Vintage Fenders

[bakerster135]

6 hours ago, SurroundedByManatees said:

Dear vintage lovers. I am looking into a '65 Jazz Bass. The seller says the logo and headstock finish are original. Though it all looks a bit pale to me, compared to most I've seen.

 

Any opinions on this? Second picture is under uv light.

 

It looks pretty legit to me for an early-mid 65. I know what you mean about it somehow looking a bit off, but I think the "Fender" has just faded a bit and everything else about it looks right. The PAT numbers are correct and in the right place, which is something 99.9% of the repro decals seem to get wrong. 

Also, yes, it should be a waterslide decal sitting on top of the finish, which it looks like it is as I can see the edges. As far as I know, they didn't start spraying over the decal until late 60s when they brought the poly finishes in.

Edited Thursday at 22:19 by bakerster135

[SurroundedByManatees]

The decal itself looks pretty good indeed. I expected it to look more like this though when being original:

 

 

All examples I've found have these vivid outlines of the decal surfaces. But I don't know if there are the occasional deviations.

[Steve Browning]

On 02/04/2025 at 08:40, Steve Browning said:

 

Just looked and they're distributed in the UK by Rotosound. Happy days!! I sent my newly delivered 1983 '62 Precision reissue back to Fender because the scratchplate looked so awful. I was put off Spitfire by an extraordinary tale of woe on BC a few years ago.

Just ordered a couple of the scratchplates and will see what they're like in the flesh. 

[Beedster]

Crikey, I return to this thread to find the forum has changed to pickguardchat.co.uk 

 

[Steve Browning]

What's a nice vintage Fender without a nice tort pickguard? 🙂

[mowf]

8 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

What's a nice vintage Fender without a nice tort pickguard? 🙂

Just a vintage Fender.

[Rick's Fine '52]

16 hours ago, SurroundedByManatees said:

 

Its for sale at a shop.

 

its a refin btw.

You mention it being a refin, do you know what the original colour was? 
only asking because Jazz basses were almost always matching headstock for custom colours in ‘65, so if it was originally a colour, then very likely the headstock was stripped at the same time as the body, so very possible to be a new decal.

If it was originally sunburst, then very likely the decal and headstock is original.

Just a consideration. 

[SurroundedByManatees]

Good suggestion. Will ask, thanks!

[bakerster135]

I see this image on the website which gives a bit of a better view of the decal, and this looks more convincing to me. You can see the decal edges better and the grain in the gold of the "Fender".

Also, no offence to the photographer, but the blacklight photo isn't the best. I think if they did it face on and in a much darker room then you'd see something closer to the strat photo you posted.

I'd bet money on it having been refinished from sunburst.

[Burns-bass]

Just seen this:

 

https://bassbros.co.uk/product/1969-fender-jazz-bass-3/
 

Neck doesn’t look right to me. Date stamp is far too clear and little to no colouration on the headstock. All the vintage Fenders I’ve had have a beautiful orange glow to them. Binding also looks far too white.

 

Not suggesting it’s a fake, just intersting.

Edited 10 hours ago by Burns-bass

[Burns-bass]

The massive gap between the scratch plate and the neck too looks wrong to me. I’ve never seen that on hundreds of vintage Fenders.

[SurroundedByManatees]

It surprises me that the ski-jump rarely gets mentioned in the dealers ads. 

[ped]

15 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

The massive gap between the scratch plate and the neck too looks wrong to me. I’ve never seen that on hundreds of vintage Fenders.

It may have shrunk and been repositioned 

[ped]

Just now, SurroundedByManatees said:

It surprises me that the ski-jump rarely gets mentioned in the dealers ads. 

Doesnt surprise me! Somehow vintage always seems to equal ‘amazing’ regardless 

[SurroundedByManatees]

16 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

The massive gap between the scratch plate and the neck too looks wrong to me. I’ve never seen that on hundreds of vintage Fenders.

It seems to have shrunk a lot. Looks legit to me (correct imprint of the thumb rest).

[Alanko]

26 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Just seen this:

 

https://bassbros.co.uk/product/1969-fender-jazz-bass-3/
 

Neck doesn’t look right to me. Date stamp is far too clear and little to no colouration on the headstock. All the vintage Fenders I’ve had have a beautiful orange glow to them. Binding also looks far too white.

 

Not suggesting it’s a fake, just intersting.

Interesting that the tug bar somehow etched its footprint into the front pickguard and discoloured its footprint onto the rear of the pickguard. These plastics really are unstable after all these years.

 

Guitarguitar currently have a '69 Jazz Bass in stock as well as a refin 1979 P Bass.

[rwillett]

Just now, ped said:

Doesnt surprise me! Somehow vintage always seems to equal ‘amazing’ regardless 

That's the bit I find strange. I can remember old cars from the 50s and 60s and without exception, my current Seat Leon estate is a better car in every single way. Faster, roomier, safer, more reliable  etc etc.

 

The way it reads on most vintage guitars is that they seem to have had some special pixie dust sprinkled over them that imbues them with a magical sound that you can't make now. 

 

I know that people like old things, my parents sold antiques, and I have a large collection of cigarette cards (> 1 million) I inherited from my father that we built up together, so I know about "wanting to own" something old, but not every guitar of that era was special. 
 

David Gilmour sold his old Strats and got a lot of money but then said his new ones were just as good.  
 

