Warwick Thumb question

[Paulhauser]

Calling Warwick experts / Thumb historians here 🙂

I have recently took possession of a mid-2010's Warwick Thumb NT6 which I quite like. It piqued my interest in the model and its history. I had a '91 Thumb NT5 before which I did not like, neither the ergonomics not the sound but this NT6 is surpassing my expectations in both departments and as strange a beast it is I like it a lot (honeymoon period maybe).

As this one has EMG's in it not the typical MEC or Bartolini I went a bit of a window shopping trip to see what's out there for sale (used) Only NT, no bolt-on and masterbuilt / whatever it was called before. Not that I need another one but just....you know how it is 🙂 Mainly I was looking for the natural bubinga bodied ones and digging into the model's history I became aware that there are a couple of phases. Like the early ones had somewhat skinnier necks and mainly Barts in them, then MEC came in and also in the 2000's the neck became ovangkol and thicker, too. Also I read about the truss rod/nut issues that were popping up in the same time.

So anyone in the know could verify these or point me out what to look for or avoid in terms of woods, time periods, pickups (Mec vs. Barts) Or simply elaborate on the models history a bit (or direct me to someplace where this already have been discussed. What I'd like to especially know:

- how much is the difference between Barts and Mec soapbars

- which period has the skinnier necks (in Ww terms, anyway)

- anything to look for / avoid as if I will ever make a purchase it will be a distance purchase most likely so can't try or inspect (truss rod)

Thanks in advance!

 

 

 

[warwickhunt]

If you register on the Warwick Forum you'll find various threads to Thumb history.  The 6 string is a whole other beast to other Thumb basses as they weren't around when you are talking about the skinny neck period in W history (when many of the truss rod issues were happening).  Oddly I can't recall the Thumbs ever having these issues with truss rods which could be due to the multi-laminate construction and certainly 6 string necks would be solid.  

Pups - Early days (pre W 6 string bass) you could get virtually any pup you wanted just by asking the dealer that stocked Warwicks; Bartolini, EMG, Seymour Duncan, even Alembic; at this point no MEC.  In fact the early basses had way more EMG pups than Bartolini or any of the other brands, Alembic being the least common.  Warwick then bought MEC in the late 80's and produced their own pups to drop into Warwicks but you could still order your Warwick with other pups if you paid the premium.  Differences between the different brands get discussed regularly and everyone has their own take on favourite.  I personally reckon there's very little in it between most of the brands (Bartolini maybe have a different characteristic) and I once did a blind test between EMGs and MECs in the same bass and me and another guy could not have said which was which.  I've owned 4 string Warwicks with all of the flavours (except Alembic) and I find that there is more tonal difference in changing string brands than there is in pups.    

 

[thodrik]

This is pretty irrelevant to the thread @Paulhauser,  but could you be kind enough to provide a brief comparison between the Warwick Thumb 6 and your Spector Forte 6? 

The reason I ask is that  both Spector and Warwick are options I am considering as a first six string in the future and it is highly unlikely that I will find them in a shop to try out side by side! 

Cheers!

Edited May 27, 2021 by thodrik
Terrible sentence structure i.e. 'the usual'

[Paulhauser]

@warwickhunt thank you for taking your time to comment. I never was very deep into comparing or swapping pickups other than the EMGs in my Spectors so what you have written is fair enough of an information for me and answers my question. 
 

As for necks, what do you mean by the NT6 not being around? Were they not produced for a while? I found NT6s from 91, 2011 and iirc from the end of the 80’s...

[bagsieblue]

1 hour ago, warwickhunt said:

If you register on the Warwick Forum you'll find various threads to Thumb history.  The 6 string is a whole other beast to other Thumb basses as they weren't around when you are talking about the skinny neck period in W history (when many of the truss rod issues were happening).  Oddly I can't recall the Thumbs ever having these issues with truss rods which could be due to the multi-laminate construction and certainly 6 string necks would be solid.  

Good point!!! - seen many of the truss issue basses  - had a few myself. 

I cant recall any of them being Thumbs, so anecdotally fully agree that this would be much less common on Thumbs.

[Paulhauser]

1 hour ago, thodrik said:

This is pretty irrelevant to the thread @Paulhauser,  but could you be kind enough to provide a brief comparison between the Warwick Thumb 6 and your Spector Forte 6? 

The reason I ask is that they are both Spector and Warwick are options I am considering as a first six string in the future and it is highly unlikely that I will find them in a shop to try out side by side! 

Cheers!

