Vintage Fenders

[OliverBlackman]

1 hour ago, Hellzero said:

A lot of Fender's have been slaughtered during the 70's and 80's before the vintage hype.

Yes I remember hearing that at the time people thought the 60s fender finish was poor quality and cracked or wore too quickly, hence why in the latter years of the 70s the coating was so thick. But then rather than wear it just chipped which is far worse IMO.

[Beedster]

36 minutes ago, sprocketflup said:

I wonder how much a violin bow costs?

 

[sprocketflup]

What a shame, that's a 643 hair bow, and I only play 644'ers nowadays

[rwillett]

36 minutes ago, sprocketflup said:

What a shame, that's a 643 hair bow, and I only play 644'ers nowadays

That was my first thought as well...

[Piers_Williamson]

1 hour ago, sprocketflup said:

What a shame, that's a 643 hair bow, and I only play 644'ers nowadays

How much do vintage strings cost then?

[Hellzero]

24 minutes ago, Piers_Williamson said:

How much do vintage strings cost then?

Nothing, they bin them.

[Owen]

1 hour ago, Piers_Williamson said:

How much do vintage strings cost then?

Gut strings for a Double Bass are heinously expensive. £600 odd?

[Beedster]

1 minute ago, Owen said:

Gut strings for a Double Bass are heinously expensive. £600 odd?

Pirastro Eudoxa are close to £900 a set now, even Gamuts come in at over £500 with Lenzner - which used to be considered a budget brand in guts terms - not far behind in the high £400s

[GuyR]

15 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Been away yesterday, so sorry for the late reply @Burns-bass.

 

The body is period correct, some details confirming everything including an extra hole at a certain place and the black painted neck pocket, which was the norm back then for sunburst, but it has been oversprayed.

 

The pickguard has absolutely not shrunken and is not glossy on the back, so is not from that era, but a later one.

 

The controls must be concentric in 1961 and furthermore only the tone control is period correct being a Stackpole from 1961, but it doesn't belong to this bass, so the whole control plate has been changed certainly due to the Jaco syndrome.

 

Solders on the neck pickup are brand new.

 

The neck has also received an overspray and the logo is not original as it should be darker and positioned a bit closer to the nut.

 

Not a fake at all, but there are some non correct elements and an overspray, worth asking for a lower price.

You make some interesting points here. I tried it for ten minutes and found it a fabulous player, There weren’t pictures online at that point and, not having £18k spare, I was just casually enjoying comparing how it played in comparison to my own various examples, not scrutinising it as a serious prospect, particularly having just bought the more attractively-priced ‘70 fretless from the same consignment seller.

Under the guard the paint finish does look more textured than would be expected, so maybe there is overspray, although the screw holes are free of paint or lacquer. Of course any refinishing could have been done with screws in place. I don’t see it as having belonged to the type of owner who would go to any level of effort to deceive. It was just a tool, hence the Badass.

 

Looking closely at the back of the neck when I had it in hand, most of the back of the neck is down to bare wood, it would still greatly surprise me if that was anything other than the authentic finish.

 

I can see now the decal looks to be in a more ‘1965’ position- is the decal not of the right 4 number type for the period? I wasn’t aware there was a different colour variant for 1962, I haven’t seen that in any of the reference books - I’d love to know the source of the information re the decals as, like anyone posting here I’m sure, I am always interested to know about any new authoritative sources of information of which I was previously unaware.

 

Re the pickguard, I’m familiar with the correct pre-64 tort guards. You don’t think the guard is right? It certainly looks exactly the same as on my ‘62 and 64 examples, the wear is the same, the sunken tug-bar impression. Are all celluloid guards glossy on the back? Again it would be great to know the source of your knowledge to share the resource.

 

Where I respectfully disagree with you, is that the controls must be concentric in 1961. Andy Baxter has recently sold two 61 Jazzes on his site, both VVT. One has a neck date of  8/61 and pots 20th week/61. The other has a neck date 9/61 and two original pots 20th week/61. Our own @Ricksfine52 has a 1961 VVT. 
 

