The law of diminishing returns, Tonewood and other folly’s

[Downunderwonder]

1 minute ago, SteveXFR said:

 

It looks like a completely stock Vintage Pro Thunderbird. I can't imagine Alice Cooper letting his bassist sound sub standard just because he had beef with Gibson. The current Epiphone sounds much closer to the 70's Gibson than the current Gibson does.

I am sure Gibson have some crafty elves to make anything look like real deal vintage.

[peteb]

6 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

 

It looks like a completely stock Vintage Pro Thunderbird. I can't imagine Alice Cooper letting his bassist sound sub standard just because he had beef with Gibson. The current Epiphone sounds much closer to the 70's Gibson than the current Gibson does.

 

It's likely that when he got the gig he went to Gibson (or they went to him) and they worked out a deal to push the Epiphone bass. I'm sure that the basses they give him will be top notch and to his spec, just with the Epiphone transfer on the headstock... 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by peteb

[SteveXFR]

Just now, peteb said:

 

It's likely that when he got the gig he went to Gibson (or they went to him) and they worked out a deal to push the Epiphone bass. I'm sure that the basses they give him will be top notch and be to his spec, just with the Epiphone transfer on the headstock... 

 

They've done a convincing job. It's the right shape for the Epiphone,  pickup position is different to Gibson and it's got the cheap pressed tuners and the Epiphone Bridge. Maybe it is just an Epiphone, probably a nicely prepared one but just an Epiphone. 

 

[peteb]

5 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

 

They've done a convincing job. It's the right shape for the Epiphone,  pickup position is different to Gibson and it's got the cheap pressed tuners and the Epiphone Bridge. Maybe it is just an Epiphone, probably a nicely prepared one but just an Epiphone. 

 

 

I'm sure that it will be an Epiphone, but as you say, a very nicely put together one (with probably upgraded pickups, hardware, etc) 

 

[SteveXFR]

7 minutes ago, peteb said:

 

I'm sure that it will be an Epiphone, but as you say, a very nicely put together one (with probably upgraded pickups, hardware, etc) 

 

 

From memory, the Gibson and Epiphone bodies are made from the same wood, both are neck through and the only difference is the shape is a little different and the Gibson has a 9 piece neck while the Epiphone has a 7 piece neck. I'm not sure that'll make make difference. 

[tegs07]

7 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

Although expensive basses are nice, it's always quite reassuring when you see a professional using a cheap instrument. 

Chuck Garrick plays an Epiphone Thunderbird with Alice Cooper. I'm pretty certain he only has to make a quick call to Gibson and they'll send him a truck load of Thunderbirds so he's madea choice to use an Epiphone. 

Kim Deal used a $100 Aria with Pixies for years.

Mike Kerr of Royal Blood used to (possibly still does) use a budget Gretsch and he's a man who's put huge effort in to creating a specific tone.

I’m fairly sure Chuck Garric’s main bass  is a 70’s Fender P. There would be nothing wrong with a well set up Epiphone Vintage Pro though. I keep getting an urge to buy one but really have no need for one.

[SteveXFR]

13 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

I’m fairly sure Chuck Garric’s main bass  is a 70’s Fender P. There would be nothing wrong with a well set up Epiphone Vintage Pro though. I keep getting an urge to buy one but really have no need for one.

 

I know the Thunderbird is one of several basses he uses.

I've got a VP Thunderbird but rarely play it even though it's my favourite bass to play. The only way to play it is loud and aggressive. 

[Thunderbird]

I don't really think about it I just buy what I want within my set budget and don't worry about what anyone else buys or spends if they can afford it and it makes them happy good luck to them 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Thunderbird

[SumOne]

It's a fairly unusual situation in the world of consumerism as old Basses don't really go out of fashion, and they don't really wear out (beyond fairly simple fixes like re-fretting) in fact some wear can add to the appeal, and new technology doesn't leave them obsolete. So when I want to get a Bass I convince myself that if I buy it second hand it's basically a refundable deposit. 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by SumOne

[Woodinblack]

8 hours ago, TimR said:

Brass players and flute players will spend hundreds/thousands on a solid silver mouth piece

 

Not surprisingly because I got a flute that didn't have a silver mouth piece and caused a huge reaction on my lips which hurt quite a bit. Its easier (and looks better) getting silver than putting tape over it!

