Vintage Instruments: Quality or Psychosomatics?

[wateroftyne]

3 minutes ago, Frank Blank said:

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.

This is true. But it's also nice not to lose money :-)

[LukeFRC]

37 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

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

Go on, let's see a photo of a Gus

[BigRedX]

Are you losing money though?

How much would those instruments cost to rent for the time that you have owned them? I'm sure the rental cost would far offset the price difference between what you paid new for those instruments and what you would get for them if you sold them today.

Just because an instrument is old shouldn't automatically make it worth more money. IMO it is getting to the point where many vintage instruments are seriously overpriced when considered from any point of view that isn't a collector's.

[Frank Blank]

1 hour ago, josie said:

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:

Man that's a beautiful bass. I've just bought an Aerodyne that is currently being set up, I purchased it about a week before I had the short-scale revelation so I expect it will be on sale here within the month. I am interested in your choice of words comfortable and genuine. Comfortable I understand within the context of your post but genuine? Genuine in what sense that a modern instrument isn't?

[Frank Blank]

1 minute ago, BigRedX said:

Are you losing money though?

How much would those instruments cost to rent for the time that you have owned them? I'm sure the rental cost would far offset the price difference between what you paid new for those instruments and what you would get for them if you sold them today.

Just because an instrument is old shouldn't automatically make it worth more money. IMO it is getting to the point where many vintage instruments are seriously overpriced when considered from any point of view that isn't a collector's.

An excellent point. See, your last line is what niggles me, I don't think I have the knowledge or experience (and I am not, for a moment, suggesting you do not btw) to know if vintage instruments are worth the price or not. Common sense tells me not but am I missing out on something revelatory?

[wateroftyne]

4 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Are you losing money though?

Yes. Around £300 over 18 months on my last one, maybe?

Whereas over a decade or so I probably quadrupled my money on the '71 I sold recently.

Edited January 2, 2018 by wateroftyne

[ambient]

45 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

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.

G-Plan and Ercol from the 1970s are hugely popular and fetch very good money. So you're quite possibly correct.

[Bridgehouse]

I have recently acquired a 2009 AVRI 62 Precision. It's the same colour as my original 64 Precision. Same dimensions, same nut width, same neck profile. 

Let's just split out a couple of points and give my prespective on things.

1. If we take out prices, and age, and I walked into a room and was asked to pick one of the two, I would pick the 64. Why? How it feels to play, how it balances on the strap, and how it sounds through a variety of amps. That's a simple A/B comparison as done in real life. They are close - damn close. But the 64 edges it for me in those areas. Someone else might feel the complete opposite.

So if we all had a chance to try a range of basses old and new, vintage and modern, I suspect some would go away with a new one, some with a vintage. 

And herein lies the problem. The vintage vs new debate is often clouded by the issue of price - if price were at parity, it would be a question like any other A vs B - some will like one, some another. 

Now, pre-CBS fenders probably did use a slightly better wood - often it was aged as stocks were available - not so much these days. Mine has a braz rosewood board - it feels nicer than Indian to play. Similarly, tools and techniques differed - I'd say the 64 has a bit more "character" compared to the AVRI.

But,

2. Pricing. Is a vintage bass worth what it's often advertised for? Only the purchaser can decide that. Scarcity, age, uniqueness, history etc come into it, but ultimately it's only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. I don't think price is a fair indicator of relative quality as an instrument for a vintage bass - the price often doesn't reflect it's relative "quality" compared to a modern equivalent. 

The vintage market is difficult. Mainly because it's now more about collecting and possessing rather than playing or how it sounds. It's sad, but it's the way it is. 

My conclusion: is my vintage 64 better than my AVRI? Yes, for me. Is it worth the massive difference in price? Proabably not. But maybe for others in it's collectible value rather than it's value as an instrument. 

[Frank Blank]

1 minute ago, ambient said:

G-Plan and Ercol from the 1970s are hugely popular and fetch very good money. So you're quite possibly correct.

I think this is an important differentiation. I buy instruments to play, as I am sure everyone contributing to this thread does too but is there something in the vintage instruments (other than future investment potential) that makes it worth having over a modern instrument? I think, if I found a very expensive vintage bass that I loved, before I bought it I would seek out a very similar modern version and see if there was any difference.

[markdavid]

There are some good and some bad vintage instruments, you only have to play any of the Kay or Teisco basses to see that, my worst bass is also my oldest (probably older than me) absolute turd of a bass.

That being said I think perhaps there is some difference in tone that is attributable to the ageing of the woods used for the bass and the magnets in the pickups becoming weaker over time

[BigRedX]

12 minutes ago, Frank Blank said:

I think this is an important differentiation. I buy instruments to play, as I am sure everyone contributing to this thread does too but is there something in the vintage instruments (other than future investment potential) that makes it worth having over a modern instrument? I think, if I found a very expensive vintage bass that I loved, before I bought it I would seek out a very similar modern version and see if there was any difference.

Completely and utterly subjective.

And when does an instrument become vintage? My main basses - a pair of Gus G3s - are very much "modern" instruments, but the newest one is already 15 years old and the other one almost 20. When I started playing in the early 70s even a 15 year old electric bass was already a potentially desirable vintage instrument.

Edited January 2, 2018 by BigRedX

[Woodinblack]

There is obviously a lot of imagination put to some instruments, when I started playing in the late 70s, early 80s the prevailing logic was you didn't buy a 70s fender or an early 80s gibson as they were basically firewood. Now they are revered objects. Time has made them so.

However, I think there is a good reason that vintage instruments can be on average better (to play, lets face it they mostly sound the same).