The example currently for sale has one correctly dated 1961 pot and two replaced. It defies reason to go to the trouble of sourcing a sixty year old component to fake a configuration that never existed. Particularly when the concentric pot version is the more valuable. If you were going VVT to make a Jaco-alike example, you would just add a new VVT with new pots and put the stackers in the case pocket.

 

The Bass Gallery example is being sold on behalf of executors, relatives of a session player who died. They know nothing about vintage basses and are relying entirely on the advice of the shop. The shop have no significant incentive to jeopardise their reputation in return for 15% (commission) of the uplift in value of an optimistic misdescription.

 

Of course, all of us have the potential to make a mistake.

 

Edited Wednesday at 23:30 by GuyR

[bakerster135]

10 minutes ago, GuyR said:

You make some interesting points here. I tried it for ten minutes and found it a fabulous player, There weren’t pictures online at that point and, not having £18k spare, I was just casually enjoying comparing how it played in comparison to my own various examples, not scrutinising it as a serious prospect, particularly having just bought the more attractively-priced ‘70 fretless from the same consignment seller.

Under the guard the paint finish does look more textured than would be expected, so maybe there is overspray, although the screw holes are free of paint or lacquer. Of course any refinishing could have been done with screws in place. I don’t see it as having belonged to the type of owner who would go to any level of effort to deceive. It was just a tool, hence the Badass.

 

Looking closely at the back of the neck when I had it in hand, most of the back of the neck is down to bare wood, it would still greatly surprise me if that was anything other than the authentic finish.

 

I can see now the decal looks to be in a more ‘1965’ position- is the decal not of the right 4 number type for the period? I wasn’t aware there was a different colour variant for 1962, I haven’t seen that in any of the reference books - I’d love to know the source of the information re the decals as, like anyone posting here I’m sure, I am always interested to know about any new authoritative sources of information of which I was previously unaware.

 

Re the pickguard, I’m familiar with the correct pre-64 tort guards. You don’t think the guard is right? It certainly looks exactly the same as on my ‘62 and 64 examples, the wear is the same, the sunken tug-bar impression. Are all celluloid guards glossy on the back? Again it would be great to know the source of your knowledge to share the resource.

 

Where I respectfully disagree with you, is that the controls must be concentric in 1961. Andy Baxter has recently sold two 61 Jazzes on his site, both VVT. One has a neck date of  8/61 and pots 20th week/61. The other has a neck date 9/61 and two original pots 20th week/61. Our own @Ricksfine52 has a 1961 VVT. A
 

The example currently for sale has one correctly dated 1961 pot and two replaced. It defies reason to go to the trouble of sourcing a sixty year old component to fake a configuration that never existed. Particularly when the concentric pot version is the more valuable. If you were going VVT to make a Jaco-alike example, you would just add a new VVT with new pots and put the stackers in the case pocket.

 

The Bass Gallery example is being sold on behalf of executors, relatives of a session player who died. They know nothing about vintage basses and are relying entirely on the advice of the shop. The shop have no significant incentive to jeopardise their reputation in return for 15% (commission) of the uplift in value of an optimistic misdescription.

 

Of course, all of us have the potential to make a mistake.

 

 

I was somewhat trying to let sleeping dogs lie regarding my previous assertions, but I agree with many of your points, @GuyR. I feel that I've seen a few VVT Jazz Basses from late 1961 to 1962 where the parts appear to be mixed up. It's interesting that you mention Andy Baxter, as I'd be keen to hear people's thoughts on this example, which is probably one of the ones you've cited: https://www.andybaxterbass.com/collections/fender-jazz-bass/products/1961-fender-jazz-bass-see-thru-blonde.
 

