Vintage Instruments: Quality or Psychosomatics?

[mikel]

1 hour ago, wateroftyne said:

I haven't read the thread - apologies - but my view is this:

All other things being equal, IMO this:

...looks a million times nicer than this:

Shows how almost everything is subjective. I much prefer shiny and, well, new looking to old and battered. What if the top photo was of a 2 year old bass, that was simply battered and badly looked after, and the bottom photo was a 45 year old instrument????  Would you still prefer the top one?

[wateroftyne]

3 minutes ago, mikel said:

Shows how almost everything is subjective. I much prefer shiny and, well, new looking to old and battered. What if the top photo was of a 2 year old bass, that was simply battered and badly looked after, and the bottom photo was a 45 year old instrument????  Would you still prefer the top one?

A battered two-year-old bass isn't going to have the glow of a-45 year-old instrument* - it's going to look like a battered two-year-old bass.

*Unless it's skilfully relic'd.

Edited January 2, 2018 by wateroftyne

[Frank Blank]

2 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

I haven't read the thread - apologies - but my view is this:

All other things being equal, IMO this:

...looks a million times nicer than this:

A million...

[oldbass]

2 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

I haven't read the thread - apologies - but my view is this:

All other things being equal, IMO this:

...looks a million times nicer than this:

Love the look of those old LPB P's...but, my 71 was a peach to look at but the day it left the house was a day to celebrate...I haven't missed it one little bit and it had the prettiest board and the deepest red torty plate, a lovely looking instrument etc and I waited years to get it......big disappointment really..

[wateroftyne]

3 minutes ago, oldbass said:

Love the look of those old LPB P's...but, my 71 was a peach to look at but the day it left the house was a day to celebrate...I haven't missed it one little bit and it had the prettiest board and the deepest red torty plate, a lovely looking instrument etc and I waited years to get it......big disappointment really..

Like I say, all other things being equal :-)

[Sibob]

I don't think it's a lot of people who broadly think vintage instruments are 'better', I think those who play 'vintage' instruments (and I'd probably suggest that means pre 1980 in the context of this discussion) are the minority and a LOT more people play new/modern instruments, and those who ONLY play vintage instruments because of a perceived superiority is even fewer than that. I imagine, in most cases, any instrument used at a given time is seen to be the best instrument for that purpose for that player, be it vintage or otherwise.

I bought a 1971 Precision because I was interested in an instrument that would hold (and increase) it's value, that said, I've never played a better sounding Precision with flats than this....and that includes a 1963 Precision I borrowed for a few gigs. There are probably modern Precisions that are as good, but I've yet to play them. 
Conversely, I've never found a vintage Jazz bass that I've gelled with, so my very new Lakland 44-94 does that job for me, lovely bass and nicer than any vintage Jazz I've played.

Si

[wateroftyne]

Yep, there's the investment angle as well.

I bought a pair of Maruzczyks over the last couple of years - great basses both, but I have to accept that I'm going to lose money if/when I come to sell them (as I've already done with one).

Because I've only really had vintage stuff in recent years, it's a new experience, and it hurts a bit.

[silverfoxnik]

Great thread this ☺

And with some very well-constructed, well-reasoned points about 'vintage' versus 'modern' instruments that have really got me thinking.

Having thought about it, my 2p worth is this..

I'm kind of with Shaggy on this (as in his original post) in that I just enjoy the whole aesthetic of older, over-engineered instruments that look like they've been used a lot over time to make music with...

So, 'Bass Nirvana' for me is when I find an instrument that fits with how I like it to look, but also so that it fits with how I like it to feel and sound when I'm using it.

All three of those determining factors are completely subjective to me and are undermined by my poor hearing and tinnitus in my right ear, my lack of good (or proper)  playing technique and my own quirky sense of what looks good and what doesn't.

Having said all that, one of my favourite basses that I really enjoy playing is a 5 year old Schecter Diamond P5 that doesn't look at all like my other basses, is way too big for me and will never gain any kind of classic status I expect. But I just love the way it plays in my hands and the sound I make when using it.