Because a lot of things were hand made or had more hand assembly then there was a variation in the quality of things, and the types of wood and how things matched. Over the years, the ones that were stinky poo got broken, or lost or hacked apart, the ones that were good were looked after and still persist. So now, as a percentage, there are more good ones than there were.

 

[Frank Blank]

2 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Completely and utterly subjective.

Yes, I think this is the perfect summation of the thread really.

[Frank Blank]

1 minute ago, Woodinblack said:

There is obviously a lot of imagination put to some instruments, when I started playing in the late 70s, early 80s the prevailing logic was you didn't buy a 70s fender or an early 80s gibson as they were basically firewood. Now they are revered objects. Time has made them so.

However, I think there is a good reason that vintage instruments can be on average better (to play, lets face it they mostly sound the same).

Because a lot of things were hand made or had more hand assembly then there was a variation in the quality of things, and the types of wood and how things matched. Over the years, the ones that were stinky poo got broken, or lost or hacked apart, the ones that were good were looked after and still persist. So now, as a percentage, there are more good ones than there were.

 

So are we to assume that hand assembly makes the instrument better if, in the final analysis they mostly sound the same? It is an interesting thought about the quality instruments surviving and the older ones not making it.

[la bam]

I think theres some very good points previously about what we apply to our sound now.

For example its not just 67 jazz vs 2017 g&l in a straight test. Apart from amps, we add eq, compression, pre amp etc all in the quest of making that bass how we want it to sound. We dont really just take a bass anymore and play it for it to be a straight test to.

[Bridgehouse]

2 minutes ago, Frank Blank said:

Yes, I think this is the perfect summation of the thread really.

In answer to your original question, then yes. As I posted a little while ago, if you take out the price and the "snake oil" then choosing one over the other is no different to choosing one new brand over another. Some will like one, others a different one. Purely based on subjective likes.

 

The reason this subject comes up so much though is the muddy waters created by collectibility, price, reverence and a market which is essentially not based on the instruments playability or sound.

[Sibob]

I'd quite like to find a cheaper Precision that was better than my '71.....means I could sell it and make some money back without losing a quality instrument haha.
Alas.......

Si

[wateroftyne]

FWIW, I don't think the old ones sound any different to, or better than, the new ones. It's not about the sound.

[Bridgehouse]

Just now, wateroftyne said:

FWIW, I don't think the old ones sound any different to, or better than, the new ones. It's not about the sound.

My 64 and AVRI sound different.

[BigRedX]

2 minutes ago, Bridgehouse said:

My 64 and AVRI sound different.

All basses sound different when played on their own.

And they all sound like bass guitars in the band mix.

[wateroftyne]

1 minute ago, Bridgehouse said:

My 64 and AVRI sound different.

I meant above and beyond any usual natural differences you'd find in any Precisions. I should have made that clear.

[Bridgehouse]

2 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

I meant above and beyond any usual natural differences you'd find in any Precisions. I should have made that clear.

 

2 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

All basses sound different when played on their own.

And they all sound like bass guitars in the band mix.

Of course. 

But it does depend on your own ears. Some people hear differences that others don't. Some sounds are more pleasing to some and not to others - if not there would be one bass design with one set of pickups and one amp.

 

Mind you - as a guitar type too, you should see how this debate goes when it's guitars and not basses you're discussing.. sheesh!

 

[wateroftyne]

3 minutes ago, Bridgehouse said:

But it does depend on your own ears. Some people hear differences that others don't.

Are you suggesting that if you did a blind A/B sound test of any '64RI to any genuine '64, you'd be able to tell which is which..?

Edited January 2, 2018 by wateroftyne

[GuyR]

48 minutes ago, Frank Blank said:

An excellent point. See, your last line is what niggles me, I don't think I have the knowledge or experience (and I am not, for a moment, suggesting you do not btw) to know if vintage instruments are worth the price or not. Common sense tells me not but am I missing out on something revelatory?

The correct price range is fairly straightforward to arrive at, assuming you have enough basic knowledge, or access to a 3rd party with appropriate experience to ensure the instrument is as advertised, prior to a binding deal (I always have a 48hour approval agreement on any vintage purchase, to obtain expert advice, other than for auction, where the lower price makes a "punt" more acceptable). 

Once you are confident of what the instrument is, in terms of originality and, therefore, ability to recoup the thick end of your financial outlay, it only remains; does the instrument inspire you to buy it?

[Grangur]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

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

Add to this that IMHO the "cow-bell" over the bridge looks daft...   But the owner LOVES it!  - That's what matters.  (Sorry WoT)

1 hour ago, wateroftyne said:

Cool story - thanks for sharing!

Each to their own... as you know.

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

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.

OR is it? I play Warwicks. (You know the ones.. "The Sound of wood etc") Among the basses I have is a rather battered 2004 Corvette. It has dings and some writing in Chinese on the back, done by a child, so the story goes. The neck is smooth and it all feels great. Its a bass that makes me feel like, "if only it could speak, it could tell some stories". To me that Corvette plays and sounds great. It makes me feel I'm not the "owner", but the custodian of it, while it's on its life path of which I'm only a part, a stepping stone to the next custodian.

People here have said about better woods used in the past. This may be true. Almost certainly it may have been seasoned better (Seasoning = the drying out process)

But all this is leading to what I want to say; Tonewood. It might(not) make a difference. Who knows? What it almost certainly does is make the owner/custodian, FEEL better about the instrument. By feeling the love and reverence to the instrument it can reflect in how you pluck the strings and so, it sounds cool.

The same can be the sound from the Strad violin mentioned above. If it was polished up all shiney and faked with a "Gear4Music" sticker, would the owner still hear it the same?

On a side-note: I also have a Streamer. Same strings, same setup, different wood. This always has a more crisp, brittle sound to it, but it is a through-neck... so who knows/cares.