The decal position doesn’t seem too unusual to me. Having owned a couple of '65s, still owning one, and having seen quite a few more, the main part of the decal is generally much more centred on the headstock, with the "offset contour body" part always applied separately at the end. This guy's description of decal changes has always resonated with my own experience: https://www.talkbass.com/threads/vintage-fender-decals-who-really-knows-the-facts.902851/post-12962893. As you can see, he states that the three PAT and one DES number didn’t appear until 1962, but again, I don't think it's out of the question that Leo or his employees could have started applying these to basses before January 1962, while also using up a random selection of parts during the transition. I also don't think this portrays him as some form of "mad professor", but it's perfectly reasonable that they would use a selection of the available parts and that electronic and hardware consistency was not a primary concern for them at that time. On this basis, I don’t think it's unreasonable to suggest that they could have used a concentric pot on this plate — not for its original purpose, but simply because it worked for the intended function.

[Bluewine]

 

On 03/08/2020 at 03:47, Geek99 said:

I don’t doubt the skill in making them compared to the ease of CNC but I do think the differences are minimal at best, a bravewood / limelight replica is probably as good as an old fender 

 

I agree. My issue with vintage is vintage problems.

 

I would put my 2000 MIJ Fender P up against any early pre CBS P.

 

Daryl

 

Edited Thursday at 10:33 by Bluewine

[Hellzero]

@GuyR and @bakerster135 : Why don't you question the expertise of Bass Gallery or Andy Baxter and not only mine?

 

To my knowledge, they have no proof of their expertise, except making a lot of money reselling instruments that are simply sold on commission and 15% of 18k is £250 more than the average monthly English salary.

 

The "funny" thing about Fender vintage instruments is that those experts always highlight the fact that Leo Fender was a cheapskate using everything he had on hand to build instruments.

 

So according to this, people like Klaus Blasquiz who is the only Fender historian to have met Leo Fender becomes questionable and not reliable, which is totally delirious.

 

Some people are simply rewriting history the way that suits them and everyone is just ignoring the real history, because they have been really convincing...

 

Maybe it's time to think about that.

 

Expertise of a Fender instrument is really like archeology and you have to recoup a lot of details.

 

If you want some recommendations for book about the subject, I can give you a list, but you'll have to read them and dismantle loads of Fender instruments, which is what I've done over 40 years (and always for free).

[wateroftyne]

Point of order - our very own Bass Doc met Leo. Just sayin' 🙂

[OliverBlackman]

20 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

@GuyR and @bakerster135 : Why don't you question the expertise of Bass Gallery or Andy Baxter and not only mine?

 

To my knowledge, they have no proof of their expertise, except making a lot of money reselling instruments that are simply sold on commission and 15% of 18k is £250 more than the average monthly English salary.

Simply put, there is evidence of them taking apart many instruments and building knowledge, whereas we have to take your word for it.

 

Not that your input on here isn’t appreciated, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be challenged.

 

In regards to meeting someone qualifying them as the only source of truth… people’s anecdotes of their past isn’t always accurate.

[Burns-bass]

2 hours ago, OliverBlackman said:

Simply put, there is evidence of them taking apart many instruments and building knowledge, whereas we have to take your word for it.

 

Not that your input on here isn’t appreciated, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be challenged.

 

In regards to meeting someone qualifying them as the only source of truth… people’s anecdotes of their past isn’t always accurate.

You’re absolutely right here, but I think Hell’s point is that they’re not always listed completely honestly.

 

I can’t remember what page it was, but I found two of my previously owned basses for sale. None of the changes was listed, despite all being pretty obvious to anyone with a bit of knowledge on Fender basses.

 

There’s plausible deniability if you sell on commission. But wilful omission is still mis-selling.

 

 

[Hellzero]

2 hours ago, OliverBlackman said:

Simply put, there is evidence of them taking apart many instruments and building knowledge, whereas we have to take your word for it.

 

Not that your input on here isn’t appreciated, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be challenged.

 

In regards to meeting someone qualifying them as the only source of truth… people’s anecdotes of their past isn’t always accurate.