Saying it's unique because Eric (we're on first name terms) or Jack or Roger or whoever played it, I understand the desire to own it, but that doesn't make it an exceptional sounding guitar or bass. 
 

I love looking at these old guitars but I can't see how each and every one is magical sounding. Some may be great but I suspect some aren't. At the end of the day it's wood and wire and some cheap electrics with some protective covering.
 

Mind you the Mona Lisa is just wood canvas and pigment 😄

 

Rant over

 

Rob

[Reggaebass]

15 minutes ago, Alanko said:

Interesting that the tug bar somehow etched its footprint into the front pickguard and discoloured its footprint onto the rear of the pickguard

Think that’s where the tug bar has been tightened down and the lacquer has impressed onto the back of the pickguard , same with a few of the screws 

Edited 9 hours ago by Reggaebass

[Burns-bass]

I’m not so sure. The later 60s and 70s ones aren’t as prone to shrinking as the early ones. Plus if it had shrunk in such an extreme way it would have cracked at the tips like most of the old ones have.

 

Perhaps I’m overly cynical but I don’t like it.

 

Im more inclined to believe it’s a neck swap than anything else.

Edited 9 hours ago by Burns-bass

[Alanko]

44 minutes ago, ped said:

Doesnt surprise me! Somehow vintage always seems to equal ‘amazing’ regardless 

Nobody is going to sell a vintage bass with the tagline "in mint condition, because it is a total nail and nobody enjoyed playing it".

 

 

GuitarGuitar had a mid-'70s Jazz Bass in a few years back. I had a plunk around on it and it was nothing special at all. Brutishly heavy, with a thick poly finish that looked like a layer of toffee. The neck pocket route in the body was very wavy and approximate, with wavering gaps down both sides of the neck. The body in its entirely seemed a little wavy, club-like and approximate, perhaps testament to worn out router jigs and a disenfranchised workforce. All hardware and routing just seemed a little crooked and imprecisely done.
 

Chips out the lacquer on the neck had let dirt work itself deep into the bare maple underneath leaving ugly grey spots and unpleasant bumps to feel under the left hand. The frets had maybe one re-crown left in them, but were essentially raised metal inlays with lateral roundwound chew across the tops. The block inlays were discoloured, like smokers teeth. There was an ancient corroded Badass bridge and brass nut fitted. The latter ensured the open A string had an ugly rattling overtone. The former, if it did anything at all, made the bass feel even more stiff, cold and unmusical than it might have done anyway. 
 

 

I guess to some, this is all mojo and somehow indicative of a road warrior bass with talismanic properties. To me it just felt like an old and worn out instrument with nothing inherently musical about it, and likely apathetically if not outright badly built in the first place. Unless you somehow sympathetically restored it and re-fretted it you would have the additional bonus of a lynch mob telling you that you had desecrated a valuable antique.

 

 

I'm sure GuitarGuitar will have pitched it as a mystical best in breed, with an inherent aura you cannot find in modern instruments (with their close tolerances and lack of corrosion).

[Burns-bass]

Just now, Burns-bass said:

I’m not so sure. The later 60s and 70s ones aren’t as prone to shrinking as the early ones. Plus if it had shrunk in such an extreme way it would have cracked at the tips like most of the old ones have.

 

Perhaps I’m overly cynical but I don’t like it.

 

[Burns-bass]

Just now, Burns-bass said:

 

I don’t know what happened here.

 

Anyway, I think the body, guard etc are all original. To me it looks like a neck swap.

[Beedster]

2 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

I don’t know what happened here.

 

Anyway, I think the body, guard etc are all original. To me it looks like a neck swap.

 

..... or a Friday afternoon instrument?

[Burns-bass]

Just now, Beedster said:

 

..... or a Friday afternoon instrument?

I’ve never seen one so bad. There’s no way that would go through QC as it is, Friday or not.

 

It just looks like the neck has been swapped for a different one and that’s why there’s a gap.

 

Even if it’s all original (which I don’t believe it is) it’s so god damn ugly I couldn’t bear to look at it.

[Burns-bass]

48 minutes ago, rwillett said:

That's the bit I find strange. I can remember old cars from the 50s and 60s and without exception, my current Seat Leon estate is a better car in every single way. Faster, roomier, safer, more reliable  etc etc.

 

The way it reads on most vintage guitars is that they seem to have had some special pixie dust sprinkled over them that imbues them with a magical sound that you can't make now. 

 

I know that people like old things, my parents sold antiques, and I have a large collection of cigarette cards (> 1 million) I inherited from my father that we built up together, so I know about "wanting to own" something old, but not every guitar of that era was special. 
 

David Gilmour sold his old Strats and got a lot of money but then said his new ones were just as good.  
 

Saying it's unique because Eric (we're on first name terms) or Jack or Roger or whoever played it, I understand the desire to own it, but that doesn't make it an exceptional sounding guitar or bass. 
 

I love looking at these old guitars but I can't see how each and every one is magical sounding. Some may be great but I suspect some aren't. At the end of the day it's wood and wire and some cheap electrics with some protective covering.
 

Mind you the Mona Lisa is just wood canvas and pigment 😄

 

Rant over

 

Rob

People are weird.

 

I knew a guy who had to reinforce his house because the weight of 75,000 records was likely to cause damage.

 

He had every record catalogue in a database that took him years to build.

 

Some people like records, some people like old guitars. World carries on turning.