Should Wal scale up their operation?

[joe_geezer]

5 minutes ago, Misdee said:

Well, as far as I recall, in their heyday Wal had maybe four or five people working directly on the basses,  by the 1990s one of whom was Paul Herman.

 

I've played the new Paul Herman era basses and I suspect one reason they are so back ordered is because they are much better made nowadays. Back in the day Wals were a bit inconsistent when it came to some of the finer points of fit and finish compared with what folks expect from companies like Alembic or Fodera.  In comparison the basses Paul is making now are absolutely meticulous and easily compare to the very best basses be made anywhere.

 

Before I get piled on by vintage Wal owners, let me just clarify that the older Wals were top quality basses but they sold at a much lower price point and were made in larger numbers. They were hand made basses, but I think the amount of hours spent making each one was probably less. The approach to making them in those days was a practical one, I think it would be fair to say.

 

Paul Herman comes from a sightly different background in so much as he studied instrument making at the Guildhall and is much more methodical in his approach. You can really tell that when you compare the newer basses with the vintage ones.

 

I wouldn't want Paul to compromise on the quality of his basses, but then again, I'm not desperate to buy one. A lot of folks are. 

 

 

I played many original Wals and never found any to be second rate, on the contrary they were at least as good as a Fodera, Alembic...  i must have been lucky  

[Shaggy]

11 hours ago, Doctor J said:

I wish they'd sell the pickups and electronics separately but I imagine that wouldn't be quite so profitable.

 

Thats something Wal will never, ever do.  Every part on a Wal bass is bespoke apart from the tuners, and they know that’s a big part of what makes their bases unique and effectively uncopyable (there are close custom build copies of course - IMO the Enfield Cannon is pretty much a copy of a mk2 - but never exact).

 

I acquired the ‘83 Wal Mk 1 Custom that Beedster sold on here a good few years ago, that had been previously modded with the pickups being swapped for Seymour Duncan Jazz bass pickups, and the preamp circuit for a generic 2-band one; probably in the late ‘80’s judging by the parts.  Why?   Some things will forever remain a mystery.....🤔.    

I approached Wal asking if they could supply pickups and a circuit so that I could restore it to original spec;  they were incredibly suspicious at first, but once I brought the bass in they were happy to fit the replacement parts and do the necessary bit of remedial woodworking, as long as they did it themselves.   Which of course they did a fantastic job of doing. 👍

 

Moved that one on, but I’m lucky enough to still own an ‘85 Mk 1 fretless and ‘83 Mk 1 fretted.  Bassfinger’s analogy with Morgan cars as a business model similar to Wal’s is an apt one.  Any modern sports car will blow a Morgan off the road, are more technologically advanced, are produced more efficiently and economically, and may even be considered better looking.   But to drive a Morgan (as I have) is a unique and special experience, and it’s the perfect original design and hand-build care on a small scale that keeps them special.

 

[acidbass]

1 hour ago, thodrik said:

The worst thing that they could do in my opinion is sign a licensing agreement with for mass-produced designs made in the far east with varying degrees of quality control. That would quickly ruin the exclusive nature of the brand and in turn reduce interest.

See also - Sadowsky.  To my mind, their decision to take the above approach has diluted the quality of a brand which would once have had the same reputation as Fodera etc.

[BigRedX]

57 minutes ago, LeftyJ said:

This is an interesting point, as this appears to be more or less the strategy embraced by Warwick. Their German-made instruments were split into a "teambuilt" German Pro Series, and a "masterbuilt" Custom Shop line with eye-watering prices that quickly rise in excess of €10.000 even when you don't go nuts on exotic woods, solid brass hardware and other exclusive options. They introduced a "Rockbass" series of cheap Chinese basses which had none of THE famous Warwick features other than the same basic shapes and electronics. They then introduced a Korean-made "Pro Series" line, and quickly dissolved it again only to cease production of the first Rockbass line, and replace the Pro Series with a higher-end Rockbass line that does share some iconic Warwick features but not the typical wood species associated with the brand.

They barely have a European dealer network anymore, aside from the big internet names like Thomann, and exclusivity of the German basses has only gone up it seems. Pricing is insane, but people still seem willing to pay them even when many  a skilled luthier will build you something similar at half of what Warwick charges. I don't understand 

 

The Warwick model is also subject the problems like when the "cheaper" versions turn out to be just as good as "full-fat" ones. Certainly my MiK StarBass was at least as good (if not better) than any of the German StarBasses I had tried previously, but a fraction of the price. It's no wonder that Warwick stopped having them made.