First, maybe you should have watched my selling ads of vintage Fender's that I always take apart for authenticity checking, just like any other instruments, that said.

 

Second, I had my own luthiery and repair shop over close to 2 decades.

 

Third, I wrote a mémoire in French about vintage instruments that I put here a lot of times.

 

I think I'm as eligible as they are, no?

 

In regards to Klaus Blasquiz who wrote The Fender Bass, he is the only Fender historian to have met and interviewed Leo Fender for his book as he wanted to have the most accurate information, but, again some people prefer to rewrite history to serve their purposes.

 

And being challenged is the best way to improve knowledge, but there's too much bullshìting about vintage instruments.

[Hellzero]

3 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

Point of order - our very own Bass Doc met Leo. Just sayin' 🙂

Thanks for that, but I don't think he wrote a book about his instruments...

[wateroftyne]

6 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Thanks for that, but I don't think he wrote a book about his instruments...

You didn’t say that was a requirement:-D

[OliverBlackman]

33 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

First, maybe you should have watched my selling ads of vintage Fender's that I always take apart for authenticity checking, just like any other instruments, that said.

 

Second, I had my own luthiery and repair shop over close to 2 decades.

 

Third, I wrote a mémoire in French about vintage instruments that I put here a lot of times.

 

I think I'm as eligible as they are, no?

 

In regards to Klaus Blasquiz who wrote The Fender Bass, he is the only Fender historian to have met and interviewed Leo Fender for his book as he wanted to have the most accurate information, but, again some people prefer to rewrite history to serve their purposes.

 

And being challenged is the best way to improve knowledge, but there's too much bullshìting about vintage instruments.

How would I in the UK, know about your repair shop or memoire? Not seen your ads either, do you sell as many as those UK retailers mentioned?

[bakerster135]

@Hellzero I do apologise if my responses here have riled you. That certainly wasn’t my intention, and I’m not looking to cast doubt or shade on your knowledge and experience. I also wasn’t trying to suggest that Andy Baxter, The Gallery, etc., are the absolute, unrefutable authorities on vintage Fender, or to deny the possibility that they might sometimes (perhaps conveniently) fail to mention non-original or altered aspects of some instruments they sell.

 

My interest and confusion is more around unusual examples, like the supposed ’61 VVT I linked, where the assertion is that the year can’t be correct based on the setup. Yet, from my perspective (which I feel is relatively experienced), there’s nothing that seems to suggest it’s incorrect. It’s also one of a handful of examples I’ve come across with the same setup.

 

I’m also aware of the idea that certain features are said not to have appeared until ’62, but where is the definitive proof of this? For instance, is there a photo of the first invoice for decals with numbers and three-hole control plates dated 1st January 1962?

 

As mentioned, I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts on the example I linked (linked again below), and from your experience, understand what aspects you see as red flags. Respectfully, I’m not trying to refute your experience or act like an authority here, I’m honestly just trying to build on my own knowledge.

 

https://www.andybaxterbass.com/collections/fender-jazz-bass/products/1961-fender-jazz-bass-see-thru-blonde

[GuyR]

4 hours ago, Hellzero said:

@GuyR and @bakerster135 : Why don't you question the expertise of Bass Gallery or Andy Baxter and not only mine?

 

To my knowledge, they have no proof of their expertise, except making a lot of money reselling instruments that are simply sold on commission and 15% of 18k is £250 more than the average monthly English salary.

 

The "funny" thing about Fender vintage instruments is that those experts always highlight the fact that Leo Fender was a cheapskate using everything he had on hand to build instruments.

 

So according to this, people like Klaus Blasquiz who is the only Fender historian to have met Leo Fender becomes questionable and not reliable, which is totally delirious.

 

Some people are simply rewriting history the way that suits them and everyone is just ignoring the real history, because they have been really convincing...

 

Maybe it's time to think about that.

 

Expertise of a Fender instrument is really like archeology and you have to recoup a lot of details.

