BB1000 is made in Taiwan. But, a quick google does not always reveal the truth![/quote] Not always. Currently own a '79 BB1000 finished in natural, and clearly stamped Made in Japan on the reverse of the headstock. Think it's the case that at some point in '84 Yamaha established production facilities in Taiwan, and thereafter moved production of certain models outside of Japan.

Purchased a couple of sets of DR Lo-Riders from Martin, and got a free set of APII bridge saddles. (Not as crazed a free gift as it may at first sound, as I'd been looking for APII SB saddles.) Fast, efficient, and a pleasure to deal with. Highly recommended.

[quote name='Annoying Twit' post='754236' date='Feb 22 2010, 07:07 PM']The owner of this "Tony the Tiger" bass says that s/he's owned it 20 years. But, I presume that it's a very late 80s/1990 Korean AP2. Is it? ... Edit: Or, it might not be: [url="http://www.matsumoku.org/models/ariaproii/bass/zzb/zzb.html"]http://www.matsumoku.org/models/ariaproii/bass/zzb/zzb.html[/url][/quote] ZZB. And the serial number quoted ties in - dating it to '84.

[quote name='mikhay77' post='753200' date='Feb 21 2010, 08:14 PM'][I]ts a sb700 not bad nick too,a tone knob missing. ...[/quote] It might be an SB700. It might be an SB600. You'd need a photo of the reverse to know for sure. Certainly looks like 16mm spacing, so not an Elite I. Also, the one remaining knob looks non-original, as does the hardcase. If I did the 'Bay I'd take a punt. if it was a 700. Maybe a good thing for my wallet that I don't.

Might be opening a store ... Headstocks Aria Us

[quote name='Annoying Twit' post='752559' date='Feb 21 2010, 10:11 AM']Ah, I get it. Same patent number for both the guitars and the basses with the same body shape. Edit: Oh, just the headstock. In which case the number tells us very little. Which is where we came in.[/quote] Well, it doesn't tell you any series or model details, but it does tell you what headstock shape to expect.

[quote name='Bloodaxe' post='752464' date='Feb 21 2010, 03:00 AM']Headstock from my 1981 TSB-400 ...[/quote] And a very nice illustration of exactly what the text and number apply to - the headstock design.

[quote name='Annoying Twit' post='752513' date='Feb 21 2010, 08:59 AM'][url="http://en.allexperts.com/q/Electric-Guitars-3419/aria-pro-II.htm"]http://en.allexperts.com/q/Electric-Guitar...aria-pro-II.htm[/url] Guitar?!?![/quote] Er, yea. Aria made CS (Cardinal Sound) guitars as well as basses. I have a CS guitar. Looks very nice in Japan Brown. The CS doesn't have as nicely balanced a body as my RS (Rev Sound) - the closest thing Aria made to an SB guitar - or, oddly, my TS (Thor Sound) - which the CS is based on. The original RS and TS series guitars featured six-in-line headstocks, so didn't feature the patent graph, for that you've got to track down the first in the PE (Masterpiece Prototype - yea, not quite sure how Aria came up with that one) series, from '76.

[quote name='Bassassin' post='752227' date='Feb 20 2010, 09:15 PM']"Aria pro II custom body part No 555719" - that number ring any bells ... ?[/quote] [quote name='Bloodaxe' post='752246' date='Feb 20 2010, 09:39 PM']That's the patent number in the "paragraph" on those with 2+2 headstocks. Full text reads: "Designed & Approved by H. Noble Original Custom Body P. No. 555179 A Product of Matsumoku 4.11. N.M." There's another variant that goes: "Specially Designed & Approved By ARIA Research & Development LAB Original Custom Body Pat. No. 555719" And finally... "(Model Name) Original Custom Body Pat. No. 555179" Probably others, but the first one is the most common.[/quote] Technically speaking it's a patent number. In fact, more correctly, it's the design registration number for the headstock, and can be found on all APII models with the "bat wing" and "open book" headstock designs - guitar, bass, and anything else Aria were producing - although units manufactured outside of Japan don’t always feature the text. Of the graphs quoted, the first was in service for the shortest period of time, the second the longest. As for the third, that's one that I've not previously seen. (I'm suspicious that if it's only to be found in publish materials that it's, perhaps, a typo. I could be wrong.)

