The Illusion of Vintage Fender Value

[Thebassman75]

The way I see it, IMHO, is that there is no illusion to value, only the reality. I have an all original custom colour '66 P-bass which I swapped for a 2006 Musicman Stingray and £500 because the other guy like Flea. I think that we can all agree I got a good deal. The rise in value has nothing to do with the way it sounds but because its rare. Unless you invent a time machine, you're unlikely to find too many these days and that's what attracts people to it. It signifies a time in life, a point in the evolution of rock and roll and a nostalgia for a time before things like relicing existed. It is, for better or worse, the real thing. The board is Brazilian rosewood, embargoed in 1969 and generally seen by George Gruhn (a sometime expert in these matters) as being the cut-off point in 'vintage' guitars. It has historical provinence that cannot be denied so has value beyond that which it was designed to do within the context of the history, both social and musical, that has passed since it was made.

As a musical instrument, it is what it is, which is a nice bass in a funky colour. As a piece of musical history, it is a rare and authentic product of its time and that's why it's worth so much, and worth so much more than its monetary value..

Would I sell it now? Well, if you can find me another one for the equivalent of about a grand then I'll happily sell it for what I paid for it but until then, I'll cherish it for the next generation who might enjoy 'that old quirky wooden thing that Grandad keeps under the bed' (and I don't mean Grandma!)

[Beedster]

[quote name='Stan_da_man' timestamp='1383696478' post='2267981']
How do you get that 60's P sound in a modern P? Swap the pups and put on dead strings!

*ducks*
[/quote]

Not so far from the truth. My '64 Precision was, when I first picked it up, without doubt the best bass I'd ever played. But I knew it was a '64, and that helps. My current and, by my standards, long standing main bass is a well played-in mid 90's MIJ '62 RI strung with La Bella Jamersons and with a Lollar PUP, and it's quite simply the equal of the '64 in every sense. One cost £8000, the other £350. IMO there's nothing an old bass can do that a new one, with some attention to detail, can't do.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383691828' post='2267884']
They might have a problem, not least because the, rather wonderful, T-Bone Wolk is dead

For those of you who have never heard of him (and have probably already decided they wouldn't like him anyway) he's another of those strange professional musician people with a string of hits to his name and he's credited on over 600 albums
[/quote]
I'm familiar with Wolk but I didn't know he was dead.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1383774164' post='2269069']
... IMO there's nothing an old bass can do that a new one, with some attention to detail, can't do.
[/quote]
That's my feeling too.

And anyway, the likes of T Bone Wolk and the Mars Volta guy whose name I can't remember are going to sound good enough whatever they play.

[iconic]

This old tone thing....i'm no expert but it seems that basically a 60s p bass aint that much different to a new fender (or westfield for that matter) but amps sure are, and i'm a firm believer that the amp makes the biggest difference.

in my humble opinion...

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383688974' post='2267814']
[media]http://youtu.be/mQZmCJUSC6g[/media]
[/quote]
I enjoyed that a lot. Great song, great performance.

[molan]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1383774318' post='2269076']

I'm familiar with Wolk but I didn't know he was dead.
[/quote]

Over three years now, very sad

Tribute gig here:

http://www.livefromdarylshouse.com/currentep.html?ep_id=15

[Beedster]

[quote name='iconic' timestamp='1383774708' post='2269087']
This old tone thing....i'm no expert but it seems that basically a 60s p bass aint that much different to a new fender (or westfield for that matter) but amps sure are, and i'm a firm believer that the amp makes the biggest difference.

in my humble opinion...
[/quote]

Mmm, my '64 sounded about as good as it gets though a B-15 of similar vintage.