Happy to do it, mind you I am a full time Spector owner-user (you know that I guess) and the Thumb I only played for a week- albeit quite a lot.

Both have incredible build  and finish quality so both winners there.

The Thumb is 34” but due to the design the first fret positions are the same place as with the 35” Spector. 
Thumb is heavier.

IIRC neck dimensions are very similar (nut width 82 vs 84mm fingerboard widt at the  24th fret 85 vs 86mm) but the Spector neck profile is thinner front to back. Also spacing at the bridge is the same (17mm)

Soundwise they’re different and both represent well the characteristics of their breed (NT6 Thumbs vs NS Spectors with soapbars) but there is lot more sonic difference between 5 and 6 string Thumbs than between 5/6 NS Spectors. As said above the NT6 is really stands in its own.

 Happy to answer any further questions you may have...

[Paulhauser]

1 hour ago, bagsieblue said:

Good point!!! - seen many of the truss issue basses  - had a few myself. 

I cant recall any of them being Thumbs, so anecdotally fully agree that this would be much less common on Thumbs.

Actually it was some of your comments in a WW related topic about truss rod issues that caught my eye as a potentional problem for basses from 2000-2010-ish.

[thodrik]

19 minutes ago, Paulhauser said:

Happy to do it, mind you I am a full time Spector owner-user (you know that I guess) and the Thumb I only played for a week- albeit quite a lot.

Both have incredible build  and finish quality so both winners there.

The Thumb is 34” but due to the design the first fret positions are the same place as with the 35” Spector. 
Thumb is heavier.

IIRC neck dimensions are very similar (nut width 82 vs 84mm fingerboard widt at the  24th fret 85 vs 86mm) but the Spector neck profile is thinner front to back. Also spacing at the bridge is the same (17mm)

Soundwise they’re different and both represent well the characteristics of their breed (NT6 Thumbs vs NS Spectors with soapbars) but there is lot more sonic difference between 5 and 6 string Thumbs than between 5/6 NS Spectors. As said above the NT6 is really stands in its own.

 Happy to answer any further questions you may have...

Thanks, that is brilliant. 

I was really wondering about the differences in neck profile and feel of the frets from 34'' to 35 '' scale, so you have pretty much covered everything I am looking for. 

I love the look of the dual soapbar pickups on the Thumb 6. The dual j-style pickups on the 5 string Thumbs don't do anything for me personally. 

I am guessing that the Spector feels a bit more balanced? I have heard that Thumbs can suffer from a bit of neck dive. 

My current 5 strings are a Vigier and a Sadowsky neither of whom offer a 6 string (Vigier used to but not for well over 10 years). 

A Spector Forte is probably the most likely as I like the stripped down finish compared to the 'bling' of the glossed finishes on the Euro or full on US made NS series.

I do love the 'woody' look of the Thumbs though so I keep coming back to them, as well as the fact that the GPS bolt on 6 string Thumb can be bout for just over £2000-£2,300 new which seems respectable in the current market.  

Luckily I just built a patio so the funds for the six string are no longer there. However, this is something I will be continuing to consider for the next couple of years so many thanks!

[OliverBlackman]

2 hours ago, bagsieblue said:

Good point!!! - seen many of the truss issue basses  - had a few myself. 

I cant recall any of them being Thumbs, so anecdotally fully agree that this would be much less common on Thumbs.

That’s annoying because I had a NT thumb and the truss rod had to be replaced. I have a feeling the seller knew this but disappeared off basschat after the sale.

[bagsieblue]

2 minutes ago, OliverBlackman said:

That’s annoying because I had a NT thumb and the truss rod had to be replaced. I have a feeling the seller knew this but disappeared off basschat after the sale.

Ahh, bad news.

There is a Bleached Blonde Thumb actually that is/was in the UK with dodgy truss rod too.  So, yeah, not unheard of but appears to appear less often on Thumbs than on other Warwick models.

[warwickhunt]

4 hours ago, Paulhauser said:

As for necks, what do you mean by the NT6 not being around? Were they not produced for a while? I found NT6s from 91, 2011 and iirc from the end of the 80’s...

I'd have thought a 6 string Thumb before 91 would have been a custom order... in the 80's period of Warwicks even a 5 string was a rare bird!    

Warwick started in 82 though the Thumb (4) didn't arrive till 85 iirc.  You do get mid/late 80's 5 string Thumbs but 6 strings weren't 'fashionable' back then so I doubt there was a demand for them to produce for stock.  Lots of the 80's basses had an element of hands on work, which became less so as production techniques changed.  Into the 90's and 00's you had a lot higher number production, so 5/6 string basses would be regular production. 