[quote name='Maverick' post='751662' date='Feb 20 2010, 11:27 AM']Hmm, that's interesting - legally speaking I don't think there's any great distinction really (in the case of a private seller), but I suppose eBay can make that their policy if they wish.[/quote] "The Law" makes significant distinction between a private individual, not acting by way of trade or profession, and a trader or body corporate across the spectrum of activities those falling into said categories may undertake, not least as a seller or retailer. Even within the context of eBay a distinction is made under the standard terms and conditions, between private and business sellers - there is an initial burden on the eBay member to declare their status, although eBay reserves the right to categorise any member as a business seller based on measurable criteria such as volume of monthly sales, repetition of product listings, and so on. Certainly, there are commercial advantages to business registration, not least billing, payment, and feeing criteria. As correctly summarised, measures such as the Distance Selling Regulations and statutes dealing with the sale of goods generally apply to sales by way of trade or profession, where the statutory regime imposes a set of rights and responsibilities on the parties dealing, so as to exclude unfair contract terms, and practices. The position of a private individual is quite distinct, where the weight of statutory materials cannot be brought to bear on the seller, but where the body of common law and practice is of import. The common law is where the buyer of this item can seek refuge. Outwith eBay, and after examining the item description to determine whether the stated serial number is an essential term of the contract, or other, it could be argued that the buyer has a right of rejection prior to proffering of payment. Taking the eBay construct, however, it is most probably necessary that the buyer does indeed conclude the transaction, thereafter availing himself of the procedures and protections offered through that marketplace. But this is the point at which commentators appear to be postulated as to the relative state of knowledge, of both seller and buyer, whether the description is sufficiently ambiguous as to imply authenticity of an identification plate only, and so on, and so on. To be brutally frank, I think those without sufficient knowledge of the operation of the law of contract are muddying the waters significantly. The seller has stated a serial number. The serial number - and it really does not matter if directly or by implication - becomes a significant factor in determining the identity of the good, and given the sparsity of other operable description, certainly arguably an essential. With the VIN system there are other statutory factors to be taken into consideration, but the same principle presides, that the identification, or serial, number can be related to a database, or record, for the purposes of identification, or authentication. If, on referring to the relevant database or record, the serial number were found not to relate to the specific item, then the seller would be in beach, with the consequent results to the enforceability of the sale. Should the buyer have conducted due diligence, prior to placing an auction bid or at some time prior to conclusion of the auction? Possibly, given that the information for conducting said diligence had been disclosed. Is this factor likely to influence the situation, rejection of the goods? Unlikely.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' post='751521' date='Feb 20 2010, 12:56 AM']The seller hasn't explicitly said ...[/quote] Yes. It doesn't make any substantive difference whether his statement is implicit or explicit, by including a serial number in the description that becomes an essential of the item description, irrespective of his knowledge or familiarity with what he is selling, irrespective of any ambiguity on his part, he is in material breach of an essential of the stated item description if that serial number does not relate to that instrument.

[quote name='lemmywinks' post='748333' date='Feb 17 2010, 12:46 PM']The seller seems to have covered his back pretty well in the listing, the only thing he gives is the serial number ... [I]f it isn't the bass the serial number makes it out to be file a "significantly not as described" claim on eBay. ... Thing is, does mentioning the serial count as specifying what model/year the bass is?[/quote] Yes. If the serial number does not relate to the specific instrument then the seller is in material breach of an essential term of the contract of sale. If in doubt about this, taking motorvehicles, an example mentioned elsewhere in the thread, assume the VIN was incorrect for a vehicle being auctioned, any buyer would have an absolute right of rejection.

