Vintage Fenders

[Beedster]

4 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Won't come back here anymore, I have way better ways to waste my time.

 

Trust whoever you want: I don't give a shīt anymore.

 

Get screwed by unscrupulous sellers who pretend to know everything : It's your own money after all.

 

Farewell forever, I'm really fed up by human beings!

Mate, apart from the fact that we’d all miss you and your contributions, you do realise that BC is like Hotel California; you can check out any time you want but you can never leave 👍

 

[briansbrew]

3 minutes ago, Beedster said:

Mate, apart from the fact that we’d all miss you and your contributions, you do realise that BC is like Hotel California; you can check out any time you want but you can never leave 👍

 

Hear hear, totally agree, come back Tony...

[OliverBlackman]

30 minutes ago, Rick's Fine '52 said:

The instruments produced are the records. 

I’m sure you know what was meant. There were so many produced and many modified to different degrees, making it very tricky to pick up on all the anomalies. It’s not like cars where everything (baring scrapes and small accidents) is normally documented and therefore traceable.

[Shaggy]

1 hour ago, Beedster said:

Mate, apart from the fact that we’d all miss you and your contributions, you do realise that BC is like Hotel California; you can check out any time you want but you can never leave 👍

 

 

 

Ahhhhh.... that would explain the mirrors on the ceiling and the pink champagne on ice.  They kind of confused me when I joined   (Bassworld, as it was then)

 

Great sentiment though!   

 

Stacked knobs?   To paraphrase Bill Shankley's famous misquote (about football) - It's not a matter of life and death........

...........it's more important than that 

[Burns-bass]

It’s good that people get passionate about this stuff. I know Tony only wants to protect people from spending lots of money on something that may not be as original as it seems.

 

I think we’ve all seen vintage dealers use duplicitous tactics and falsely advertise items they should know aren’t right. 
 

Sadly, this genuine lack of clarity about dates and so on enables people to present items that may be fakes and claim they were production anomalies or all original when parts have been swapped.

 

I see the expertise here a way to counteract that and prevent it happening. 
 

To anyone outside, the idea we’d argue about the originality of a heavily distressed paint job or the dates on a $1 pot that was designed to be replaced when it inevitably fails may sound mad. But we’re all a bit mad.

[rwillett]

20 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

But we’re all a bit mad.

But we're all mad.

 

Corrected that for you. No need to thank me 😁

[Aidan63]

12 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

It didn't, so I've merged it.

I had written (and rewritten/edited several times) my post and was about to hit submit reply just as Ped posted up 'play nice', so just in case anyone got upset I thought it might be politic to post as a separate thread rather than further muddy the waters on this one, I did consider not posting it but having spent a good deal of time on writing it I wanted to validify the time spent writing it to myself at least - perhaps I shouldn't have posted it, my bad☹️

[Hellzero]

On 18/01/2025 at 23:10, Hellzero said:

Of course, the instruments have been photographed earlier, so Leo Fender own statement saying that the 3 knobs version was introduced in late 1961 early 1962 is absolutely right.

 

On 18/01/2025 at 23:16, Rick's Fine '52 said:

A sales catalogue for instruments available that year would have been produced late the previous year, as with any sales brochure. 

 

On 18/01/2025 at 23:17, Hellzero said:

Maybe you should learn to read...

I just wanted to clarify my just above statement: If I wrote that, it's because I stated just before that the instruments in the 1962 catalogue(s) have been photographed before the printing, so probably the quarter before that assessing Leo Fender statement.

 

And if I typed in capitals, it's because I used the codes of fora writing, meaning I was screaming this too many times repeated assertion that some people seem to ignore.

 

So please before my lapidation, read exactly what I wrote and you'll understand that we are just debating about the exact same thing, but a little argument, which can become very important if it's linked to money.

 

Furthermore, the first thing I look at with vintage instruments are always solders, and then the never showed clearly screws as Fender has been using different types over different periods.

