noelk27

[quote name='King Tut' post='520984' date='Jun 22 2009, 05:32 PM']My 64 reish (like Guy Pratts) original is Burgundy Mist which has a sparkle in it - although not as sparkly as that one ...[/quote] I'm always somewhat confused when it comes to Pratt's Jazz basses. I've never been sure as to whether the Sunburst example is the '64, or the Burgundy Mist. Given that I've seen the Burgundy Mist example being credited as a '63, '64 and '68. It is a Custom Colour example, as it has a colour-coordinated headstock (which, technically, makes the colour Purple Mist - as that was the name Fender used for that Custom Colour option - although Burgundy Mist and Purple Mist are one in the same colour). Pratt issues aside, the Burgundy (nee Purple) Mists and Emerald Mist colour options are a "single" colour, although with a nacreous pigmentation (pearlescent appearance), and are often fully credited by Fender as being Burgundy Mist Metallic and Emerald Mist Metallic. This, to my mind, taking into consideration other "metallic" colour options, seems quite a different prospect to the Sparkle/Sparckle and Metal Flake colour options. As for Sparkle/Sparckle and Metal Flake, I'd always been under the impression that these were introduced around '67, a year or so before the Paisley and Flower designs, and like those latter options, were a reflection of the changes occurring in popular music in the '60s, and its assimilation of the '50s Pop Art movement - the influence of which is credited as being behind the stripes and embellishments featured on the likes of Mustang and MusicMaster instruments. But I'm no Fender expert ...

[quote name='BarnacleBob' post='520143' date='Jun 21 2009, 05:33 PM']Yep, Gold Metallic was available then at 25% extra. Even if this was genuine £40K is a bit mental. BB[/quote] There's absolutely no doubt that Fender offered gold as a Custom Colour finish - and offered more than one variety of gold finish as a custom option over the years, including a metallic gold. But did the sparkle/sparckle and metal flake treatments appear as early as '64? I was always under the impression that single and burst finishes were the only options at that time, and that the sparkle/sparckle and metal flake variations appeared much later. I was also under the impression that the gold metallic custom option had a matt/burnished appearance.

First, I'd suggest sourcing a fretless neck as opposed to de-fretting. Next, I'd carefully consider whether the finish of the neck will be problematic - an untreated neck is by far the simplest to de-fret, but a good luthier should be able to modify a lightly finished neck without too many risks. If sourcing a replacement neck isn't your decision, then: 1. If the bass suits your requirements, then yes, go for it. It won't destroy the resale value, as all modifications can be reversed. 2. There are other options, such as a sawdust-derived resin. It's also possible to have the frets filled down to the touchboard surface. It's really down to what appearance you're looking to achieve - but plastic is possibly the simplest option. 3. Circa £200, including a set-up and set of strings. Remember, the nut will require modification, so you might want to do what I did and retain the original nut, having a completely fresh one cut for the fretless modification. Think about it carefully, as it's by no means certain that you'll achieve the desired mwah, and may find yourself considering additional modifications to attain your desired tone.

[quote name='neepheid' post='512298' date='Jun 12 2009, 04:06 PM']Haven't made a will yet, so I guess my wife would get them.[/quote] A spouse is entitle to a share in your estate, but is not the only person legally entitled to make a claim - the degrees of entitlement depend on relationships of consanguinity and affinity. The main point to note is, that without specific designations your estate could be liquidated and the proceeds divided - so specific items would be lost to your relations in that eventuality. It's simple and inexpensive to make a will, and anyone of majority - over 18 - should really do so. [quote name='pobolycwm' post='512667' date='Jun 13 2009, 09:42 AM']gonna put mine in the loft then leave the house and contents to my nephew just so he can sell it legitamately on ebay and state he found it in his late uncles loft[/quote] That one made me laugh out loud.

Guitar Guitar (Glasgow) had one hanging on the wall a few weeks back.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='511266' date='Jun 11 2009, 01:55 PM']I wanted one until I played one.[/quote] Same here.