G&L L2000

Hate that saddle design. You're better with ones that have a single centre channel.

[quote name='Bloodaxe' post='746712' date='Feb 15 2010, 11:48 PM']Mid '80s but with the earlier style tri-laminate neck.[/quote] Did the Laser (Lazer) series ever have a neck design other than the capped, laminated three-piece maple one? LEB models featured in the APII catalogue in '85 and '86, but production continued beyond that. I currently own an '87 Classic, and recently sold an '88 Heritage, and both featured the three-piece design.

[quote name='Bloodaxe' post='740566' date='Feb 10 2010, 02:24 AM'][A] Matsumoku P/J don' need no steenkeen' acteevs![/quote] Not all APII models were built by Matsumoku. Various 80s models were built elsewhere, in Japan and overseas, pre-87. It may be down to quality control of materials, or production methods, but it's not unusual to see examples from the RSB, LEB and IB/IGB ranges in particular that suffer from crazing/cracking in the finish. Saying that, it's unusual to see an example where the crazing/cracking has gone full way through the finish. This one looks as though it has taken a significant impact. As for the electronics/wiring issue highlighted by the seller, most often the phase switch is the source of the problem, which is a pretty straightforward fix.

Trying to work out when in its production history the 2000 model had a chunky neck, with the same feel and dimensions as on my '78 and '79 1200 models. Is the answer as simple as, in the first year of production of the 2000?

You always have the option of getting it refinished. I suppose it depends on how much of the bass is original (electronics, hardware, etc), and what the asking price is when measured against market value for an factory finished example.

The ones out of Brooklyn aren't half bad either.

And people aren't distinguishing between an original SSD NS4 and - I hate to use the term, but can't think of another - mass-produced Euro models? An SSD NS4 is, at the very minimum, on a par with the current US output, and given the relative scarcity of the SSD version I'd have thought attracted a premium. At this rate I might have to consider parting with my NS2.

[quote name='chrisd24' post='746695' date='Feb 15 2010, 11:31 PM']ah i see...sorry my bad, the acronyms all merged into a sea of letters![/quote] Oh, believe me, I know the sensation. As you learn more about Aria you'll see that models came and went from the catalogue with stunning regularity. It's not unusual for an Aria model to last just one year, and a series to last as few as two years. It's a situation that becomes even more confused and confusing with those models that don't have proper names, unlike Super Balanced (SB) or Thor Sound (TSB), instead just random letters, like XRB or CAT.

[quote name='chrisd24' post='746670' date='Feb 15 2010, 11:10 PM']So if mine has a 7 digit serial number starting with a 7 (denoting 87) but is also active then its post 90?[/quote] No. The SLB2A was introduced in '90. The SLB series was introduced in '88, and phased out in '92. Yours is an XRB, and the XRB series was introduced in '87, and phased out in '89.

[quote name='Bloodaxe' post='746452' date='Feb 15 2010, 08:20 PM']My money's on yours being a 1987 Korean-built example.[/quote] I'm not so sure about that. The information I've always had was that Aria didn't start production in Korea until '88. I don't have definitive information that production continued in Japan before '88, but it seems a fair assumption to make in the circumstances. [quote name='waldemar' post='746586' date='Feb 15 2010, 10:03 PM']I have something that is near identical, but rather than XRB it has (had...) SLB2A Electronics (how and why can I still remember that?!) - switchgear is the same as yours. ... I bought mine new as a first bass when I was 15, so I guess we're looking at 88/89. Doesn't it fly?[/quote] If your memory isn't playing tricks on you, and yours was the active model (SLB2A) as opposed to the passive model (SLB2), then you're looking at a date post '90, as that was the year the active model was introduced. Any time after '88 if it was the passive model. FYI, the SLB series was manufactured in Korea.