What's it worth? Probably about £300. Yet it's outlasted some much more expensive basses that I've had over the last 5 years.

I remember having a '66 Fender Jazz in the early nineties that I never really bonded with, much preferring an '80s Tokai Jazz Sound that I had for three years, which I then rather foolishly traded for a Music Man 5 string with a John East preamp that I never liked at all and which I sold on quite quickly...

Hence my conclusion is that I have no set perspective on this topic that I could reasonably offer to anyone that will be of any objective value, and that in the end, my preference for any particular bass I buy will be based on my mood and my finances at the time I'm buying it.

I doubt that all this will help move the debate along much though, but I'm looking forward to reading more comments as the debate continues. ☺

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by silverfoxnik

[Count Bassy]

14 hours ago, neilp said:

Not just the neck. New bass bar almost certainly, quite possibly half-edged more than once. And the ARE the pinnacle of the musical instrument world

 

I have a genuine Woolworth's broom from 1951. It's a bit Roadworn, but the bloke I bought it off (someone called Trigger IIRC) assured me it was genuine, and it sweeps like a dream.

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Count Bassy

[josie]

I love my 1966 Gibson EB2 partly because it's 50 years old, and it's been part of such a long history of music and makes me feel part of it too. It's slightly faded and worn and rubbed, as you'd expect,  mostly on the back, but just enough to feel comfortable and genuine. From the front and from not very far away it looks immaculate. But I mostly love it because it's a joy to play and sounds wonderful. The only other EB2 I tried, also a 1966, was just dead wood.

The down side is that I can't gig it - it's too fragile (and valuable, and hard to replace) to take anyplace I'm likely to be able to play.

I do gig my 1992 Jazz Aerodyne, which is visibly better finished than the 2005 Aerodyne I saw for sale recently (and didn't try, so I can't speak for any other comparison).

Ok, can't resist a bit of a brag:

[ambient]

I think a lot of the desire to own a vintage Fender is the mystique surrounding the the company and it's instruments. The not knowing who's owned it, who's played it, were it's been etc.

There is something attractive about old instruments. I've owned a few instruments that were 20 plus years old. These were Yamaha basses, neither Fender or Gibsons hold any kind of allure for me.

There's something very nice about old, very old acoustic instruments.

[ambient]

19 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

There is, indeed, a thriving market for old reel-to-reel tape decks, and many 'plug-ins' to replicate 'vintage' sounds. Our bass amp is a Hiwatt, I have a Fender Bassman 50 for guitar. 'Old school' is the new black, too..! Now, if only I could graft on a set of Jack Casady fingers...

I've got an early 70s Revox A77 that I bought from a guy on here a few years ago I love the thing. Prices nowadays have rocketed, and like you say there's a market for plug-ins that try and often fail to replicate the sound of the tape. I recently bought a really old cassette tape player that I'm using to compose with. You can't replicate the sound produced by it.

[ambient]

20 hours ago, JimBobTTD said:

I like old things as it makes me think that they are well-made - the surviving ones have only survived because they are good. I recently bought an antique metronome simply because it is old. I could have downloaded a free app, but I wanted one that was old. 

For instruments, I like the idea of vintage - for the same reason as above - but the instruments I want were not made back then. So I have a few nice Warmoth basses that were made in the same way...with jigs, semi mass-produced but finished in the old-fashioned way with nitro. I feel that they will age better that way. Snake oil? Possibly. Do I care? Not at all!

Fender were mass produced, not quite in the sense that we use the term nowadays, but they were still mass produced. Mostly probably by migrant workers from Mexico. What actual percentage from any given year in the 1960s still survives? The ones that do still survive weren't any better made than the ones that didn't, they were just better looked after.

[White Cloud]

The whole point of playing an instrument is to make music. This is most often done in collaboration with other musicians who play different instruments in what becomes a collaborative, complimentary symbiosis of sound. The combination of the musicians become the "senders."

The over riding purpose of this is generally for the enjoyment of the listener...the "receivers" 

The simple truth is this; the average listener (receiver) of music could not give a stinky poo what bass is being used by the sender - and would never be able to tell the difference between basses even if they tried. In fact almost every other musician in the group of senders could not give a stinky poo what bass (brand/age/style) the bassist is using.