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='511106' date='Jun 11 2009, 11:41 AM']The signature isn't a perfect match but it is close.[/quote] I'd have to disagree, I'm afraid. Those are not the same signature. I stopped counting when I'd spotted in excess of 10 major points of variance. Significantly, impression points, force points, sweeps and inclines differ. Take the "P", "T" and "ER" in "Peter" - in one example the surface contact point for the "P" is mid letter, with the following "E" flows into a looped "P", and the remaining letters as a tail; and in the other example the base is the contact for the "P", using upward pressure to create the loop and heavy end pressure, the following "E" is standalone with a lift to create the "T", its contact point being mid letter with a distinct downward swoop and trail into the following "E". The difference is also very apparent in "Wilfer" - one example is upright, tending right to left, with distinct contact and release pressure marks, whereas the other has a distinct right lean - look in particular at the "W" (outward swoop in one example and inward for the other), "F" (length and overhang) and "R". These two signatures were not made by the same person. However, as to which one is authentic, I can't say. It's possible that both are genuine instruments, with the "signature" simply being applied by the factory, not necessarily the individual.

Well, they do say the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - although in this case the bill for the sum of the parts appears to be much greater than the value of the whole.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='506818' date='Jun 6 2009, 09:11 AM']In the current market, what would be a more realistic price than the £2600 he's looking for?[/quote] For some reason the photos aren't displaying for me at the moment, but based on the information he gives, re condition and extras, I'd say the price is strong. Realistic is closer to £2k. There's a natural '74 - in better condition, but with a replacement pickguard going for a little under £1,700 elsewhere. As for the rest, '74 is when Fender changed the positioning of this - and I've seen '74s where this isn't consistently placed above the strings.

When my old OC2 died the first replacement I tried was an OC3. To be honest, the reason I didn't like it as much was that you couldn't overload it in the way you can an OC2 - as I think the slightly unpredictable nature of an OC2 is part of its character. Of the others I tried, the EBS sounded the best to my ear - but anything other than an OC2 sounded too clean to me. So, picked up another OC2 used. Of course, like others, I avoid tracking issues by not straying below C - and five-string issues by sticking with only having four strings on any bass!

[quote name='Beedster' post='506219' date='Jun 5 2009, 10:26 AM']Not sure you'll really notice the difference though, I never have, and I've really tried to ...[/quote] I know I'm comparing Apples with Oranges, but I'm using two fretless basses which are essentially very similar - a '79 CLF MusicMan Stingray and an '83 G&L L2000. Both have ash bodies, maple necks and ebony touchboards. Of course, the character of the pickups and electronics is different, and I much prefer the L2000 to the Stingray tonally. However, the X-factor, when strung through body the StingRay has a woodier character, which I keep on wondering if I could get out of the L2000. Now, before anyone starts screaming at their PC, as this fool attempts to butcher an '83 L2000, I'm going to experiment on a 90s L2000 first - one that's already been converted from fretted to fretless. I don't know, do you really think this is chasing shadows? Have I convinced myself that I’m hearing something that isn’t there with the StingRay? [quote name='neepheid' post='506194' date='Jun 5 2009, 10:04 AM']Are you sure you want to do that?[/quote] No and Yes. I suppose I just have to find out if there's a difference in tone.

I had an Aria Pro II SB1000 that developed an issue a little like this, so like your Warwick had an angled headstock - turned out one of the nuts at the base of one of the tuning pegs had loosened and when an open string was played the metal washer under the nut would vibrate, causing a metallic rattle. Might be worth checking that all the nuts and bolts are properly tightened.

Planning on converting a four-string G&L L2000 to string through body, and looking for recommendations as to suitable replacement bridges. The main contenders are the Hipshot A Style and the Gotoh 303 or 404. The Leo Quan Badass III is another possibility, but wouldn't be my first choice. Anyone with any experience of these would be appreciate, as would further options to consider.

Oh, that Elite II is a sexy piece of walnut. Me want!

As I read the listing, he implies it's an original 70s Fender, not a re-issue. That would be some achievement, given Fender Japan didn't come into being until 1982.

[quote name='Linus27' post='500732' date='May 29 2009, 10:48 AM']I really like a thin flat neck as found on the Duck Dunn bass. Is this known as a D shape neck? My Fender Jazz I had was a little thicker and curvier. Is this known as a C Shape? If so, whats a musicman and precision got and whats an A shape neck?[/quote] The letter designations, as used by Fender, refer to the width at the nut, not the shape of the neck. An A-neck is one and one-half inches, a B-neck one and five-eighths inches, and a C-neck one and three-quarter inches. I've never heard of a D-neck Fender. For shape, literal descriptions have always been used by Fender, hence "U shape", "Soft V", "Hard V", "Oval", with additional information such as "ridge-edge" and "round-over" to describe the qualities of the shoulder.