Of course, all of these things are subjective, if you want crisp highs and deep lows, modern amps are better, but then you probably wouldn't be playing a vintage '64 or an MIJ '64 RI with heavy flats if you were after that tone either. If your tone is retro inspired, the old gear, or modern versions of the old gear, do the job at a fraction of the price, both now (e.g., what a '64 Precision or Ampeg B-15 is worth today) or then (e.g., what a '64 Precision or Ampeg B-15 cost new in '64). Having learned this I was able to sell a 50 year old bass, and with the proceeds buy a pretty much identical bass, a lovely DB, and to all intents an entire recording studio with a couple of grand of change. 64's are for antique collectors and traders. There's nothing they can do sonically that a new instrument can't. That doesn't change their value as rare, collectible or antique instruments one iota of course, and I'd never question that. It does however mean that folk like me five years back who think they'll find something magical in a 50 year old bass will be either deluded or disillusioned when they buy one.

[molan]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1383776221' post='2269113']


Mmm, my '64 sounded about as good as it gets though a B-15 of similar vintage.

. It does however mean that folk like me five years back who think they'll find something magical in a 50 year old bass will be either deluded or disillusioned when they buy one.
[/quote]

I think this is where owning a 'vintage' bass becomes really interesting. For people looking for a certain sound or vibe then owning an original '64P and a similar era B15 represents the absolute pinnacle of tonal nirvana.

Whether most people can hear any difference between these and modern equivalents is a, very, moot point. However, for many people, there is so much more to the enjoyment of playing than the simple sound that others can hear.

For these people there's some sort of mystique to flipping the power switches on a B15, waiting for it to warm up and smiling as the Ampeg logo comes to life with a warm glow and then going to full power whilst caressing a silky smooth worn in neck from 50 years of gigging and with perfect fretting and a gorgeous feel. For a lot of people that genuinely is the definition of 'magical'

This experience is pretty damn tough to replicate with modern kit and I'm absolutely sure that's why lots of people think nothing of dropping thousands on vintage gear. It makes them feel great and inspires them to play in a way that modern equipment never will.

I'm not judging these people or saying that they are crazy to spend this sort of money on a couple of planks of wood, a few bits of rusty metal and some out of date electronics plus an amplification system that has its roots in a bygone era but I can completely understand their passion.

If, simply by owning these ancient artefacts, they play longer and derive greater pleasure playing then that's only a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

The difficult part is justifying cost. If you could remove cost from the equation would you have kept the '64 and B15 because of the amount of pleasure you got for them. If the replacements are not definitively 'better', however you might define that, then maybe the older models might have been more fun to play.

The thing I always, without fail, find odd about discussions over expensive objects is that people so often deride others just because they've lashed out on something that may not have an intrinsically greater value than a far cheaper item. If it makes them happier then where's the harm?

[machinehead]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1383776221' post='2269113']
64's are for antique collectors and traders. There's nothing they can do sonically that a new instrument can't. That doesn't change their value as rare, collectible or antique instruments one iota of course, and I'd never question that. It does however mean that folk like me five years back who think they'll find something magical in a 50 year old bass will be either deluded or disillusioned when they buy one.
[/quote]

I recently played a '61 Fender jazz but the expected magic wasn't really there for me. And this was at a gig, not in a shop. Yes, it was a lovely bass and felt good to play but no better, perhaps even not as good as my '75 AVRI. It sounded good too but no better than a modern jazz to my ears.

I would certainly like to own it for it's history and investment value but, in all honesty, it confirms my lifelong preference for newer instruments.

I'm not knocking this bass at all or those who prefer older instruments but the attraction just isn't there for me and I don't find that they sound any better than good modern Fenders.

Frank.

[Mr Bassman]

Jeez, I cant be arsed reading all these posts

I'd just like to mention that I've owned a 62 p bass for over 30 years

It doesn't matter to me what it's worth cos it's not for sale

Edited November 6, 2013 by Mr Bassman

[machinehead]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383778388' post='2269156']
The thing I always, without fail, find odd about discussions over expensive objects is that people so often deride others just because they've lashed out on something that may not have an intrinsically greater value than a far cheaper item. If it makes them happier then where's the harm?
[/quote]

I agree 100% with this. Each to his own.