 

 

6 hours ago, SumOne said:

The £1,700 Combustion is a very well made instrument that I think would be good enough for pretty much any discerning high-level professional player.

 

Glad I am not a discerning high level player then as it isn't good enough for me.

 

6 hours ago, SumOne said:

The Dingwall Z3 costs £6k + and is made by hand in Canada. I've heard nothing but praise for the Canadian made Dingwalls and I'm sure they are better but I find it hard to believe it's really worth £4,300 more

 

it obviously is or they wouldn't exist, and I have seen them.

[SteveXFR]

9 hours ago, SumOne said:

I convince myself that if I buy it second hand it's basically a refundable deposit. 

 

 

 

That's exactly my thoughts. If I don't like it, I'll sell it on again and probably lose nothing or very little.

Even with cheaper gear, it only seems to depreciate once and age doesn't seem to be a factor. A six month old Squier P bass seems to cost he same as a 10 year old Squier P bass

[Guest]

15 hours ago, SumOne said:

The Dingwall range demonstrate the limits to Bass diminishing returns for me:

 

The £1,700 Combustion is a very well made instrument that I think would be good enough for pretty much any discerning high-level professional player. It is a Dingwall design built to a high spec and high-level of quality control but via an efficient mass-produced process in China. That seems to be about the limit for high-end but mass-produced and efficiently made Basses, beyond that the diminishing returns graph of cost vs how 'good' the instrument starts to go almost flat because the increased cost seems to be largely for inefficient production. 

 

The Dingwall Z3 costs £6k + and is made by hand in Canada. I've heard nothing but praise for the Canadian made Dingwalls and I'm sure they are better but I find it hard to believe it's really worth £4,300 more, surely a big chunk of that is down to paying for an inefficient build process - paying people's wages for many hours of work in Canada vs an efficient mass-produced process in China paying lower wages for fewer hours, and it's partly paying for scarcity rather than actually the value of how good the instrument is. (Similar to Wal and Foderas and others).

To a degree you are right, but it’s clearer when you look at the range as a whole.

Combustion - £1700

ABZ £3,000+

AB1 £3,500+

ABII £4,500+

Z £5500+ 

Prima Artist £7500+

 

There is a massive difference between the Chinese Combustions and the ABZ. I owned an NG3 briefly and swapped it for an ABZ soon afterward as the difference in tone and feel, woods, finishing, construction etc. made it a no-brainer for me. There was nothing special about the NG - perfectly usable, but it didn’t have that special something. It felt like a mass produced instrument.

However, having tried the Z models at around double the price of an ABZ, I’d agree that the law of diminishing returns definitely applies - and even more so with the sky high prices of the Prima Artist. At this level you get more of everything (different woods on bass and treble side, more laminations, fancier finishing, different headstock profile, different bridge etc.) but IMHO it’s adds nothing of value and just ups the price massively. To me the elegant simplicity and perfect construction, finishing and tone from the ABZ justifies the cost. It’s also a similar price point to Fender custom shop of MM basses after recent price hikes. Not everyone has £3K to spend on a bass or can justify it, but that’s a very different discussion as everyone’s concept of value is different. Would I be happy with a £400 bass? No.

 

[Bolo]

I don't get the fuss, if you're happy playing a skip rescue and that does it for you that's great. If you have the urge and means to politely fondle a 10k art piece, sure why not.

[Muzz]

22 hours ago, Mokl said:

Don't even get me started on the price of bassoons.

Can I just say that even out of context (especially out of context) that's the best one-line post I've seen on here in a while? 😁

 

Anyhoo, to the subject; yep, there's some great cheap basses - I played the biggest gig I've done in a while recently with a £150 BB414, and I even gigged a £32 (delivered from Thomann!) HB 50s Precision thing at a function event where the ticket price was five times that - but as has been said, although there are diminishing returns (ever more diminishing and more down to personal preference the higher up the price range they go) on more expensive basses, they're still at a high level of value/low level of cost for what you get compared to other Veblens like cars and the orchestral instruments mentioned above. What are seen as the eye-watering top of the scale basses are handbuilt by experts with the very highest quality components, and that clearly has a cost.

