1970 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I'm guessing these 60s Gibson basses are not in high demand because there's not many people really into short scales these days. But is there any reason why these are at the cheaper end of the vintage market? One went on ebay for £620 last week. How is the build quality on them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neepheid Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Reason? They're not Fenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 it's daft. A 60's fender will go for £5k plus, a gibbo or anything else much less. A 1982 fender jazz on ebay more or less admitted that fenders like this weren't much good in the ad but was still about £2k. My JV squier which I am sure is a better instrument I picked up for £600! In the recession a secondhand fender USA ri from a shop will cost more than a through neck custom overwater (thats in bass gear, looks lovely) whats going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon1964 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Old Fenders are, rightly or wrongly, considered more collectable and a potential investment - irrespective of whether they sound better than a Gibson or an Overwater! Arguably, if you've get a £2k to spare, you would be better spending it on a 70s Jazz than you would putting it into a pension scheme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machines Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 [quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1325151904' post='1480197'] In the recession a secondhand fender USA ri from a shop will cost more than a through neck custom overwater (thats in bass gear, looks lovely) whats going on? [/quote] The name of the headstock to most people is more important than the quality of the instrument or value for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFRC Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 If I had say a few thousand I would buy up any pre'92 warwicks I could find. Come on in the next 20 years you would think the price has to go up right? right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 The EB-0 and Melody Maker are probably the least regarded of the vintage Gibson basses - the short scale and single neck mudbucker mean you get plenty of low-end thump, and.....er, that's it. Afficionados love them though. The EB-3 models, which are essentially the same but with a bridge min-humbucker, are far more versatile and desirable (thanks mainly to the Jack Bruce / Andy Fraser connection) - a nice mid '60's EB-3 can easily fetch £2K+. Hence the high numbers of "modded" EB-0's. Tonewoods (solid mahogany) and build quality are usually top notch on most '60's Gibsons, EB-0's included. Seems the whole vintage market is rather depressed at the moment, and it's the least desirable models that take the biggest hit; bargains to be had right now if you've got the dosh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry norton Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 [quote name='Shaggy' timestamp='1325157071' post='1480288'] The EB-0 and Melody Maker are probably the least regarded of the vintage Gibson basses - the short scale and single neck mudbucker mean you get plenty of low-end thump, and.....er, that's it. Afficionados love them though. The EB-3 models, which are essentially the same but with a bridge min-humbucker, are far more versatile and desirable (thanks mainly to the Jack Bruce / Andy Fraser connection) - a nice mid '60's EB-3 can easily fetch £2K+. Hence the high numbers of "modded" EB-0's. Tonewoods (solid mahogany) and build quality are usually top notch on most '60's Gibsons, EB-0's included. Seems the whole vintage market is rather depressed at the moment, and it's the least desirable models that take the biggest hit; bargains to be had right now if you've got the dosh. [/quote] All that. The fact that the market's depressed, (depressing prices yet I still can't afford one) makes me depressed..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Should also have said there's quite a lot of EB-0's about - Gibson were much more mainstream for bassists in the '60's than in recent times, especially with the beat / R&B boom. If you played bass then, chances are it was a Fender, Gibson or Hofner, maybe a Ric or Vox. Collectors are holding onto the Fenders & Ric's, not so much the others (probably excluding the '60's reverse & non-reverse Gibson Thunderbirds, which were made in much smaller numbers) check out: http://www.vintageguitarandbass.com/gibson/bass/EB0.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ficelles Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 EB0 - short scale, not a particularly lively or versatile sound, neck heavy (I seem to recall), and if you cough too hard the headstock falls off. ficelles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spinynorman Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Seems like it was just bad luck on anyone who bought an EB0, that it was the most popular EB model, but with the least long term appeal, as no one famous used it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 [size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial]Was the EB0 the most popular Gibson bass? I never saw one in use. [/font][/color][/size][color=#222222][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font][/color] [size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial] [/font][/color][/size][color=#222222][font=Arial][size=2][/size][/font][/color] [size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial]They just sounded like a woolly thud with no definition or tone at all. Mine [/font][/color][font=Arial][color="#000000"]lasted 2 gigs and even though I was skint it didn't matter I sold it at a loss just to be rid of it! The proceeds went towards a Fender Precision. [/color][/font][/size][font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