Frank.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383778388' post='2269156']
... The thing I always, without fail, find odd about discussions over expensive objects is that people so often deride others just because they've lashed out on something that may not have an intrinsically greater value than a far cheaper item. If it makes them happier then where's the harm?
[/quote]
There is no harm. If you want an old Fender and have the money then buy one. I certainly would if I had the money to spare.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383778388' post='2269156']
I think this is where owning a 'vintage' bass becomes really interesting. For people looking for a certain sound or vibe then owning an original '64P and a similar era B15 represents the absolute pinnacle of tonal nirvana.

Whether most people can hear any difference between these and modern equivalents is a, very, moot point. However, for many people, there is so much more to the enjoyment of playing than the simple sound that others can hear.

For these people there's some sort of mystique to flipping the power switches on a B15, waiting for it to warm up and smiling as the Ampeg logo comes to life with a warm glow and then going to full power whilst caressing a silky smooth worn in neck from 50 years of gigging and with perfect fretting and a gorgeous feel. For a lot of people that genuinely is the definition of 'magical'

This experience is pretty damn tough to replicate with modern kit and I'm absolutely sure that's why lots of people think nothing of dropping thousands on vintage gear. It makes them feel great and inspires them to play in a way that modern equipment never will.

I'm not judging these people or saying that they are crazy to spend this sort of money on a couple of planks of wood, a few bits of rusty metal and some out of date electronics plus an amplification system that has its roots in a bygone era but I can completely understand their passion.

If, simply by owning these ancient artefacts, they play longer and derive greater pleasure playing then that's only a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

The difficult part is justifying cost. If you could remove cost from the equation would you have kept the '64 and B15 because of the amount of pleasure you got for them. If the replacements are not definitively 'better', however you might define that, then maybe the older models might have been more fun to play.

The thing I always, without fail, find odd about discussions over expensive objects is that people so often deride others just because they've lashed out on something that may not have an intrinsically greater value than a far cheaper item. If it makes them happier then where's the harm?
[/quote] Molan - I am interested - how do you find your modern vintage styled wes steed compare to your real '63 Jazz? how would you describe them tonally?

[molan]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1383782195' post='2269197']
Molan - I am interested - how do you find your modern vintage styled wes steed compare to your real '63 Jazz? how would you describe them tonally?
[/quote]

Interesting - the honest answer is that they are worlds apart but I genuinely can't say how much of that is down to age.

The '63 is far more versatile and will do good old classic '60's thump but also has an amazing slap tone (a very, very good pro player who's famed for his slap sound actually thought it sounded better than his all time favourite vintage Fender when being slapped!).

The Steed is far more of an old school sound and it carried this off very well - especially when strung with flat wounds. I've never really tried it with a super modern set of rounds so it's possible it has more versatility than I think

Visually a lot of people can't really tell them apart in terms of age but the newer bass actually looks more 'distressed' than the older one and many people think it's the more vintage of the two. The neck is a bit of a giveaway though - the '63 has a neck to die for and it's beautifully worn in to a silky smooth feel. The Steed is immediately a much newer feel, it's still very nice but you can tell it hasn't had 50 years of playing. The board on both is Brazilian rosewood but, again, the '63 feels, and looks, a lot older up close.

[pierreganseman]

I don't see why you bother with threads like this Barrie lol....

but good on you though...

[icastle]

I'm not a huge Fender fan or expert, I have one that I use to keep the occasional awkward punter happy.

Something I do know though is that in the 80's, everyone was clamouring to get pre CBS kit.

70's kit was considered cr*p and you couldn't give it away (more to do with the CBS takeover than anything else I suspect).

The 80's models were grudgingly branded as 'OK but not too sure', presumably because of the introduction of the Squier range.

The availability of pre CBS kit has, as one would expect, really dried up over the last 30 years and those who desire it are willing to pay high prices for it.

As soon as the pre CBS pool dried up\outpriced itself, those 70's models that everyone considered as cr*p all of a sudden became sought after and... the prices shot up.

The 'suspicious' 80's models then started looking appealing... and the cycle continues.

So, as a pretty much disinterested observer, it's availability and demand that drive vintage Fender prices.