 

My luthier-built instruments (Shukers, just in case anyone hadn't heard 😀) are unique, and are a thing I couldn't get for £400, or even £3k from anything factory-built. I know what I like and what I want, it's very specific, and only a luthier can deliver that.

 

I've had (and moved on) basses from Alembic, Sei, Overwater, Status, MM (three Stingrays), Rickenbacker and the like; all £3k+ basses these days, but they were moved on not because they weren't value for money, or even poor basses (apart from the Rick), but because they didn't suit me, and for that money they need to suit me very very well. I gigged them all, to be sure, and I'd gig anything I bought; my 'justification' for that is 'I own it, I want to gig it.'

 

I can also comment on the Dingwall thing, too; I have an ABZ, I've had two ABIIs, and I've played several Combustions, and there is a definite, substantial difference between the Combustions and the Canadian-built ones, in terms of quality, which translates into the bass feeling 'alive'.

 

Edit: And I got all the way through that without mentioning tonewood once...ooops... 😃

Edited November 24, 2021 by Muzz

[SumOne]

I stand corrected on the Dingwalls - I've never actually played anything other than the Combustion and NG and D-Roc so I'm clearly talking out of my a*se! I'd like to play one of the >£3k range as I couldn't really fault the ones that cost half that, it'd need to be a big improvement for me to spend another >£1,500 and not feel like a big chunk of the cost was paying for scarcity and Canadian vs Chinese wages.

 

Even if I was a millionaire I'd have ridiculously high expectations of this £10,500 Prima  for me to feel that's good value for money, but I guess the 'value' of things isn't the same for everyone as some will pay that and be happy about it.

[Muzz]

If it'll bring things into more perspective, have a glance at the Alembic Price List...but make sure you're sitting down first... 😀

[SumOne]

3 minutes ago, Muzz said:

If it'll bring things into more perspective, have a glance at the Alembic Price List...but make sure you're sitting down first... 😀

 

They must need the cash, the website seems to be stuck in the 90s. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SumOne said:

I stand corrected on the Dingwalls - I've never actually played anything other than the Combustion and NG and D-Roc so I'm clearly talking out of my a*se! I'd like to play one of the >£3k range as I couldn't really fault the ones that cost half that, it'd need to be a big improvement for me to spend another >£1,500 and not feel like a big chunk of the cost was paying for scarcity and Canadian vs Chinese wages.

 

Even if I was a millionaire I'd have ridiculously high expectations of this £10,500 Prima  for me to feel that's good value for money, but I guess the 'value' of things isn't the same for everyone as some will pay that and be happy about it.

There’s the flaw in your argument: it’s got nothing to do with value for money. It’s about scarcity, desirability, and individuality, and some of this comes directly from price and branding. It’s the same with any other consumer item. A basic Ford Focus will get you to your destination in exactly the same way as a Porsche 911. Is the Porsche value for money at 5 times the price? No, it really isn’t. But they still sell plenty, right

[Boodang]

12 minutes ago, Muzz said:

If it'll bring things into more perspective, have a glance at the Alembic Price List...but make sure you're sitting down first... 😀

When I had my first Sei bass made I had many a conversation with Martin (owner/builder and someone who doesn't over charge) about charging what something is worth and charging what you can get away with. Alembic feels like the later.

And whilst some people say 'well that's what people will pay', for me there is an element of ripping people off about the later just because they have a unique product. 

[bassman7755]

59 minutes ago, Boodang said:

When I had my first Sei bass made I had many a conversation with Martin (owner/builder and someone who doesn't over charge) about charging what something is worth and charging what you can get away with. Alembic feels like the later.

And whilst some people say 'well that's what people will pay', for me there is an element of ripping people off about the later just because they have a unique product. 

Its not ripping anyone off unless there is deception involved. I've moaned in the past about Tech 21s frankly ludicrous prices for their pedals especially the signature series but ... they arn't ripping people off. Noone has duty at the end of the day to sell something for some pre conceived idea of "whats its worth", its down to the prospective buyer to insist on value for money as they see it. Alembics eye watering prices are a down to those willing to pay the money as are Tech 21s pedals.