[Paulhauser]

15 minutes ago, warwickhunt said:

I'd have thought a 6 string Thumb before 91 would have been a custom order... in the 80's period of Warwicks even a 5 string was a rare bird!    

Warwick started in 82 though the Thumb (4) didn't arrive till 85 iirc.  You do get mid/late 80's 5 string Thumbs but 6 strings weren't 'fashionable' back then so I doubt there was a demand for them to produce for stock.  Lots of the 80's basses had an element of hands on work, which became less so as production techniques changed.  Into the 90's and 00's you had a lot higher number production, so 5/6 string basses would be regular production. 

Ok, I see what you have meant. Do you know that the stories of the 2000' ovangkol neck basses had chunkier profile than before or after? Maybe it is not so much true for a 6 string neck but seem to remember reading about that in general Ww neck profiles changed through time and there was a period of think / chunky necks....

[Paulhauser]

@thodrik the Spector is 5,15 kgs, the Thumb is 5,6 kgs. 

[warwickhunt]

'W' neck profiles have changed through time and across the range but tbh I'd not have a clue if that applied to the 6 string basses... I'd assume not as their mass must be dictated to a greater degree than say a 4 string.  Likewise I doubt 6 string basses have the 'broad neck' option.  

[Paulhauser]

6 hours ago, warwickhunt said:

'  Likewise I doubt 6 string basses have the 'broad neck' option.  

The bolt on Thumb 6 and the singlecut Thumb 6 both have the broadneck option and there are quite a few out there. However I haven't seen a NT6 broadneck....

[funkypenguin]

13 hours ago, warwickhunt said:

If you register on the Warwick Forum you'll find various threads to Thumb history.  The 6 string is a whole other beast to other Thumb basses as they weren't around when you are talking about the skinny neck period in W history (when many of the truss rod issues were happening).  Oddly I can't recall the Thumbs ever having these issues with truss rods which could be due to the multi-laminate construction and certainly 6 string necks would be solid.  

Pups - Early days (pre W 6 string bass) you could get virtually any pup you wanted just by asking the dealer that stocked Warwicks; Bartolini, EMG, Seymour Duncan, even Alembic; at this point no MEC.  In fact the early basses had way more EMG pups than Bartolini or any of the other brands, Alembic being the least common.  Warwick then bought MEC in the late 80's and produced their own pups to drop into Warwicks but you could still order your Warwick with other pups if you paid the premium.  Differences between the different brands get discussed regularly and everyone has their own take on favourite.  I personally reckon there's very little in it between most of the brands (Bartolini maybe have a different characteristic) and I once did a blind test between EMGs and MECs in the same bass and me and another guy could not have said which was which.  I've owned 4 string Warwicks with all of the flavours (except Alembic) and I find that there is more tonal difference in changing string brands than there is in pups.    

 

Thats interesting WH as far as the pickup types vs string types is concerned  The thing that made the biggest difference to my bass was having an East U-retro preamp put it, it totally transformed the bass. To my ears, the MEC pickups/preamp have a thin top end with a harsh edge to it, the East pre really sweetened it a lot while still retaining the Warwick growl.

I'd never heard of a Warwick being fitted with alembic pickups before, they must be a rare beast indeed!

Ben

[warwickhunt]

I can imagine something like the East preamp would be a different tonal slant altogether as it can tone shape/filter in a very different way to a standard 2-3 band preamp; LukeFRC fitted an East pre to a SSI and by all accounts it was a game changer. 

Strings on basses IMHO is a massively overlooked aspect of tone.  We all have our own preferences for gauge and material (for some people, down to the string core shape).  At it's most basic level, a set of new strings can make a bass come alive with harmonics and feel (especially if you try a gauge you've maybe not had) but I suspect that some string types are better suited to certain basses than others.  Whether it is the string (density/material/structure or whatever) reacting with the pup (type/material/proximity) or the string reacting to the bass (wood material/construction/etc) I don't know but some basses I've had sounded pants with certain strings yet chuck a different type/gauge/brand on and it changes and I'm not saying putting new strings on will improve a bass but it is a given that it will sound different.  

I have a Streamer that has had the same set of round wound strings on for 4-5 (is it 6 now) and I've tried putting new strings on and it sounds lifeless with new strings (D'Addario and/or Rotosound lately).  Not lacking in top end but the whole spectrum of sound is lacking YET they are the same gauge (if I measure with gauge) and material as replacement strings... annoyingly, I've no idea what these strings are as they came from another bass and at the time I was experimenting with lots of other string types (but all nickel 45-105).  Conversely, I've taken these (old) strings and put them on another Streamer and they don't make much difference to that bass which itself DOES take well to the new strings.  