Do the old ones sound better?
Probably not, but if you've just spent £10K+ on a battered old bass, you're gonna need a damn good cover story for the missus.

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383692121' post='2267894']
I wondered when this would appear. It always comes up whenever anyone tries to compare the sound of different instruments. I've generally seen it on guitar forums to 'prove' that something like an Epiphone Les Paul sounds just the same as a Gibson.

I think the general response, just to maintain continuity, is that if someone wrote a story about a Strad sounding better than a modern violin it wouldn't really have been much of a story and would never have been published.

Of course, I know nothing about violins so who am I to say whether it was cheap piece of 'scientific' hokum published to generate publicity
[/quote]

Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Its not a "story", its a piece of properly performed peer-reviewed science performed by a group of serious, honest scientists. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, one of the worlds most prestigious scientific journals. Describing it as "scientific hokum" is so wide of the mark that it isn't even funny.

I have a PhD in musical acoustics and had several long discussions with Claudia Fritz (the author of the study) several times during the course of my work. She's a very good scientist and her work is completely and utterly above board and without bias.If you think that the Dr Fritz wouldn't have published the results had they been the other way round then you are completely and utterly mistaken. That instrumentalists could blindly select old instruments would in itself be an important finding.

Feel free to read more about it here:

[url="http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html"]http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html[/url]

Edited November 7, 2013 by uncle psychosis

[molan]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1383814731' post='2269352']


Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Its not a "story", its a piece of properly performed peer-reviewed science performed by a group of serious, honest scientists. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, one of the worlds most prestigious scientific journals. Describing it as "scientific hokum" is so wide of the mark that it isn't even funny.

I have a PhD in musical acoustics and had several long discussions with Claudia Fritz (the author of the study) several times during the course of my work. She's a very good scientist and her work is completely and utterly above board and without bias.If you think that the Dr Fritz wouldn't have published the results had they been the other way round then you are completely and utterly mistaken. That instrumentalists could blindly select old instruments would in itself be an important finding.

Feel free to read more about it here:

[url="http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html"]http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html[/url]
[/quote]

I can see where you are coming from but I can't believe this story would have been published anywhere other than scientific journals if it had found that people could tell the difference.

It simply wouldn't have been 'news'.

I'm certainly not qualified to judge the validity of any piece of scientific research but, having spent nearly 35 years in marketing I am able to have a decent view on PR and journalism.

[discreet]

Returning to historic inflation briefly, I bought a new P bass in 1976 for £280 - or £1,710 in today's money.
Question is, where the hell did my 16-year-old self get that kind of cash from??

Oh, I remember now - I had already left home and was in full-time employment.
Bit of social commentary, there.

Edited November 7, 2013 by discreet

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383816390' post='2269373']
I can see where you are coming from but I can't believe this story would have been published anywhere other than scientific journals if it had found that people could tell the difference.

It simply wouldn't have been 'news'.

I'm certainly not qualified to judge the validity of any piece of scientific research but, having spent nearly 35 years in marketing I am able to have a decent view on PR and journalism.
[/quote]

I don't see what the point you are trying to make is. The fact that journalists decided to print a story based on a study is completely irrelevant to the valid scientific findings of that study. Journalists running pieces about research doesn't somehow invalidate that research. There were lots of newspaper articles about the discovery of the Higgs Boson recently, I suppose thats just "cheap scientific hokum" too?

[Musicman20]

I've not owned, and I doubt I will own, an old bass.

My first decent bass was a Fender Precision White/Tort/Rosewood, 1995 ish, MIJ. It was one of the Reissue 62 models.

Nice bass, started my enjoyment of P basses, but made me also think the P bass tone was a little bland sometimes. At the time, they weren't fashionable, (although P basses are always popular) and no-one seemed to be raving about a P bass with flats like they do now.

Everyone still raves on that MIJ basses have a certain quality that cannot be beaten, a bit like the whole market on the JV Squier basses.

It was a good bass. Very good for the money. Better than a modern American Standard? No.