[AndyTravis]

3 minutes ago, acidbass said:

See also - Sadowsky.  To my mind, their decision to take the above approach has diluted the quality of a brand which would once have had the same reputation as Fodera etc.

I think Sadowsky had it right up until the Warwick setup.

 

if you want specifics/custom features - there’s a wait, and a price tag.

 

If you wanted a Sadowsky but base spec - you could buy a metro.

 

But - Wal are doing whatever they want to do; I recall a long conversation with a chap from UK PRS distributor who said they were looking at Wal before PH rescued them.

 

One of their plans was an affordable line - like the PRS SE.

 

That was years ago, Wal Mk1/2 were changing hands for £1800-£2500 then.

 

Looks like PH choosing to keep it exclusive have worked in favour of the brand reputation/mystique etc.

[chris_b]

IMO Wal are doing just what they need to do in order to maintain their brand.

 

Pete Stevens passed the whole company over to Paul Herman (an ex Wal luthier), so they are very much genuine Wal basses.

[thodrik]

17 minutes ago, acidbass said:

See also - Sadowsky.  To my mind, their decision to take the above approach has diluted the quality of a brand which would once have had the same reputation as Fodera etc.

As an owner of two Sadowskys (one NYC, one Metro) that is pretty much what I was thinking when I wrote my original post. 

It isn't meant as a slight on Warwick, who obviously make quality basses. But as soon as you go down a large scale licensing route it can be a slippery slope. 

[ezbass]

12 hours ago, Jean-Luc Pickguard said:

 

 

*A wilcock kind of looks a bit like a wal, I wouldn't mind a short scale one with a single Guild BS-1 bisonic pickup.

Yes they do and there’s an element of Hayman/Shergold in there too. I’d really like a Mullarkey, but the price has gone up considerably in the last year or so and that model is now north of £2k  

[12stringbassist]

Further to my earlier comment about them 'not being Wal basses as they were', I am very pleased to hear that some people think that they are a big improvement on the originals. Companies do evolve and indeed, people do pass away or leave, and it's true that Waller and Pete the Fish were what the company was about - BUT, if the basses are now a step up and they have agreed use of the brand name, then I wish the very best of luck to them.

I'm sure they know what they want to do as their business model. There's no need to do a far East-made budget range just to satisfy those with lighter wallets. Rickenbacker do it to suit themselves and I'm sure the people who make the current Wal's have thought this through over the years.

[Daz39]

1 hour ago, joe_geezer said:

If Wal were to hire an extra 2 contractors, that would at least halve the waiting times, would that be a positive move or do you think even that would degrade the quality of Wals?

They may well have tried/be trying: it’s not an easy post to fill.

[joe_geezer]

So, would the general consensus  be, that folk, are happy that they probably will never have the means or the finances to own a Wal & that keeping the prices very high and the wait times very long is actually a positive sign that Wal are making great instruments - even if none of use will ever own one... ?

 

If we compare Wal to Alembics then Wals seem cheap as Alembics go for £18,000. 

 

Alembic basses are constructed with more exotic woods, a more time consuming process, lots of mother of pearl and gold plated metal work .etc - they are like the Rolls Royce of basses.

 

Wals are bolt on & if you compare other top end bolt on basses like Pensa, Sadowsky .etc they are in the $5000+ range.

 

Wal's were always competitively priced back when Waller and pete the fish were running the show... and those instruments were fantastically built, i'm not sure I agree as some people have mentioned that they were sub standard - if that was the case then Geddy Lee, Paul Mccartney, Percy Jones etc. etc. wouldnt have played and loved them. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by joe_geezer

[Burns-bass]

Master craftspeople are highly protective of their products and their legacy, and rightly so. I was going to commission a guitar from Kinkade in Bristol. The waiting list is 7 years, and given the age of the maker there's no guarantee it will ever be completed. That's because every build is 100% bespoke and created for the person and the player.

 

I've had Wals and they were OK. They're quirky things that do what they do very well. I can't understand the premium, but I can understand why they're so protective of their IP and legacy. Good luck to them.

[BigRedX]

At the risk of being blunt...

 

If you really want a Wal, then start saving now. Maybe you'll be lucky and find one secondhand at a more affordable price, but the current prices are what they are, and are unlikely to go down any time soon.

 

Unfortunately moaning about the prices on the internet won't make them any cheaper...

[Bass Culture]

26 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

the current prices are.... unlikely to go down any time soon.

