[quote name='Big_Stu' post='921277' date='Aug 11 2010, 08:46 AM']That's because way back when, before the corporations got involved, Gibsons were made by craftsmen, Fenders were made by machines for cheaper production & easy repair. It's a natural progression for Fenders to go over to China or Korea to be made by a cheap labour force on machines, while Gibsons craftsmen die out & top dollar is charged by the few that can be bothered to train up to the job. Those that don't knock out the run of the mill Gibsons with flaws, then buyers say they are over-priced.
I don't much like Fenders, can you tell? Only because they're too common, too every-day. If they float your boat then fine, but I really don't get the "other" forums that show endless lists of near identical Fenders & they drool over them like they're some grail.[/quote]
What a bizarre read!
You're suggesting that all fenders pre '65 were made on massive factory production lines?.....what mass-manufacturing technology existed back then in your world? lol. Obviously whilst master craftsmen were holed up in tiny sheds with nowt but rudimentary tools for Gibson?
I jest obviously
See a good instrument isn't simply about craftsmanship (as whoever designed Gibson headstock joints is well aware ).
The fact that you mention that Fenders are "easy to repair", regardless of how they're built, is going to appeal to working musicians!.....back then even more so than now!. Players back then didn't have 10 basses to choose from for a gig...they had one, and a backup if they had a major label deal lol.
From a bass point of view, Fenders sounded good, were solid, versatile, looked the part!
Gibson's were a bit niche, generally sounded muddy (mudbucker EB-0's anyone). Oh and the Les Paul basses were neck heavy!
But hey, if they float your boat!
Si