It made me realise how simple a P bass is. No manufacturer should be charging £3000+ for a modern P bass, no matter what. It's a really simple bolt on design.

I do understand how the desire for these vintage basses works, especially the early Fenders, but if it comes down to it, I can pretty much guarantee that a modern American Standard P bass, with old flats, the right setup, and a more vintage flavoured amp will get the same tone. Even just using a VT bass pedal will get you close!

[molan]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1383817120' post='2269385']
Returning to historic inflation briefly, I bought a new P bass in 1976 for £280 - or £1,710 in today's money.
Question is, where the hell did my 16-year-old self get that kind of cash from??

Oh, I remember now - I had already left home and was in full-time employment.
Bit of social commentary, there.
[/quote]

That was me too

Only it was 1979 and it was only £110 for a Fender Musicmaster.

My annual salary at the time was £2,500 - even in those days that wasn't really enough to live on but at least I was working and really enjoyed my job

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1383818915' post='2269424']
I've not owned, and I doubt I will own, an old bass.

My first decent bass was a Fender Precision White/Tort/Rosewood, 1995 ish, MIJ. It was one of the Reissue 62 models.

Nice bass, started my enjoyment of P basses, but made me also think the P bass tone was a little bland sometimes. At the time, they weren't fashionable, (although P basses are always popular) and no-one seemed to be raving about a P bass with flats like they do now.

Everyone still raves on that MIJ basses have a certain quality that cannot be beaten, a bit like the whole market on the JV Squier basses.

It was a good bass. Very good for the money. Better than a modern American Standard? No.


It made me realise how simple a P bass is. No manufacturer should be charging £3000+ for a modern P bass, no matter what. It's a really simple bolt on design.

I do understand how the desire for these vintage basses works, especially the early Fenders, but if it comes down to it, I can pretty much guarantee that a modern American Standard P bass, with old flats, the right setup, and a more vintage flavoured amp will get the same tone. Even just using a VT bass pedal will get you close!
[/quote]

I think it's price point against quality, especially if we go into the second hand market. My first proper bass was a MIJ jaguar and the build quality was excellent and it was nice touch that some guy whose initials were written on a tag set it up and the intonation and action didn't budge till I started messing with it lol.

I've had a few American fenders too and I wouldn't say they were made any better, for one the routing on my current MIJ is top notch. Although every American fender I have owned I never felt the need to upgrade the pickups or electrics.

The one old bass I have owned briefly was crap, but the neck felt really good, a worn in fretboard edge is a whole lot more comfortable than the last American standard I played on. For me thats one reason to buy an old one.

[molan]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1383817440' post='2269389']
I don't see what the point you are trying to make is. The fact that journalists decided to print a story based on a study is completely irrelevant to the valid scientific findings of that study. Journalists running pieces about research doesn't somehow invalidate that research. There were lots of newspaper articles about the discovery of the Higgs Boson recently, I suppose thats just "cheap scientific hokum" too?
[/quote]

I had read in quite a few places that this report was only news because the findings went against what was generally believed and I just took their word for it.

Maybe I'm just jaundiced from working with too many huge businesses (particularly the global pharma brands) that conduct, incredibly well researched, scientific studies in order to gain publicity or add credence to a product claim.

I've seen 10 year studies conducted to prove that one product has a particular benefit in order to validate it. Then another massive global concern publishes a report from a seemingly just as authoritative source saying something different.

i guess my point was that a lot of research appears to be conducted with a view to publishing something new and, ideally, newsworthy in order to demonstrate the credentials of the researchers. If all a study does is to expand something people already know then it isn't news, it doesn't generate any sort of significant media coverage and the report disappears without trace.

An example might be 'scientists prove water is wet' - no-one is going to publish this because it isn't newsworthy or interesting. Well, I guess maybe the Daily Mail might be able to put some spin on it by adding that English water is wetter, and therefore more desirable so the entire population of Bulgaria are planning to migrate to England, live on benefits and breed openly gay children in order to take advantage