 

If you want some recommendations for book about the subject, I can give you a list, but you'll have to read them and dismantle loads of Fender instruments, which is what I've done over 40 years (and always for free).

I don’t assume the expertise of anyone making definitive statements about vintage Fenders. I’m simply interested to know the source of your information, being keen to improve my level of knowledge if you have access to information I don’t. 
I have all the usual written material so yes, please do share a list, that would be much appreciated.

I’m certainly not after an adversarial exchange, quite the reverse, I’m always keen to know more and I don’t consider myself more knowledgeable than anyone else here. 

 

The Blasquiz book has a perfunctory half page entry about the first version Jazz Bass where the opening statement is that the first version was introduced in December 1960, when there are neck dates as early as July 1960. He may have met Leo Fender, but his opening statement is wrong. There are multiple examples of pre-December 1960 Jazzes. We are all open to making an error.

Re the late 1961 VVT examples, assuming the changeover of concentric-VVT wasn’t the last day of 1961, I don’t recall having seen a 1962 concentric pot model and all the 1961 VVT examples seem to have 1961 dated pots and late 1961 body/neck dates.

Do you think the Andy Baxter examples are modified? Seems a lot of trouble to go to in order to reduce the value of your bass. 

 

I’d genuinely be very keen for you to share your insight into evidence of modification to the Andy Baxter 61 VVT examples

 

Like everyone lease, I’m keen to be better informed.

 

Edited Thursday at 22:53 by GuyR

[Hellzero]

I will give you a list if books later guys and also take a look at that link.

 

I also wanted to say that there's a difference between introduced and built, and not only semantically speaking: that can explain some rare examples, but not a norm...

 

 

[briansbrew]

Here is a great example of a 1976 precision that has been moderately played but looked after like no other vintage precision bass that I have had the pleasure to own and a great player with the A neck and weighs just 3.8 Kg's, just perfect

Fret wear is minimal, the body and neck are almost in new condition with no chips or dings, totally original down to the last screw, the guy just loved to look after his gear

This belonged to the same guy who's daughter sold the Antigua that I posted here some weeks ago and that sold for near the asking price of £4000 plus

 

 

 

[Lozz196]

Beautiful 70s ‘burst there

[Rick's Fine '52]

On 16/01/2025 at 22:50, GuyR said:

I don’t assume the expertise of anyone making definitive statements about vintage Fenders. I’m simply interested to know the source of your information, being keen to improve my level of knowledge if you have access to information I don’t. 
I have all the usual written material so yes, please do share a list, that would be much appreciated.

I’m certainly not after an adversarial exchange, quite the reverse, I’m always keen to know more and I don’t consider myself more knowledgeable than anyone else here. 

 

The Blasquiz book has a perfunctory half page entry about the first version Jazz Bass where the opening statement is that the first version was introduced in December 1960, when there are neck dates as early as July 1960. He may have met Leo Fender, but his opening statement is wrong. There are multiple examples of pre-December 1960 Jazzes. We are all open to making an error.

Re the late 1961 VVT examples, assuming the changeover of concentric-VVT wasn’t the last day of 1961, I don’t recall having seen a 1962 concentric pot model and all the 1961 VVT examples seem to have 1961 dated pots and late 1961 body/neck dates.

Do you think the Andy Baxter examples are modified? Seems a lot of trouble to go to in order to reduce the value of your bass. 

 

I’d genuinely be very keen for you to share your insight into evidence of modification to the Andy Baxter 61 VVT examples

 

Like everyone lease, I’m keen to be better informed.

 

Just based on my experience and knowledge, I’ve never seen, or known any credible collector or dealer that has seen a genuine, unmodified stack knob from even close to 1962. 
Pretty common info that the 3-knob started mid-61. I’ve owned one dated 9/61, a sunburst that Andy Baxter sold for me a couple of months ago, I’ve  seen another as early as 6/61, and many more in between. 
I think the confusion wasn’t helped by the early stack knob Custom Shop reissues being called ‘62 Jazz bass.