 

Old leaded tin solders are prone to oxidation, it's a fact not subject to discussion, which means a 60 years old or more solder can't be super shiny, but tarnished looking with the flux around it looking darkish brown and not brightly orangish.

 

If it's super shiny, it's been redone.

 

Some fakers even go to the next level soldering the wires for their assembly deep inside the cotton (cloth) wires as you can push them back a very long way.

 

Also, the non light exposed parts of the instruments must look more vivid than the exposed ones, except if the clear coat has been removed.

 

Furthermore, a lot of the instruments I see have a huge relic on them and are as shiny as a mirror: where has all the cigarettes tar gone, because if they are in such a used condition they must have been played in the blue fog bars and venues...

 

So as @Burns-bass said, I'm only doing this to avoid people here being scammed by unscrupulous sellers.

 

I'll end up with the very difficult to authenticate transitional period instruments: If you're not 100% sure of the authenticity of the instruments, go see elsewhere and let somebody else get screwed.

 

And if you've never seen a twin stacked knobs 1962 Jazz Bass, it's because it had been replaced by the 3 knobs version.

 

Now, if you still want that list of books, I can compile it for you.

 

I can help, but not at the price I have to pay each time I'm doing it.

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Hellzero
Spelling

[Burns-bass]

So, having read this through, it seems that:

 

Nobody is denying that there are VVT jazz basses constructed in 1961. 

 

But these would have happened later in the year and that anything manufactured in, say, August 1961 should treated with caution. 

 

(I'm only getting involved as it's me who posted the link to the guitar that caused all this hassle. Personally, I think enough doubt has been cast on its originality that I would seek a second opinion from someone who can see the instrument in person, but I'd be prepared to do that if I were going to drop £18k on it, given my experience with vintage dealers.)

[dodgnofski]

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/235907067486?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=gPoFHP4GRFy&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=PjFQ1zqpS7C&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

As good as Clive is, is it just me that thinks this may be a bit pricey for a refin?

Edited 21 hours ago by dodgnofski

[Burns-bass]

9 minutes ago, dodgnofski said:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/235907067486?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=gPoFHP4GRFy&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=PjFQ1zqpS7C&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

As good as Clive is, is it just me that thinks this may be a bit pricey for a refin?

 

Interesting that he says "restored" instead of "refinished". Wonder what the deal is?

[mowf]

18 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

 

Interesting that he says "restored" instead of "refinished". Wonder what the deal is?

If he said "refinished" he'd have to knock £10k off the price...

[sprocketflup]

Apparently the original owner only played it twice in 40 years, so why would it need a refin?

[rwillett]

9 minutes ago, sprocketflup said:

Apparently the original owner only played it twice in 40 years, so why would it need a refin?

The original owner was Pete Townsend.... That's why it needed a restoration...

[tauzero]

10 minutes ago, sprocketflup said:

Apparently the original owner only played it twice in 40 years, so why would it need a refin?

 

Because the current owner has played it a bit more in the last 15 years, perhaps.

 

Knowing as little as I do about vintage Fenders and finding the whole thing about refinishing a bass knocking enormous amounts off its value ludicrous, I would suggest that the checking showing up in the finish is the reason that it was "restored" rather than "refinished", so the majority of that checked finish could be kept and just the enormous graze on it be cleaned up a bit - scrub the wound out, slap a bit of emulsion on it, that'll sort it.

[OliverBlackman]

50 minutes ago, tauzero said:

Knowing as little as I do about vintage Fenders and finding the whole thing about refinishing a bass knocking enormous amounts off its value ludicrous

I would actually prefer a decent refinish to a knackered body finish. But the biggest turn off for me is dents/ scratches to the neck that you feel while playing.