The only one who really cares will often be the bassist.

Its all about the music...and yes, I do realise that I am arguing against the very existence of websites like this 

[Sibob]

5 minutes ago, White Cloud said:

The over riding purpose of this is generally for the enjoyment of the listener...the "receivers" 

 

I wouldn't agree with this at all, I would say that, ultimately (music 'business' aside) the overriding purpose is, or should be, the creation of the music between the performers, the 'conversation' that they're having for their own enjoyment. The crowd is just there for the ride.

And so with that in mind, the experience of the player, whether that extends to their instrument or not, becomes an intrinsic part of that. Whether the player puts any importance on it is another, subjective, question.

Si

Edited January 2, 2018 by Sibob

[wateroftyne]

8 minutes ago, Sibob said:

I wouldn't agree with this at all, I would say that, ultimately (music 'business' aside) the overriding purpose is, or should be, the creation of the music between the performers, the 'conversation' that they're having for their own enjoyment. The crowd is just there for the ride.

And so with that in mind, the experience of the player, whether that extends to their instrument or not, becomes an intrinsic part of that. Whether the player puts any importance on it is another, subjective, question.

Si

Quite. And let's not forget that to many of us, playing music is all about emotion - it's not just a clinical activity whose sole purpose is to convey sound to others.

[BigRedX]

21 hours ago, T-Bay said:

I would buy a Victorian table because it will be made of better quality materials and built to last. An Ikea one will most likely be a load of junk that won’t last. 

Which means that in 50 years time an intact and functioning Ikea table will probably be more valuable since the Victorian one is unlikely to significantly deteriorate any further. The shrewd invested would be identifying which Ikea flat packs are going to be regarded as design classics in the future and buying them to keep unassembled.

[BigRedX]

4 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

I haven't read the thread - apologies - but my view is this:

All other things being equal, IMO this:

...looks a million times nicer than this:

And IMO both of them look equally dull. It's all subjective.

[wateroftyne]

2 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

And IMO both of them look equally dull. It's all subjective.

Cool story - thanks for sharing!

Edited January 2, 2018 by wateroftyne

[BigRedX]

20 hours ago, Frank Blank said:

See, here is where I show my utter ignorance. I don't know what a tonewood is! These are the things I'm trying to learn, your comment is a perfect example of a possible reason why vintage instrument may be superior to a modern one.

Tone wood is irrelevant as far as solid electric instruments are concerned. So long as it has sufficient structural integrity to withstand the forces exerted upon it form the strings and the player wearing it on a strap pretty much anything will do.

[Frank Blank]

1 hour ago, silverfoxnik said:

Great thread this ☺

And with some very well-constructed, well-reasoned points about 'vintage' versus 'modern' instruments that have really got me thinking.

Having thought about it, my 2p worth is this..

I'm kind of with Shaggy on this (as in his original post) in that I just enjoy the whole aesthetic of older, over-engineered instruments that look like they've been used a lot over time to make music with...

So, 'Bass Nirvana' for me is when I find an instrument that fits with how I like it to look, but also so that it fits with how I like it to feel and sound when I'm using it.

All three of those determining factors are completely subjective to me and are undermined by my poor hearing and tinnitus in my right ear, my lack of good (or proper)  playing technique and my own quirky sense of what looks good and what doesn't.

Having said all that, one of my favourite basses that I really enjoy playing is a 5 year old Schecter Diamond P5 that doesn't look at all like my other basses, is way too big for me and will never gain any kind of classic status I expect. But I just love the way it plays in my hands and the sound I make when using it.

What's it worth? Probably about £300. Yet it's outlasted some much more expensive basses that I've had over the last 5 years.

I remember having a '66 Fender Jazz in the early nineties that I never really bonded with, much preferring an '80s Tokai Jazz Sound that I had for three years, which I then rather foolishly traded for a Music Man 5 string with a John East preamp that I never liked at all and which I sold on quite quickly...

