70's Fenders

[Musky]

Like it says - where's the logic in the pricing of older Fenders? 70's models can go for a lot of money nowadays, yet they're universally recognised as probably the lowest point in Fender production. Three bolt necks on Jazzes, ridiculously heavy bodies and some really terrible quality control abounded throughout the decade. Yet people are prepared to shell out based apparently purely on the age of the instrument. Pre 'S' serial models seem to go for more than an equivalent 'S' series model, even though there may be only months between the two models and as far as I know the only difference was the actual serial.

When Bill Schultz took over in '81, he started addressing the quality problems Fender had been having. Yet these instruments are a snip compared to, say, a '79. There have been other landmarks in Fenders history, like the introduction of the Corona factory, and a complete rejigging and expansion of the factory in '98, but people seem to ignore the things that affect the actual production of the instruments in favour of an older date.

Anyone else think that, on the whole, 70's Fenders are over priced? And do you think the bottom will ever fall out of the market?

[Kiwi]

Overpriced is very subjective, it follows the heart rather than the mind. You could argue that the case with Wal basses is even more extreme than Fender (given prices 10 years ago) and they don't have the history of Fender. Whereas a bass such as a Alembic Series bass which, it could be argued, has been made with even more care than either doesn't attract anywhere the same interest. I think its all about percieved value at the end of the day innit?

I don't think the bottom will fall out of the market suddenly but the "vintage" bass market will continue to grow as models from the 80's join those of the 70's. There are some specific instruments that attract genuine interest and then retailers use any excuse they can find to bump up the price of others to match.

[Musky]

It's not the perceived value of the instruments I'm questioning so much as the logic behind it.

'75 Fenders seem to go for more than '77's, for instance. Yet as far as I'm aware the only differences were the serial used and finish options. So there seems to be a logic that dictates that the earlier the bass the better it is - I mean, surely people can't be buying these instruments purely for investment?

Although 80's Fenders will surely climb in value, I wondering whether people are eventually going to twig that, on average, they were in fact higher quality than 70's ones.

[wateroftyne]

[quote]Pre 'S' serial models seem to go for more than an equivalent 'S' series model, even though there may be only months between the two models and as far as I know the only difference was the actual serial.[/quote]

Bearing in mind there's diamonds in every rough, quality-wise there's light years between your average TV-logo '71 Fender and your average s-serial '79 (for example).

The earlier TV-logo basses have rocketed in recent years, although there's still bargains to be had.

[Musky]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='11722' date='Jun 4 2007, 10:54 AM']Bearing in mind there's diamonds in every rough, quality-wise there's light years between your average TV-logo '71 Fender and your average s-serial '79 (for example).

The earlier TV-logo basses have rocketed in recent years, although there's still bargains to be had.[/quote]

Yeah, there's a general perception that Fender quality gradually got worse ever since CBS took over, and is bourn out buy subtle changes to the contouring and neck pocket routs (on teles at least) that made production cheaper. So might be expected that on average 71's might be better than 79's. But conversely, an 83 is also more likely to be a decent instrument than a 73. Certainly eighties Fenders seem to be considerably lighter than most seventies ones.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Musky

[wateroftyne]

IMO the rot began to set in around the '74-ish. Things are transitional for a couple of years before that, but from '74-ish the cost-cutting began to become apparent.

Like I said above though, you can't tar 'em all with the same brush. I had a marvellous Antigua '78 Jazz.

[Musky]

Absolutely. There's no doubt whatsoever that some great instruments came out of Fender during the seventies. It's just that now so much (most?) buying is done via ebay nowadays, there seems to be a greater emphasis placed on the date of a instrument rather than it's playability.

When Schultz took over in '81, he tightened up quality control no end. So it's arguable that instruments after this date are more likely to be of better quality.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Musky

[Kiwi]

[quote name='Musky' post='11721' date='Jun 4 2007, 10:49 AM']It's not the perceived value of the instruments I'm questioning so much as the logic behind it.[/quote]

The logic behind "percieved value" lies in an individuals psychology, doesn't it? Figure out why an individual wants to pay lots of money for something you think is over valued and you'll have your answer. Best thing to do would be to find someone who has recently bought a Wal off Ebay?

[Thunder Fingers]

I must say my P bass (wich, by serial and logo is a 75, but by neck stamp says it is a 77) is a solid and very good, and working bass. i dont realy have any quality issues with it.

But again, as its rumored, these "J.Torres" basses and guitars seems to have a higher status than thoose marked by other controllers..