la bam Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Ive heard stories of them being neck heavy, EB3s even more so - even the epiphone versions are sub £150 brand new nowadays. Ive never known why, seem a bargain to me. I fancied a new epiphone EB3 but having had a neck heavy telecaster bass once it put me off. Shame though, cool looking basses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin7 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I have a 1964 Gibson EB-O and it isn't neck-heavy at all. I tried out the Epiphone equivalent several years ago and it was very neck-heavy; so much so that it was incredibly difficult to concentrate on playing. The obvious point being that there is a world of difference between the Gibson and Epiphone EB-O basses when it comes to neck dive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednose200 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Everything I have read above is true. Just an awful plank. Oh, and they really give your speakers a good hammering as well. Not recommended Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilLordJuju Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Why so cheap? In reality we are talking about pieces of wood. I would argue that Fenders are overpriced. But yes, EB0s are a lot cheaper than EB3s of the same year - the EB3, with the extra bridge pickup suits modern day band situations better than the EB0. They sold lots of them in the 60s and early 70s, because the sound worked better back then. Todays guitarist has a swathe of effects going on, and in my experience that really works against an EB0. But they work great in bands with just a clean guitar (jazz, soul) or a monsterously heavy bassline (reggae, hip hop). Don't confuse the Epiphones with the Gibsons, they have nothing in common except shape and colour. Here are some recent clips I recorded of a 1966 EB0 through an old Ampeg B15, a WEM Dominator (played with lots of attack - you'll either love or hate this tone), and a 60s Gibson Atlas IV [url="http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/1966gibsonEB0soundclips.php"]http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/1966gibsonEB0soundclips.php[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 [quote name='evilLordJuju' timestamp='1325298875' post='1481996'] . Don't confuse the Epiphones with the Gibsons, they have nothing in common except shape and colour. [/quote] This is so true I've just got a beater 74 ebo and it is a much, much better and different instrument from my korean eb3 - the difference is extreme If you want to beef up an eb3, bassdoc is selling a gibson ebo pup for £90 elsewhere on this forum. I am really a fender man and do on balance prefer fender basses, but in terms of short scale basses, i prefer this beater ebo to the fender equivalent short scalers the msuatng and musicmaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1970 Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 Ok that all makes sense, interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilLordJuju Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I actually quite like the musicmaster and mustang. Both great for general band situations - chances are, if you turn up for a rehearsal with a new band, either of those Fenders will work better than a Gibson EB0... Especially if you turn the bass up on your amp. The Epiphone EB0 would probably work better too - its construction is closer to a Fender, although the pickup is still neckward - but if you need some mega bass to make the audiences teeth rattle - the Gibson EBs are unsurpassed. Edited December 31, 2011 by evilLordJuju Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanbass1 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I reckon the short scale and pick up placement makes them very much an acquired taste soundwise. Although I note that 70's telecaster basses makes a good fist at producing a non defined woolley sound and they now seem to be going up in price Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StraightSix Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The reason the Epiphone EB3 is neck-heavy is because it's long scale (34") whereas the Gibson and Epiphone EB0 are short scale (30.5"). Also, the Epiphone EB3 has a MASSIVE headstock which certainly doesn't help. Gibson produced the original EB3 as a short scale bass (1961) and then introduced the EB3L with a full 34" scale in 1970. I reckon a good compromise could be had by buying a current (or secondhand) Epiphone EB0 and adding a bridge pickup, creating a short scale EB3 type thing for cheap. I've seen Epi EB0s sell for under £100 so a £200 budget should see you done I reckon. This thread may give you some more ideas: http://bassoutpost.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=e66b06f6c8b3aa79d639cfea741f02ba&topic=3000.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin7 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) But an Epiphone EB-O also has neck dive really bad in spite of being a short scale. As I pointed out in another post, a Gibson EB-O has no neck dive at all. I have played one for years and can attest to this fact. I doubt that the scale length has anything to do with the neck dive on the Epi. Edited January 2, 2012 by Austin7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StraightSix Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Yes I didn't make that very clear - the Epi EB0 still suffers from a larger-than-Gibson headstock. I would think that with the extra mass of an added bridge pickup, it should balance better than stock at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftyhook Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The ones I have tried have been awful. Ploddy. Even the EB-3's, which I lusted after for years being a big Andy Fraser fan (Free) have turned out to be a massive disappointment. Gibson basses.........yuk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin7 Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 [quote name='StraightSix' timestamp='1325539186' post='1484245'] Yes I didn't make that very clear - the Epi EB0 still suffers from a larger-than-Gibson headstock. I would think that with the extra mass of an added bridge pickup, it should balance better than stock at least. [/quote] Those Epi headstocks are so big they look freakish to me. This is coming from someone who has a reasonably favorable attitude toward Epiphone. In fact, I'd like to get an Allen Woody RumbleKat. But those Epi EB-O and EB-3 basses, it's doubtful I'd ever get one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.