All anecdotal and unscientific but strings on basses is the next 'Heft/Class D/Speaker diameter/fingerboard material'!    

[LukeFRC]

15 minutes ago, warwickhunt said:

 

I can imagine something like the East preamp would be a different tonal slant altogether as it can tone shape/filter in a very different way to a standard 2-3 band preamp; LukeFRC fitted an East pre to a SSI and by all accounts it was a game changer. 

 

 

That was the ACG/east filter based preamp  the East stuff is a bit more standard (but v v good)

[LeftyJ]

Here is a cool, brief history of most Warwick models ever produced. It's a PDF made by two Warwick fans and describes some of the changes that have been made to models throughout the years. Not by model, but in chronological order. Not all versions of the Thumb are pictured, unfortunately. The Thumb has changed shape considerably during its lifespan, the first ones had even more compact bodies with an even shorter top horn. It wasn't until Jack Bruce started playing Thumbs and requested the top horn to be extended that it started to look like the current Thumb NT. Here's a rare 1985 Thumb with the original bodyshape:

[bassbora]

I have two Thumbs both are 89 and are 5 and 6. Neck is the thinner profile and to me has always been amazing. The 5 has EMGs and I have always really liked the sound from them. 
 

The 6 I got off here maybe 10 years ago possibly 12. It’s fretless but the guy I bought it off said it had been fretted but had the change done at the Gallery. Its with Barts. I think that bass has the best tone I have heard and the neck is perfection. Obviously just my opinion. 
 

I have never had any truss rod issues with either of them (or the other two Warwicks I have). 
 

As has been covered so many times the ergonomics are not for everyone but it suits me really well. 
 

Just a final thought you should try and find the thread on the Warwick forum by Jeroen Thesseling showing I think it was 6 NT fretless Thumbs from 89-91 or there abouts. I am not into that music at all but it is impressive to see that guy in action with Obscura. Might be worth a YouTube watch to see Thumbs in action. 

I remembered wrong, 5 basses and not all fretless 

Found the link

https://forum.warwickforum.com/threads/thumb-nt-collection.2709/

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by bassbora

[CookPassBabtridge]

On 27/05/2021 at 15:27, Paulhauser said:

Ok, I see what you have meant. Do you know that the stories of the 2000' ovangkol neck basses had chunkier profile than before or after? Maybe it is not so much true for a 6 string neck but seem to remember reading about that in general Ww neck profiles changed through time and there was a period of think / chunky necks....

I’ve got a 2009 Ovangkol BO Thumb and it has the chunky neck. Common claims that they are like ‘baseball bats’ are an exaggeration. They are actually very comfortable IMO.

That said I have switched the MEC preamp for a Bartolini (I wanted a 3 band EQ) and plan to do the same with the pickups. 

[Paulhauser]

@bassbora thank you for your thoughts on your own Thumbs. As for JPT I'm well aware of him, I happen to like the Obscura record he first played on with them (Cosmogenesis) also like his Ensemble Salazhar record (was it a demo?). He is a monster player and one of the reason I always thought that fretless Thumbs have some of the best fretless sound for me. The other is the Hungarian player Attila Fehervari with Special Providence, he played a lot his Thumb BO5 fretless and has great sound in the mix. 

[LukeFRC]

Every time Obscura are meantioned I mentally think of The band Canera Obscura and feel confused

[Paulhauser]

8 minutes ago, LukeFRC said:

Every time Obscura are meantioned I mentally think of The band Canera Obscura and feel confused

For a long time it brought me back the Obscura record by Gorguts 😄 Differents strokes I think 😄

[Paulhauser]

4 hours ago, CookPassBabtridge said:

I’ve got a 2009 Ovangkol BO Thumb and it has the chunky neck. Common claims that they are like ‘baseball bats’ are an exaggeration. They are actually very comfortable IMO.

That said I have switched the MEC preamp for a Bartolini (I wanted a 3 band EQ) and plan to do the same with the pickups. 

I think it is the 6 string when it really matters..... I play Spectors for 15 years and some said some of them have chunky necks (talking about 5ers)  but I never had one that I had a problem with in this regards. Now 6ers are where every fraction of an inch matters... or maybe we all can get used to pretty much anything and it's just nitpicking.