[Muppet]

[quote name='Thunder Fingers' post='11757' date='Jun 4 2007, 11:56 AM']I must say my P bass (wich, by serial and logo is a 75, but by neck stamp says it is a 77) is a solid and very good, and working bass. i dont realy have any quality issues with it.

But again, as its rumored, these "J.Torres" basses and guitars seems to have a higher status than thoose marked by other controllers..[/quote]


I have a S '79 Precision and also a Torres marked sienna burst '83 and there is a marked difference in quality - the 83 being much better (and lighter than any other P bass that I have).

[Veils]

I still think regardless of the quality of the instrument, some of the prices paid are just ridiculous. Not a chance I would fork out thousands for an old Fender, when I could probably get an entire rig for the same price.

[slaphappygarry]

If any you guys have ever played a REALLY NICE vintage fender you would understand.

Same with studio pre amps, desks and compressores

I donno how or why but it just has THAT sound.

G

[Veils]

But surely paying thousands of £ is over the top? You could go and get something made which would probably sound and play a hell of a lot better than a beaten Fender. I just can't accept that an old Fender should be worth thousands. But then again some people place more sentimentality on these things. I'm not saying it's wrong to pay for one of these instruments, it just seems illogical to me.

[BOD2]

I think this is a case of "supply and demand". The market for pre-70s Fenders is quite mature now and prices are very high. That means there are very few good pre-70s Fenders readily available out there without paying silly money. Plenty of people still want the Fender logo and now a that 1975 Fender is over 30 years old it has that "vintage" tag by virtue of its age alone. There were good and bad examples in every year of Fender's production so if you can find a good 70s Fender then, logic has it, you're getting a good vintage guitar that's only a few years younger than some of the really sought after stuff that's well out of reach price wise.

The prices can only go up. As the years go buy then 80s Fenders will also become "vintage" so it's likely that these will start to fetch good prices too because all the 70s ones have been snatched up.

But there were definitely quality problems in the 70s. As a guitarist, I bought my first ever Fender Strat in the late 70s. It was a big investment at the time and I had high expectations. I was so disappointed to have to return it to the shop after a few weeks as it was untunable with a twisted neck. The replacement I got was ok but the body contouring was very crude and clumsy and nowhere near as good as the Japanese CSL copy that preceeded it. Having said that not all of the production was flawed and, by the law of averages, there must have been some really good stuff made in the 70s as in any decade.

[BigRedX]

During the late 70's I helped out in my local music shop at weekends and over the holidays, I can safely say that I have never seen so many instruments with levels of fit and finish that even the cheapest of current Chinese manufacturers would be appalled at, as that on Fender guitars and basses we were getting during that period. Pretty much every other instrument we took out of it's box had some major defect - necks on at such a angle that the edge strings were no longer over the fingerboard by the 17th fret was a common one. Added to this was the fact that many of the styles were downright ugly - large Strat headstocks, that white finish that was semi see-through that in reality looked as though they'd run out of paint, and sh!t brown - what were Fender thinking? I'm sure there are some good instruments from the time out there, but at the time I was unpacking them I don't remember seeing or playing any.

[slaphappygarry]

Value is only relevant to an individual person.

It is only what you are willing to pay for it. "vinrage gear prices being over the top" is a subjective opinion (and one you are entitled to).

G

[Kiwi]

[quote name='slaphappygarry' post='11846' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:04 PM']Value is only relevant to an individual person.[/quote]
Thank you.

[Beedster]

I think there's a bit of a cultural angle here also. If you look at the age of the guys buying the Fenders many of them are the class of '75, i.e., in their late 30s-40s and buying instruments that perhaps they could only dream about in their teens when their idols were playing them. Between then and now they might have owned better quality insruments but eventually they've gone back to scratch that Fender itch (it's a bit like finally shagging the girl you were after when you were 17 but who showed zero interest at the time; even though now, at age 34, she ain't quite what you remembered her being at her peak, it's still a strangely satisfying experience ).
I don't think the sudden increase in TV documentaries about the music of the 60s and 70s on BBC - also made by the class of '75 - has done vintage Fender prices any harm either?
I'd have an early 70's Precision over most modern basses costing the same any day, but it's nothing to do with its quality as an instrument, just its mojo.
Chris

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Beedster' post='11867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:53 PM']in their late 30s-40s and buying instruments that perhaps they could only dream about in their teens when their idols were playing them.[/quote]

When I was a bairn, my idol played a black shiny Wal... and I don't like 'em any more.