 

Or, indeed, ever!

[ezbass]

1 hour ago, joe_geezer said:

So, would the general consensus  be, that folk, are happy that they probably will never have the means or the finances to own a Wal & that keeping the prices very high and the wait times very long is actually a positive sign that Wal are making great instruments - even if none of use will ever own one... ?

 

If we compare Wal to Alembics then Wals seem cheap as Alembics go for £18,000. 

 

Alembic basses are constructed with more exotic woods, a more time consuming process, lots of mother of pearl and gold plated metal work .etc - they are like the Rolls Royce of basses.

 

Wals are bolt on & if you compare other top end bolt on basses like Pensa, Sadowsky .etc they are in the $5000+ range.

 

Wal's were always competitively priced back when Waller and pete the fish were running the show... and those instruments were fantastically built, i'm not sure I agree as some people have mentioned that they were sub standard - if that was the case then Geddy Lee, Paul Mccartney, Percy Jones etc. etc. wouldnt have played and loved them. 

Happy? Dunno. I’m not sure if it’s down to the likes of me to be happy or sad about a particular company’s business model that hasn’t changed and has worked and still works for them. If they changed that model, then it might be open to comment and criticism, as in the recent changes to Sadowsky business model with Warwick. As things stand, as much as I’d like to own a Wal, I won’t, as I can’t justify having that amount of money tied up in an instrument, even before you get to the crazy waiting times. I have one bass that is rather premium (not Wal level money) and I wonder if I shouldn’t move that on and use the funds for something else. I like to own basses for sure, but I’m quite pragmatic about their worth if they’re not getting used much and I’m not working in a band where they might see some action.

[Belka]

Ultimately Wal can do what they want and they certainly don't owe anyone an affordable bass, but to my mind it would be good for them and their customers if they could do something similar to what Fodera did around 10 years ago; employ new young luthiers and train them up, try to expand production but slowly, gradually bringing the 4 year wait down to something like 18 months, and introduce a standard line, say a 4 string mark 1 and a 5 string mark 2 with non-customizable specs (perhaps without laminate tops), and sell them for around 50%-66% of a custom, but still made in the UK by the same people. 

Hopefully this would help the business's long term future without diluting the brand as at present once Paul decides to retire it's not clear what the future would be.  

[Misdee]

Regarding Wal pricing, to put things in perspective, I remember that in 1987 a new standard MK1 Wal 4 string cost £790 and the case was an extra £90. That's the equivalent of £2055 in today's money.

[thodrik]

1 hour ago, joe_geezer said:

So, would the general consensus  be, that folk, are happy that they probably will never have the means or the finances to own a Wal & that keeping the prices very high and the wait times very long is actually a positive sign that Wal are making great instruments - even if none of use will ever own one... ? Interested to hear your thoughts  

If you specifically want a Wal, Alembic, Ritter, Fodera, Sadowsky NYC, custom shop Warwick etc, and no other brand or make will do then you have to pay the associated premium. If you want 'a really nice high quality bass' then there are plenty of less expensive options that are as equally well made and might (but probably won't) become highly valuable in the future. 

 

I have played a Wal Mk 1 and while it was very nice I wouldn't have traded my current basses at the time for it (which were a late 70s Precision and a Vigier Excess). I did consider putting an order in ten years ago but I ended up buying a used Vigier Arpege five string and used Sadowsky NYC five string for a combined sum that was less than half the cost of a new Wal. I am comfortable with my decision. 

I would like a Wal, but probably won't ever buy one. I could even technically afford one, but can't justify the price for a bass that would be 'different but not necessarily better' than basses I already own and don't play enough already. 
 

 

[joe_geezer]

50 minutes ago, ezbass said:

Happy? Dunno. I’m not sure if it’s down to the likes of me to be happy or sad about a particular company’s business model that hasn’t changed and has worked and still works for them. If they changed that model, then it might be open to comment and criticism, as in the recent changes to Sadowsky business model with Warwick. As things stand, as much as I’d like to own a Wal, I won’t, as I can’t justify having that amount of money tied up in an instrument, even before you get to the crazy waiting times. I have one bass that is rather premium (not Wal level money) and I wonder if I shouldn’t move that on and use the funds for something else. I like to own basses for sure, but I’m quite pragmatic about their worth if they’re not getting used much and I’m not working in a band where they might see some action.

Great comment!

