The Illusion of Vintage Fender Value

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383820653' post='2269457']

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
[/quote]

Strewth! That was slave labour rates at the time ... were you a school-leaver or something?

[molan]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1383821874' post='2269474']
Strewth! That was slave labour rates at the time ... were you a school-leaver or something?
[/quote]

University drop-out, lol.

I was studying law at UCL but moved into in a flat with Billy Idol (he moved next door as I arrived but was a regular visitor), a stripper / nude model and a fairly high level illicit substance dealer. Surrounded by that lot it seemed that Uni life was a bit dull so i got a job in an ad agency - the link came from someone in their HR team who lived opposite and wondered who all the 'strange' people were that came in and out of our place at all hours.

She said she thought I was perfectly suited to work in advertising. . .

Money was ludicrous, I lived on soya mince and doggy bags that my work friends bought back from lunch for me. Got a £1,000 pay rise after 6 months though - seemed a lot at the time

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383822205' post='2269485']

... so i got a job in an ad agency ...
[/quote]

I spent that period at Lonsdales, and at French Gold Abbott.

[molan]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1383822678' post='2269496']
I spent that period at Lonsdales, and at French Gold Abbott.
[/quote]

I knew people at both!

I was at JWT in Berkley Square

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383821325' post='2269467']
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
[/quote]

I still don't understand why you think the "newsworthy"-ness of a piece of research is even remotely relevant. If the science was performed [i]properly[/i]---which this was---then whether or not journalists decide to write about it is by the by. Being newsworthy does not mean that the research is "cheap scientific hokum". You don't get into PNAS with puff pieces, you get in with good research. Did you really dismiss a piece of peer reviewed research in a distinguished journal as "cheap hokum" on the say-so of some dudes on internet guitar forums? Thats quite impressive.

As for the pharma stuff---contrary to the belief of most laymen, science isn't exact. Its perfectly possible for two studies to be performed perfectly and come to different conclusions. The universe is strange like that. Thats why it takes lots of studies by lots of people before something will get accepted as "fact". Yes, big companies quite often want to do particular research in order to validate some product, but so long as they do their research honestly and submit it for full peer review there's nothing wrong with that. Self-published pieces should always be treated with suspicion, but peer reviewed research in respected journals has to be taken at face value.

[molan]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1383823081' post='2269511']
I still don't understand why you think the "newsworthy"-ness of a piece of research is even remotely relevant. If the science was performed [i]properly[/i]---which this was---then whether or not journalists decide to write about it is by the by. Being newsworthy does not mean that the research is "cheap scientific hokum". You don't get into PNAS with puff pieces, you get in with good research. Did you really dismiss a piece of peer reviewed research in a distinguished journal as "cheap hokum" on the say-so of some dudes on internet guitar forums? Thats quite impressive.

As for the pharma stuff---contrary to the belief of most laymen, science isn't exact. Its perfectly possible for two studies to be performed perfectly and come to different conclusions. The universe is strange like that. Thats why it takes lots of studies by lots of people before something will get accepted as "fact". Yes, big companies quite often want to do particular research in order to validate some product, but so long as they do their research honestly and submit it for full peer review there's nothing wrong with that. Self-published pieces should always be treated with suspicion, but peer reviewed research in respected journals has to be taken at face value.
[/quote]

Because, in my professional sphere, I have repeatedly seen research carried out in order to generate news. Simple as that really.

[discreet]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383820653' post='2269457']
My annual salary at the time was £2,500 - even in those days that wasn't really enough to live on...
[/quote]

Mine was around £8,750 in 1979 - but even so £280 for a bass guitar was still expensive.

Edited November 7, 2013 by discreet

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1383824055' post='2269537']
Mine was around £8,750 in 1979.
[/quote]

That's a couple of grand better than I was doing, but then I was pretty young in those days ... you must have been pre-aged or something.