[quote name='OldGit' post='497093' date='May 25 2009, 08:50 AM']Actually you are not contravening copyright as your recording is a new work. You will theoretically owe the songwriter a few pennies but that's it. Post your stuff up and wait for the songwriter or their estate to contact you.[/quote] Sorry, but I have to contradict you on these statements, as you would appear to have confused the mechanical performance and the rights which persist in this, and the copyright of the literary and musical compositions and the rights which persist in these. When you record and make available to the general public, by whatever means of distribution, a work that is subject to copyright without the permission of the copyright owner you have committed an act which contravenes statutory provisions, and is subject to legal proceedings, both criminal (licensing) and civil (damages). There is no in theory argument about it, and use of a copyright work results in the user being liable, as a minimum, in fees to the owner of said copyrights. It should also be noted that it is also the responsibility of the user to apply for permissions and clearances, and that by not doing so any user has commissioned a statutory offence. Failure to account for fees and licence payments are further statutory offences. With respect to mechanical performance, while it is correct that the rights in this persist in anyone who makes the recording, this does not give the person or persons making any such recording the right to broadcast or use this in any way, other than private personal use. Private and personal would not include inclusion, in whole or in part, on any internet, intranet or other accessible computer forum. [quote name='Musky' post='497081' date='May 25 2009, 08:28 AM']I think I'd probably put the clips up but change the titles enough so that they don't show up on searches, or simply give them a generic title like 'Heavy Blues Demo' (or whatever). Unless you're playing stuff from well before the rock and roll era it's unlikely to be out of copyright - it's 70 years after the death of the author if I remember correctly.[/quote] As I read your comment, my understanding is that you are suggesting relates to naming for indexing or searching purposes. It is worth noting, however, that the alteration of a copyright work without the express permission of the copyright owner is an offence, and could potentially expose a party to civil action (in damages). Correctly, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author, or last of joint authors, of the copyright work dies. For mechanical performance rights, these persist for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first made available to the general public.

MIJ can be found on the very old and the very new - now that Fujigen Gakki are again manufacturing for Fender Japan.

[quote name='andy.' post='496584' date='May 24 2009, 12:27 PM']Im getting a new bass and i found one that i REALLY like, Lakland Joe Osborn ...[/quote] You’ve got no chance of convincing Lakland to accommodate your wish. To do so, the body of the bass would have to be redesigned - as a minimum, depth of the neck pocket to facilitate fitting a 24-fret neck while maintaining a 34" scale length. But my question would be, how much time do you actually spend above the 20th fret on the G string? Unless a substantial amount of your playing is on this region of the touchboard, is your requirement for a 24-fret neck a necessary one? The notes available to you on the 21st to 24th frets on the E, A and D string are all available to you elsewhere on the touchboard. Opting for a 20-fret neck on a bass you have identified as being perfect for you as opposed to a 24-fret neck on a bass that isn't seems almost perverse. If I were you, I’d give serious consideration to what my actual playing requirements were.

[quote name='markdavid' post='496318' date='May 23 2009, 08:13 PM']... My understanding is that Rockbass is to Warwick what Squier is to Fender , however looking at the Rockbass basses some of the models ive seen have been in the £400 region , thats close to MIM Fender territory pricewise and you would not expect to see a Squier for that much ...[/quote] It's a diffusion range - most usually produced under license by a third-party manufacturer. The most common reason for the arrangement is financial exploitation of copyrights, designs and patents. So it's exactly what Squier is to Fender, what OLP is to MusicMan, what Tribute is to G&L, etc. It's got nothing to do with end-user price point per se.

Minor issues for sure, but have been struggling for some time to get the exact feel I've been used to from my Jazz. So, in an attempt to shake things up, in the hope of identifying a potential solution, after 20 years of use abandoned D'Addario Pro Steels in favour of DR Lo-Riders, and I have to say the difference in feel is profound. Using the same 45-105 weighting, the Lo-Riders feel more supple, with a perceptibly lower tension and less abrasive feel - that my fingers will thank me for over time. Although at £25 more expensive than Pro Steels, I'm sufficiently impressed to consider trying DR strings on a few more of my basses. My question though, for the DR users out there, and noting that the Lo-Rider is promoted as more a funk player's choice - and my sound is more finger-style soft(ish) rock - what different characteristics would I notice if I tried Hi-Beams?