Anyone know much about Warwick build history?

[far0n]

Played one years ago that had a neck like a tree trunk but sounded truly superb, then got it into my head that all warwicks were chubby. Until I played Warwickhunt's one, his had a nice slim neck ! Hmm... anyway.. loads of questions about Warwicks....

Which pickups are usually the better ? Barts ? MEC ? etc
Which time frame has the slimmer necks ?
Do the older ones need that wood treament lark ? Weren't they just waxed or something ??
What's the difference between Stage I and II ?

I'm sure I'll think of more.....

Ta

Edited November 12, 2010 by far0n

[mart]

[quote name='far0n' post='1021021' date='Nov 12 2010, 09:22 AM']Played one years ago that had a neck like a tree trunk but sounded truly superb, then got it into my head that all warwicks were chubby. Until I played Warwickhunt's one, his had a nice slim neck ! Hmm... anyway.. loads of questions about Warwicks....

Which pickups are usually the better ? Barts ? MEC ? etc
Which time frame has the slimmer necks ?
Do the older ones need that wood treament lark ? Weren't they just waxed or something ??
What's the difference between Stage I and II ?

I'm sure I'll think of more.....

Ta[/quote]

Choice of pickups is probably very subjective, so I won't comment.
The thinner necks seemed to be a feature of '80s/early '90s Warwicks. Then they went "chubby", but they changed back to thin necks last year.
The older and the newer ones need "wood treatment" i.e., waxing, if they have that bare wood look. But you'll find old ones and new ones that are lacquered and so don't need any treatment.
Stage I has a visible neck-through, a P/J pickup config, and is mostly maple these days (thought the older ones were cherry), whereas Stage II has a hidden neck-through, J/J pickups, and afzelia body.

[Chris2112]

[quote name='far0n' post='1021021' date='Nov 12 2010, 09:22 AM']Played one years ago that had a neck like a tree trunk but sounded truly superb, then got it into my head that all warwicks were chubby. Until I played Warwickhunt's one, his had a nice slim neck ! Hmm... anyway.. loads of questions about Warwicks....

Which pickups are usually the better ? Barts ? MEC ? etc
Which time frame has the slimmer necks ?
Do the older ones need that wood treament lark ? Weren't they just waxed or something ??
What's the difference between Stage I and II ?

I'm sure I'll think of more.....

Ta[/quote]


The slimmest necks I've found are the old NT models, though the bolt on profile of the 90's was also quite slim and comfortable. This was the height of Warwicks glory, the late 80's though until the late 90's. Then came the Millenium and Nu Metal and suddenly Warwick's popularity exploded due to increased marketing. They became very popular with players across the board (as evidenced by the massive popularity they enjoyed at Talkbass: they were very much the bass to have, which seems incredible saying as we are talking about Warwick!). With this sudden surge in popularity, Warwick basses ended up in the hands of a lot more players than ever before. However, they had started using ovangkol instead of wenge to make the necks and the profile had changed from a slim "C" to a wide and clubby "D". This resulted in many people saying Warwick had necks like baseball bats; this is only true of the later models.


As for the pickups, Warwick sound great with Barts but the other popular pickup choices, Seymour Duncans and EMGs don't really put their best foot forward. However, the MECs are perfectly useable pickups though they too have suffered undue criticism. People say they are naff pickups when they're really not enjoying the MEC preamp! However, I really liked the sound of my stock Thumb and I'm not one to fiddle with basses so I just left it as it came.

As for the wood waxing, it's generally more of an issue with newer basses. With the older basses, if they've been owned by a dedicated and conscientous owner, they should be in good shape. The wax is applied to treat the wood of the bass and keep it moist and attractive. I've seen a couple of Warwicks that haven't been properly looked after that appear dry and chalky as the wood is so thirsty. When the bass is new, it has to be waxed more often. After a while, the wood has soaked up enough wax to keep it in good condition and it only requires an occasional buffing to keep it in tip top condition. Dana B Goods (an American Warwick dealer) stated that you can use a variety of household furniture polishes on the basses, I had a pot of Warwick Beeswax with mine and a little goes a long, long way. The necks, particularly the open grain of the wenge, does not need wax treatment, as it is oiled by your hand as you play. I've seen people wax the necks before and they're like greased bananas and a nightmare to clean as the wenge soaks up a lot of wax.


As for the difference between the S1 and the S2, I think it is as follows:

S1: Maple body and through neck, variety of pickups

S2: Afzelia body and wenge (or ovangkol) through neck, jazz bar type single coil pickups.

[Lfalex v1.1]

In addition to the already good info posted;

Pick-up wise, Barts were quite common (I've seen EMGs, but they might be retro-fits, but MECs have replaced nearly all the other manufacturers. The only exception being 6 strings, which it seems MEC don't make. The pick-ups are then either Duncans or Bartolini.
My ('97)Streamer LX has Duncan soapbars, and they're just fine.

+1 on the comment on MEC pick-ups vs. MEC pre-amps.
My ('04) Infinity SN4 has MECs in the J/TwinJ configuration with an MEC (NOT Duncan as specified) Pre-amp on 9v electrics, and I wouldn't change a thing.
Otherwise, I do feel some are hamstrung by the MEC preamps. The inclusion of a sweepable mid would be nice!!!.
I don't know exactly when they went over to the two-piece bridges from the single piece units they used before (Schaller 3D?) I believe it to be about 1990. Not that it makes much odds. Both are good quality units.
With regard to necks, I think Broadnecks came in as an option on 5 & 6 strings around 2006/2007.
Just-a-nut III replaced Just-a-nut II around 2002. Many prefer the II as it's less prone to breakage / cutting your hands. Also, the strings are individually adjustable for height, whereas the III just tilts on 2 grub screws.