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383823697' post='2269529']
Because, in my professional sphere, I have repeatedly seen research carried out in order to generate news. Simple as that really.
[/quote]

I guess if you work in advertising its easy to assume that everyone is lying about everything all the time

[skej21]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383823697' post='2269529']


Because, in my professional sphere, I have repeatedly seen research carried out in order to generate news. Simple as that really.
[/quote]

And research that exploits differing environmental factors to manipulate the outcome...

'9/10 bass players voted *insert bassist* as the greatest bassist of all time' is a good (hypothetical) example. What you're actually saying is that in a survey of instrumentalists restricted only to bass players,most of whom will have listened to/searched for bass lines in music specifically and are likely to remember who played those lines, had a similar view on who is the greatest within a specific area of a topic.

If the same research was conducted with 100 people walking out of the supermarket, 9/10 people would probably not have even heard of *insert bassist*!

Edited November 7, 2013 by skej21

[molan]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1383824970' post='2269552']
I guess if you work in advertising its easy to assume that everyone is lying about everything all the time
[/quote]

Absolutely!

Although I could say that if you work in scientific research then for every report published that proves something then another will prove the exact opposite

[gary mac]

You don't get that lovely vintage smell with new basses though.

I haven't lost my marbles, other vintage owners will know what I mean

[Dingus]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1383822205' post='2269485']
University drop-out, lol.

I was studying law at UCL but moved into in a flat with Billy Idol (he moved next door as I arrived but was a regular visitor), a stripper / nude model and a fairly high level illicit substance dealer.

She said she thought I was perfectly suited to work in advertising. . .

[/quote]

Never were more true words written on Basschat !

[Conan]

I bought my Status series II brand new in 1986 because of it's modern sound and styling (among other things).

It is rapidly approaching its 30th anniversary but still sounds as modern as it did in 1986. When it is a "vintage" instrument (does the 30 year old thing apply to instruments as well as cars?) it will still sound modern.

I have no idea what I am trying to say here, but just thought I would chuck it into the general discussion.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Conan

[BigRedX]

[quote name='gary mac' timestamp='1383830884' post='2269687']
You don't get that lovely vintage smell with new basses though.
[/quote]

You mean stale nicotine and man sweat.... yuck!

Give me new bass smell any day.

[Dingus]

Regarding the historic worth and relative cost of Fender basses , it's worth remembering for a moment that back in the '60's and '70's electric guitars ( and basses) were far more revered and valuable objects than they are now . Firstly , as we have already established , they were proportionately more expensive , but also they were considered the working tools of social revolution . The Worls has moved on since then and teenage 70's rock fans are now well into their fifties . As a case in point, I was reading a post on Basschat a while ago and a young member talked about his grandparents being Iron Maiden fans (!) . That didn't happen in those days . The generations were clearly divided along musical lines. Rock music was (perhaps naively ) condsidered a sonic assault on the establishment , and music made on electric instruments was what was going to stir the Worlds youth into action . It sounds daft now , mainly because it was, but at the time a lot of people believed it.

Nowadays it seems like every teenager has got a Fender leaning against the wall in the corner of their bedroom for when they feel like putting on some eyeliner and pretending to be one of Blink 182 or similar, where as in my day, guitars were much more special things to own . Most people had copies rather than the real thing , and even the copies were a great novelty . If you had a real Fender/Gibson/Rickenbacker you were a local celebrity, to some extent.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Dingus

[Dingus]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1383831915' post='2269709']
I bought my Status series II brand new in 1986 because of it's modern sound and styling (among other things).

It is rapidly approaching its 30th anniversary but still sounds as modern as it did in 1986. When it is a "vintage" instrument (does the 30 year old thing apply to instruments as well as cars?) it will still sound modern.

I have no idea what I am trying to say here, but just thought I would chuck it into the general discussion.
[/quote]

Yes, ironically enough, that "modern" bass sound has become very dated . To sound contemporary nowadays you would need to use an old P Bass with flats on . I never thought I would see the day, but there you go...

[Dingus]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1383831986' post='2269712']
You mean stale nicotine and man sweat.... yuck!