Hence my conclusion is that I have no set perspective on this topic that I could reasonably offer to anyone that will be of any objective value, and that in the end, my preference for any particular bass I buy will be based on my mood and my finances at the time I'm buying it.

I doubt that all this will help move the debate along much though, but I'm looking forward to reading more comments as the debate continues. ☺

 

I actually think it helps the debate a lot in that there is no set perspective, one can have one's own taste and preferences about an instrument but I think if this thread has highlighted anything it is that there is no definitive set of criteria that make a vintage bass superior to a modern one or vice versa. There may be something about the materials used in construction, the manner of it's manufacture, but in the end personal preference seems to hugely outweigh any other factor, somehow that pleases me a lot. One thing I do know is that the reasoned arguments and totally friendly discussion on this thread has kind of warmed an old misanthrope's heart! If I were ever attracted to a bass that was considered vintage I'd be straight on here asking for advice, that's for sure.

[BigRedX]

13 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

Cool story - thanks for sharing!

I'm glad you appreciated it! ;-)

But as someone else has said in this thread, the instrument in the top photograph is more desirable to you because you have some knowledge of the history of each instrument even if it is only down to the source of each photograph. On the other hand if someone were to post up photos of two Fender style instruments - one a modern relic'd reproduction, and the other a pristine early 60s original without you knowing which was which would you prefer - the one that is actually old or the one that looks old?

[wateroftyne]

Just now, BigRedX said:

On the other hand if someone were to post up photos of two Fender style instruments - one a modern relic'd reproduction, and the other a pristine early 60s original without you knowing which was which would you prefer - the one that is actually old or the one that looks old?

All else being equal, the pristine 60s original would appeal to me the most, just because the anorak in me would be calling the shots. 

But, on the assumption I couldn't afford it, I'd be happy with the relic as long as it's decent.

[Frank Blank]

1 hour ago, Sibob said:

I don't think it's a lot of people who broadly think vintage instruments are 'better', I think those who play 'vintage' instruments (and I'd probably suggest that means pre 1980 in the context of this discussion) are the minority and a LOT more people play new/modern instruments, and those who ONLY play vintage instruments because of a perceived superiority is even fewer than that. I imagine, in most cases, any instrument used at a given time is seen to be the best instrument for that purpose for that player, be it vintage or otherwise.

I bought a 1971 Precision because I was interested in an instrument that would hold (and increase) it's value, that said, I've never played a better sounding Precision with flats than this....and that includes a 1963 Precision I borrowed for a few gigs. There are probably modern Precisions that are as good, but I've yet to play them. 
Conversely, I've never found a vintage Jazz bass that I've gelled with, so my very new Lakland 44-94 does that job for me, lovely bass and nicer than any vintage Jazz I've played.

Si

I agree with you entirely but I think people like me who write and play music but have very little technical knowledge about their instruments sometimes feel they are possibly missing out on some great instruments that would somehow make the job of writing and performing easier. Obviously common sense makes a nonsense of this but still I get a niggling feeling sometimes when I see someone like Gillian Welch (an artist I really like) using a 1956 Gibson J-50 or her musical partner David Rawlings playing a 1935 Epiphone that they know something I don't, yet when I listen to their recordings I think there is nothing in the tone of their recorded guitars that suggests that you couldn't get the same sound from modern cheaper instruments. This always leaves me on the horns of a dilemma, do they know something I don't? Or do they use such old instruments because they think they should? Or (more than two horns here, obv.) are they genuinely playing such instrument because they love the feel of them, a feel that cannot be found in a modern instrument?

[Frank Blank]

2 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

Yep, there's the investment angle as well.

I bought a pair of Maruzczyks over the last couple of years - great basses both, but I have to accept that I'm going to lose money if/when I come to sell them (as I've already done with one).

Because I've only really had vintage stuff in recent years, it's a new experience, and it hurts a bit.

I am losing money in reselling too at the moment but I think that's par for the course when you are seeking exactly the right instrument, at least they go to people who are possibly on a similar search, if not at least they may get played by someone else and that's better than them sitting in a rack gathering dust.