[mart]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='1021760' date='Nov 12 2010, 06:00 PM']...
Just-a-nut III replaced Just-a-nut II around 2002. Many prefer the II as it's less prone to breakage / cutting your hands. Also, the strings are individually adjustable for height, whereas the III just tilts on 2 grub screws.[/quote]

All correct except you're confusing JAN2 with JAN1. The JAN1 is the popular brass one with individual string height adjustment. The JAN2 was like the JAN3 but had clips at the side that broke off. I've never heard anyone express a preference for the JAN2! And you can buy the JAN1 and JAN3 as spares but Warwick don't sell the JAN2 (cos nobody wants it).

[cocco]

When I got my stage 1 5er it was broad neck or nothing. I think that was in 03 maybe 04. The string spacing was ridiculous for a 5er. Within a year or so I was on my second just a nut III and I really didn't get on with the pre amp. This put me off warwick until fairly recently when I was struck by GAS for an early thumb 4 B/O and the corvette $$.

[warwickhunt]

[u]Which pickups are usually the better ? Barts ? MEC ? etc.[/u]

Better... IMHO too subjective and tbh sometimes I think its a load of b0ll0cks! People talk about this one having slightly more top end or pronounced mids etc but then you've got to take into consideration that your strings will have more effect on the tone than any subtle nuances of the pups. All you have to do is consider the tone that your bass has with brand new strings on and what do they sound like a week later... very different and yet people want to discuss the finer points of MEC v EMG! For me just a bit smoke and mirrors and as to my preference; I like Barts... because the moulding of the plastic corners are dead rounded and comfy for my thumb placement.

As to what was on which Warwick bass - The earliest Warwicks came with EMG, Bartolini, Seymour Duncan, that pretty much covered it until MECs were an option (around the time the Spector licensing became a problem for EMG) and then when Warwick bought the company that made MEC, then MEC pretty much became standard, other than on some of the soapbar equipped basses and you could still request/get EMG Bart SD etc.

[u]Which time frame has the slimmer necks ?[/u]

The earlier the skinnier. Get a NT from 82 - 87(ish) and it'll be uber slim from then till early 90's they were still slim (the bass of mine that you tried was IIRC a 91 bass) but had a bit more depth to the profile. After the volute was added in the mid 90's (coincidentally around the time Warwick moved production premises and increased output inc' adding the various BO neck basses) the neck profiles started changing and it gets very confusing because you had loads of new models and ranges which all differed to some degree. The change of neck material to Ovankol also heralded modifications in profiles.

[u]Do the older ones need that wood treatment lark ? Weren't they just waxed or something ??[/u]

Hand on heart I've literally only just now used up the original tin of wax that I got with a bass 20 years ago and that has treat upwards of 50 Warwick basses! The waxed basses do not need masses of treatment; when you change strings a quick wipe down with a wax impregnated cloth (use the same cloth for years and it literally retains enough polish that you don't need to open the tin) and a buff and Bob's your uncle. That rule pretty much applies whether you change your strings once a month or once a year. Some unlaquered basses that have a colour treatment (they look natural/waxed) have in fact got a treatment that requires no waxing and you just wipe them down as you would any bass.

[u]What's the difference between Stage I and II ?[/u]

With the exception of a couple of Ltd/Special Editions, the difference between SSI and SSII are essentially; the body woods are Cherry or Maple on SSI (Cherry on the earliest 82-87/88) and Afzelia on SSII, SSI has PJ pups SSII has JJ and that the NT construction differs, SSI has the classic visible neck running through the body and the SSI has a front skillet that matches in with the wings and makes the neck through body invisible from the front. There are other visual differences like inlays etc but they are the main differences.

With regards to the various nuts and bridges - very early basses had a solid brass nut (no grubscrews or adjustment of any kind) then the brass 'Just-a-nut' (as it was known at the time before being labelled a JAN1) which had 4 adjustable grub screws under each string and was used from mid 80's to early/mid 90's at which time the self-destructing JAN II came out which you adjusted with 2 grub screws, not everyones favourite but it didn't do itself any design favours by having sharp edges and self destructing on numerous occasions (which has to be said was as much the operators fault as the nut itself but it should have been more robust to account for those ham fisted owners who altered it without taking tension off the nut), after which came the JAN III.

The bridge started out as the Schaller 3D unit then in about 87/88 (there are so many transitions at this time that it's possible to get all sorts of permutations of features and fittings and you can't be exact about each change as they were so variable/flexible) they changed to a 2 piece bridge which was slightly slimmer than the units a couple years later which were a different alloy. At the same time that the bridges were changing in 87/88, they were also changing from a predominantly Wenge neck with slim maple (?) stringers which had been on the early basses to a predominantly Maple neck with Wenge stringers. You can hear a difference in tone if you get two basses from this era and one has the early neck and one the later; the early almost all Wenge neck is certainly 'woodier' sounding (all things being equal with pups and strings).