Give me new bass smell any day.
[/quote]

Another vote for new bass smell here . The glue is usually still fresh in the case and you get a much better buzz from it .

[Dingus]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1383824970' post='2269552']
I guess if you work in advertising its easy to assume that everyone is lying about everything all the time
[/quote]

If you work in politics or professional football it is easy ( and probably best) to assume the same thing, too.

[drTStingray]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1383833181' post='2269739']


Yes, ironically enough, that "modern" bass sound has become very dated . To sound contemporary nowadays you would need to use an old P Bass with flats on . I never thought I would see the day, but there you go...
[/quote]

I don't think it's become dated Dingus. Just that modern pop music tends to mix bass in the background almost like an orchestral approach - and that soft pillowy ampeg and P bass with flats playing root notes in the background can be heard (well just about) quite often.

Ironically this was just the sort of thing Jaco allegedly liberated bass players from.

I have to say I don't remember the last time I heard a decent bass hook on a modern recording - or perhaps the bass is too quiet ........ Or my ears are shot!! Many famous songs use bass hooks but it now seems such an approach is not as welcome.

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1383833764' post='2269748']

Ironically this was just the sort of thing Jaco allegedly liberated bass players from.

[/quote]

In that case, can I have my shackles back?

[iamtheelvy]

I'm not much into the 'collector' mindset. A vintage Fender has great value to me... if it looks good, feels good and sounds good. Same principles I apply to a brand new bass...

[Dingus]

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1383833764' post='2269748']
I don't think it's become dated Dingus. Just that modern pop music tends to mix bass in the background almost like an orchestral approach - and that soft pillowy ampeg and P bass with flats playing root notes in the background can be heard (well just about) quite often.

Ironically this was just the sort of thing Jaco allegedly liberated bass players from.

I have to say I don't remember the last time I heard a decent bass hook on a modern recording - or perhaps the bass is too quiet ........ Or my ears are shot!! Many famous songs use bass hooks but it now seems such an approach is not as welcome.
[/quote]
Dead right , Dr T.

If you listened to the records from the Top 40 from this week exactly thirty years ago and compared it to the chart from the present day , you would be shocked at how prominent the bass guitar was back then in relation to now . The role of the bass guitar on pop records has indeed changed dramatically , and I preferred it back then . I remember regulaly getting excited about bass lines I heard on chart records in those days , whereas nowadays that is a rare occurence . Admittedly , I probably don't hear as much chart music as I did back then , but nevertheless, I am confident it is the music that has changed , not me. In the '80's teen bands like Duran Duran and Culture Club had excellent bass players, as did many pop groups like UB40 , and post -new wave rock groups like The Police ,The Pretenders , The Smiths and The Cure also had a lot of importance placed on the bass guitar in their music . Where are their modern equivalents?

[Chiliwailer]

I liked the quotes about the value of a vintage when bought new compared to today's inflation adjustment.

[size=4][size=5][u][b]BUT THIS IS WHERE IT HURTS....... [/b][/u][/size]I[/size]t's not about the 'cost in 1962 versus cost in 2013' that gives me sleepless nights.

It's the fact that:[list]
[*]In 1999 a shop I worked in sold a 1957 Strat for £5000, they now go for £18,000 plus
[*]In 1999 I could have bought a 1958 Precision for £3500, they now sell for double that
[*]In 1993 a shop I worked in sold a TV Yellow Les Paul Junior for £1000, now they are at least 7 times that
[*]In 2004 I bought a refinished 1964 Jazz Bass for £2200, they can now often sell for double that
[*]In 2006 a shop I worked in sold a blonde 1961 Stack Knob Jazz for £10,000, it then sold again at another shop I worked in for £18000 3 years later
[/list]
These are just a few examples.
Sleep tight.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Chiliwailer

[iamtheelvy]

Ouch, some of those prices are pretty painful. Much as I like vintage instruments, I can't see how they can be worth that much! They are still blocks of wood with some metal bits attached...