[BassAgent]

1 hour ago, tauzero said:

Knowing as little as I do about vintage Fenders and finding the whole thing about refinishing a bass knocking enormous amounts off its value ludicrous,

I so totally agree. Same goes for refrets. I've had all my 3 vintage Fenders refretted and they're all refins (but they were already refinished when I bought them). If they didn't have new frets, I wouldn't be able to play them properly. I own a vintage Höfner guitar from 1959 that I also am going to have refretted. It's unplayable now.

[briansbrew]

2 hours ago, OliverBlackman said:

I would actually prefer a decent refinish to a knackered body finish. But the biggest turn off for me is dents/ scratches to the neck that you feel while playing.

I am actually fixing some chips and dents to my 73 Jazz as we speak, hate it when you feel every divot when playing

[mikeswals]

4 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

Knowing as little as I do about vintage Fenders and finding the whole thing about refinishing a bass knocking enormous amounts off its value ludicrous, I would suggest that the checking showing up in the finish is the reason that it was "restored" rather than "refinished", so the majority of that checked finish could be kept and just the enormous graze on it be cleaned up a bit - scrub the wound out, slap a bit of emulsion on it, that'll sort it.

Fender is the biggest cash cow for aftermarket and replacement components in the instrument world... Biggest reason is because of fraud bodies & necks or major patches being hidden under a repaint. People are paying for originality on Fenders when its easy to see what you have. Still need to be educated about all the running details though!

Whats to keep (as has happened many times) crooked folks to doctor up a Squier body or Allparts neck , throw a paint job on it and claim originality and try and get top vintage dollar? Its best to leave well enough alone, if still all there.

 

No one is making fraud Spectors, or Musicmans, or Status, they have no aftermarket cash cow market. A Wal will sell whether its original or refin'ed or defretted/fretted

Edited 13 hours ago by mikeswals

[mikeswals]

On 19/01/2025 at 10:26, rodney72a said:

@Rick's Fine '52 is correct, of course, stating that the 3-knobs started around mid-'61. I've seen quite a few examples, in person as well as on photos (some very detailed among those). In my experience, you can find both configurations for the second half of the year.

 

I've yet to see a 1962 stack-knob though, at least a well-documented one. The only one I recall was from a senior contributor on the now deceased Fender Discussion Page who said his was a 1962. Not much evidence or details given, if I remember correctly, so difficult to verify.

 

 

Yeah! I remember on the FDP forum, there was only fella who has a 62 stack knob, its an Aussie named Bill

[Owen]

1 hour ago, mikeswals said:

Yeah! I remember on the FDP forum, there was only fella who has a 62 stack knob, its an Aussie named Bill

Bill Bolton? He of The Bottom Line fame?

[wateroftyne]

Ah, the FDP. Them were the days!

[Stub Mandrel]

11 hours ago, Hellzero said:

where has all the cigarettes tar gone, because if they are in such a used condition they must have been played in the blue fog bars and venues...

 

Just this one point... I know from experience that that crud can build up in just five years, and be removed surprisingly effectively.

[Stub Mandrel]

6 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

Because the current owner has played it a bit more in the last 15 years, perhaps.

 

Knowing as little as I do about vintage Fenders and finding the whole thing about refinishing a bass knocking enormous amounts off its value ludicrous, I would suggest that the checking showing up in the finish is the reason that it was "restored" rather than "refinished", so the majority of that checked finish could be kept and just the enormous graze on it be cleaned up a bit - scrub the wound out, slap a bit of emulsion on it, that'll sort it.

 

My brother bought a 1962 SG junior for a steal before the prices went silly. He was told it was a refin.

 

The luthier (yes a real one who makes teles from scratch) who set it up it beford he bought it swears he didn't need to refin it and it's all original.

 

Then the pots went scratchy. With 1962 codes on. My brother made me swap them for CTS  ones "I want to play the damn thing, not look at it".

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, briansbrew said:

I am actually fixing some chips and dents to my 73 Jazz as we speak, hate it when you feel every divot when playing

 

They are like old friends.