Painted Basses vs Natural Wood Basses

[Bassassin]

Natural finishes can be stunning - there were painted versions of [url="http://www.maya29.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/talbo/talbof.jpg"]this bass[/url] and they were just a travesty.

Jon.

[xilddx]

[quote name='lemmywinks' post='1020330' date='Nov 11 2010, 04:12 PM'][/quote]
Only in photographs, I've not actually touched it or played with it. Anyway, it will still be a bit oily.

[Mog]

I prefer a tinted coat over highly figured woods. Flame Maple + Cherryburst = sexwee.
However, a P bass in LPD with a Maple board and MOP plate is as attractive as anything in my book.
Horses for ice rinks innit.

[Chris2112]

I don't mind either. My ACG is incredible to look at it with it's beautiful woodwork, but my Kubicki is also so classy and aggressive looking with the black ebony fretboard against the dashing red paint. It all depends on the bass, although in general I lean towards natural basses.

[purpleblob]

As long as it's not sunburst I'm happy

Okay in truth I prefer natural wood, it doesn't tend to show dings as easily as painted, it doesn't tend to fade in a way that looks old and dirty (in my opinion) but also I love the individuality of wood grain. I also tend to like the natural look of things.

This all said I do have a white Jaydee on order, so I'm not an exclusive wood finish kinda guy

EDIT: Just thought though, interestingly (well not really) I would never want a natural precision (if indeed I ever wanted a precision) that would just seem wrong - but I don't know why.

Edited November 11, 2010 by purpleblob

[icastle]

[quote name='silddx' post='1020308' date='Nov 11 2010, 04:00 PM']Why not?[/quote]

Complete taste violation

[paul h]

Depends on the bass. No strong feelings about it either way.

That's right, I'm sitting on the fence, what you gonna do about it? I'll tell ya...NOTHING.

[icastle]

[quote name='paul h' post='1020393' date='Nov 11 2010, 05:00 PM']That's right, I'm sitting on the fence, what you gonna do about it? I'll tell ya...NOTHING.[/quote]

That'd be the reason why the human ar5e is shaped that way.... so we can sit on the fence without falling off

[stingrayPete1977]

Different makes and model do it for me in different finishes so I dont have a preference for any but If I was buying new I would always go for a finish where the grain is at least visible either natural or a trans finish because in my mind the best bits of wood would always be put to one side for those finishes and the ugly ducklings in the solid finish pile

[BigRedX]

I agree the finish needs to match the style of the bass. I have basses in natural finish, tinted finish, sunburst, solid colour and custom graphics and I would like to think that each finish is appropriate for the bass in question. So as long as the finish looks right to me for a particular bass I'm happy.

What I'm less happy with is necks that don't match the body finish. Unless the neck is made out of a completely different material to the body such as aluminium, it looks cheap and nasty. I can understand it on inexpensive basses with bolt-on necks where it's simply a cost-cutting exercise to help get the instrument to the desired price point, but on any thing "serious" no thanks. And when it's on a set neck like the Gibson Grabber II it just makes me wonder what the "designer" was smoking to make them think that it was ever a good idea or aesthetically pleasing!

[GRAHAM SG1]

I love a nice grain pattern, I had a quilted maple guitar once which was stunning, my Gibson SG bass is a faded cherry re-issue and it looks great, when new it was matt but with wear and tear is getting shiny like an old vintage guitar, another reason I like my Gibson is that it cannot get a nasty paint chip !

[Krysbass]

I like to see wood grain – don’t mind if it’s covered with coloured lacquer as long as it’s understated and the wood grain remains visible.

Several reasons for this…

Seeing wood grain is usually a pretty reliable means of telling that the bass isn’t made of plywood or MDF! My first bass was and I vowed “never again”. Nice wood usually says "nice quality".

A bass is a musical instrument. IMHO a painted finish, especially a brightly coloured one, can sometimes make it look like a toy.

Wood is an organic material – somehow there’s something appropriate about that when seen in a musical instrument.

I’ve always been a keen wood-worker. I just love the stuff in all it varieties and see it as a thing of beauty, to be enjoyed. To me it just seems plain wrong to hide a nice piece of wood under a layer of paint - especially on an expensive quality bass.

If Fender actually produced more models in different woods with a natural finish I daresay I'd change the habit of a lifetime and actually want to buy one.

[Davo-London]

Very amusing.

Paint was surely originally used to cover up the fact that the body is made of from 3 slabs of wood. Having said that my 76 Precision is 3 pieces of wood (Ash) and has a natural finish!! I'm not a fan of the solid coating of plastic that Fender put on their instruments since the 70's. I prefer the 50's/60's nitro finish.

Anyways, the sound is better from unfinished instruments - so that's why you see so many oiled natural basses these days.

Finally, if your luthier can do this with the neck joint:



Why would you cover it with paint???

Cheers
Davo

[danny-79]

I prefer seeing the woodgrain for the simple reason being a solid colour can hide a multitude of sins, not saying its bad wood under there just the naked ones hold there value longer an no two wood grains are the same .