[joe_geezer]

23 minutes ago, thodrik said:

If you specifically want a Wal, Alembic, Ritter, Fodera, Sadowsky NYC, custom shop Warwick etc, and no other brand or make will do then you have to pay the associated premium. If you want 'a really nice high quality bass' then there are plenty of less expensive options that are as equally well made and might (but probably won't) become highly valuable in the future. 

 

I have played a Wal Mk 1 and while it was very nice I wouldn't have traded my current basses at the time for it (which were a late 70s Precision and a Vigier Excess). I did consider putting an order in ten years ago but I ended up buying a used Vigier Arpege five string and used Sadowsky NYC five string for a combined sum that was less than half the cost of a new Wal. I am comfortable with my decision. 

I would like a Wal, but probably won't ever buy one. I could even technically afford one, but can't justify the price for a bass that would be 'different but not necessarily better' than basses I already own and don't play enough already. 
 

 

And that's a shame that under Wal's current owners & business model (which is not the same business model as Waller's, who made affordable basses with reasonable wait times) you will not own one. 

 

 

 

[joe_geezer]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

At the risk of being blunt...

 

If you really want a Wal, then start saving now. Maybe you'll be lucky and find one secondhand at a more affordable price, but the current prices are what they are, and are unlikely to go down any time soon.

 

Unfortunately moaning about the prices on the internet won't make them any cheaper...

There are some folks that cannot afford the £6000+ for a bolt on instrument. I'm not rich but I could afford one tomorrow, no problem, but I would never condone the prices and you can't force me to either, respectfully.

 

I wonder if Waller and Pete would have wanted Wal's legacy to live on as a company that only creates bass guitars for the privileged few... 

[thodrik]

11 minutes ago, joe_geezer said:

And that's a shame that under Wal's current owners & business model (which is not the same business model as Waller's, who made affordable basses with reasonable wait times) you will not own one. 

 

 

 

Waller's business model is from about 30-40 years ago and a lot has changed since then. Whoever owns the IP and the company has the right to do with it as they see fit. Expansion comes with risk and we are in fairly uncertain times. If Paul Herman is running Wal for a profit and is living a healthy and happy life then he is not obliged to (a) reduce his prices or (b) expand his operations by taking financial risks which might not ultimately pan out for what is still a pretty niche product. 

[joe_geezer]

Just now, thodrik said:

Waller's business model is from about 30-40 years ago and a lot has changed since then. Whoever owns the IP and the company has the right to do with it as they see fit. Expansion comes with risk and we are in fairly uncertain times. If Paul Herman is running Wal for a profit and is living a healthy and happy life then he is not obliged to (a) reduce his prices or (b) expand his operations by taking financial risks which might not ultimately pan out for what is still a pretty niche product. 

I can't argue with that, its just a shame younger gifted players won't have the opportunity to carry on the Wal legacy, the Wal ownership club will continue to be only for middle aged doctors and lawyers that can barely string 2 notes together 

[thodrik]

Just now, joe_geezer said:

I can't argue with that, its just a shame younger gifted players won't have the opportunity to carry on the Wal legacy, the Wal ownership club will continue to be only for middle aged doctors and lawyers that can barely string 2 notes together 

It is a shame. However there are far far more options for high level, boutique quality basses in 2022 compared to the 1980s. Younger players have far more options now compared to the past and the quality of budget basses like Squier, Sire etc are miles ahead of the budget basses that would have been available in the 1980s and 1990s. 

That leads me to another question, if there was a Wal bass in the £2000-£3,000 market (a licenced made in Korea etc version), would younger players actually want one? Or would they consider it to be clunky, heavy and a bit 'old fashioned' compared to modern designs like Dingwall, Sandberg, Spector, Mayones, ACG Vigier etc? 

[Guest]

I met Pete many times and also Paul when having the 2 Wals I owned built. To put things in perspective my first was a Mark 1 custom (£979 plus I think £100 for the case) and a few years later a Mark 3 5 string on a special deal (Pete was a friend of a friend) for £1500. Pete was the nicest, most considerate and friendly guy (somewhat oddly he didn’t play bass I believe). Both basses were impeccably made and reasonably quick. Even today I believe the Mark 1 4 string to be an iconic bass. The original ethos was a high quality studio bass for working professionals - but 40-odd years later that’s not really a career for 95% of people who plays bass, so it seems fitting that Paul - who spent a good amount of time at Wal before Pete passed on - should continue the brand as a no expense spared iconic brand. I wouldn’t purchase one now as my tastes have changed over time but I have total respect for them (and the entrance to the premises is on my local biking route so I’m regularly reminded of them