[The Funk]

I have a 1977/8 Fender Jazz Bass. I picked it up on ebay for around £650. At the same time as this one was on ebay, there was one on US ebay going for $3000. I love it and would not trade it for anything.

My one had some pros and cons.

Pros:
- best neck I have ever played, destroys everything else
- cool looking white block inlays and binding on a maple neck
- great custom refinish that someone had done earlier
- price - much cheaper than your average 1977/78 Jazz

Cons:
- the pick-ups were rubbish! will have to be replaced asap with some 60s Jazz clones. have not checked if they were the originals
- BadAss bridge - cool, but not filed correctly

Pro/Con depending on perspective:
- heavy body

[obbm]

[quote name='Beedster' post='11867' date='Jun 4 2007, 02:53 PM']I think there's a bit of a cultural angle here also. If you look at the age of the guys buying the Fenders many of them are the class of '75, i.e., in their late 30s-40s and buying instruments that perhaps they could only dream about in their teens when their idols were playing them. Between then and now they might have owned better quality insruments but eventually they've gone back to scratch that Fender itch (it's a bit like finally shagging the girl you were after when you were 17 but who showed zero interest at the time; even though now, at age 34, she ain't quite what you remembered her being at her peak, it's still a strangely satisfying experience ).
I don't think the sudden increase in TV documentaries about the music of the 60s and 70s on BBC - also made by the class of '75 - has done vintage Fender prices any harm either?
I'd have an early 70's Precision over most modern basses costing the same any day, but it's nothing to do with its quality as an instrument, just its mojo.
Chris[/quote]

I think there a few anomolies with your maths.

Assuming that the class of '75 left school at the age of 16, or possible 18, they would now be closer to 50 than 30s - 40s. However by now they could well have a greater disposable income, as children may well have left home and consequently in a position to splash out. Also at that time there really was only Fender, Rick and Gibson of which Fender was the acknowledged brand leader.

I also disagree about the class of '75 making these documentaries. Far more likely to be the class of '85.

If I wanted to buy a Fender of my youth I'd need to remortgage the house.

Finally regarding the 17-year old, do you speak from personal experience?

Edited June 4, 2007 by obbm

[chris_b]

Why single out the 70's for bad Fenders. Leo Fender made some crap basses in the 50's and CBS Fender made some crap basses in the 60's. I know. I've got one! But someone somewhere one day will pay me lots of money for it because the myth is that "in the old days they were great". I said this in another topic, these days old age makes anything collectable. There is no logic.

Just buy something old, keep it safe, and let your kids cash in in 50 years time.

[Beedster]

[quote name='obbm' post='11877' date='Jun 4 2007, 03:19 PM']I think there a few anomolies with your maths.

Assuming that the class of '75 left school at the age of 16, or possible 18, they would now be closer to 50 than 30s - 40s. However by now they could well have a greater disposable income, as children may well have left home and consequently in a position to splash out. Also at that time there really was only Fender, Rick and Gibson of which Fender was the acknowledged brand leader.

I also disagree about the class of '75 making these documentaries. Far more likely to be the class of '85.

If I wanted to buy a Fender of my youth I'd need to remortgage the house.

Finally regarding the 17-year old, do you speak from personal experience? [/quote]

I meant the year they left primary school , and yes, one of my most satsfying memories involved a night with a girl who I bumped into at a gig some 10 years after my initial infatuation with her had started when I was about 15 (at 18, she was the older woman at the time).
Come to think of it, she was still hot though!
Chris

[paul, the]

My apologies, I'm feeling lazy and I haven't read the other posts.

Not being pre-CBS, I wouldn't have thought '70s instruments would be worth a lot. But I think it's more about style than quality. In my opinion, '70s Fenders are the most unique and styalised of all time Fender. Their use of colour, the black pickguard mainly and the simple black logo give the decade a humble honesty which echoes the simplistic but powerful heavy music of the time.

I'm sure there's a key thing to do with regression as well. For the prime of the experienced oldie rocker born in the '50s, I bet the '70s P reminds them of their youth and some of the most exciting times of their lives.


It might not technically be the best, but it's theirs and they wouldn't swap it for the world.

[wateroftyne]

It's worth bearing in mind that one of the most sought-after vintage Fender basses exists entirely due to CBS' intervention.... the 66-ish Jazz with dots, binding and oval tuners.

It's not at clear-cut as pre-and post CBS. Just sayin'.