Edited November 24, 2021 by bassman7755

[Muzz]

An extreme example of this 'what are things actually worth?' is De Beers' manipulation of the diamond market over the last century...the diamond being probably the most common gem on the planet...

[TimR]

20 minutes ago, Muzz said:

An extreme example of this 'what are things actually worth?' is De Beers' manipulation of the diamond market over the last century...the diamond being probably the most common gem on the planet...

Only some people can cut them though.

 

It's the same with anything that takes people's time. You decide how much you want to do something and charge for your time appropriately. 

 

If someone wants me to play a wedding its going to cost them a lot of money. I have to set aside a day a long time in advance and turn down any work that I'm offered for that day.

 

Same with making a bass. Someone can only make one bass at a time. If hundreds of people are willing to pay £1600 for it, then you increase your price until only one person wants to buy it. 

 

If you have a factory churning out one every 40 seconds then people are willing to pay a lot less for something that has several copies and is not unique. 

[Boodang]

1 hour ago, bassman7755 said:

Its not ripping anyone off unless there is deception involved. I've moaned in the past about Tech 21s frankly ludicrous prices for their pedals especially the signature series but ... they arn't ripping people off. Noone has duty at the end of the day to sell something for some pre conceived idea of "whats its worth", its down to the prospective buyer to insist on value for money as they see it. Alembics eye watering prices are a down to those willing to pay the money as are Tech 21s pedals.

Well, an example of this concept is patents and drug industry.. they rip the *rse out it while they can and then when the patent has ended people start making it for a reasonable profit and the price comes down dramatically. There's no deception involved (admittedly there's an element of recouping development costs) but the emphasis is on reasonable when it comes to profit.

If it's not reasonable then there's an element of taking the p*ss.

[Boodang]

1 minute ago, Boodang said:

Well, an example of this concept is patents and drug industry.. they rip the *rse out it while they can and then when the patent has ended people start making it for a reasonable profit and the price comes down dramatically. There's no deception involved (admittedly there's an element of recouping development costs) but the emphasis is on reasonable when it comes to profit.

If it's not reasonable then there's an element of taking 

1 hour ago, bassman7755 said:

Its not ripping anyone off unless there is deception involved. I've moaned in the past about Tech 21s frankly ludicrous prices for their pedals especially the signature series but ... they arn't ripping people off. Noone has duty at the end of the day to sell something for some pre conceived idea of "whats its worth", its down to the prospective buyer to insist on value for money as they see it. Alembics eye watering prices are a down to those willing to pay the money as are Tech 21s pedals.

 

PS when I got my Sei made, Martin reckoned he could charge way more for his basses but he didn't want to do that as it would making what he thought would be an unreasonable profit and thus ripping people off. In other words charging what he thought it was worth not what he could get away... ie. an honourable guy.

[TheLowDown]

On 22/11/2021 at 14:50, tegs07 said:

There have been a couple of interesting threads (to me) recently about instruments, their construction, marketing and value. Some points such as the materials the instrument is made from (tonewood - or to give it a less contentious name simply wood commonly used by luthiers) seem to incite foaming at the mouth. The other element for contentious debate is value and what is required for a company to achieve that value (marketing).
 

I think most people would agree that technology, a cheaper manufacturing base  and production workflow has improved to such an extent that no working musician really needs to spend more than £400 on an instrument. If we get rid of marketing costs behind a brand this would probably drop to nearer the £200 mark.

Does this seem a reasonable conclusion?

If so why do we pay more, particularly if we are in the camp that dismisses any tangible benefits of wood choice and other similar incremental upgrades and also dislikes brands and the marketing and endorsement required to build those brands?

I think you're spot on the mark. It's why I don't bother with expensive basses. Lots of people mistakenly judge quality by price tag or brand name, totally oblivious to the fact that they're getting screwed most of the time. People believe that if they pay a lot for something, it must be good lol. 

It always pays to do extensive research before purchases and to be aware of the market.

Edited November 25, 2021 by TheLowDown