People who don't 'get' the vintage market

[Stan_da_man]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='753723' date='Feb 22 2010, 12:48 PM']Read the thread, man.

*rewinds tape*



You dan't have to agree with the specifics, but that's the answer to your question.

And... speaking from experience, I don't agree with your 'not as good' point.[/quote]
I don't buy a bass because of its history or its an investment - I buy it because its a bass.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Stan_da_man' post='753881' date='Feb 22 2010, 02:41 PM']I don't buy a bass because of its history or its an investment - I buy it because its a bass.[/quote]

That's a good approach. I like it.

[xilddx]

[quote name='josh3184' post='753856' date='Feb 22 2010, 02:20 PM']supply/demand.

End of really [/quote]
What we are interested in, and what we are discussing, is what creates the demand.

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='silddx' post='753894' date='Feb 22 2010, 02:54 PM']What we are interested in, and what we are discussing, is what creates the demand.[/quote]

Exclusivity.

[GreeneKing]

[quote]Existentialism is all about autheticity in a personal sense.[/quote]

I agree but can't see anything Existential about valuing a Fender because it's seen better days

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='GreeneKing' post='753902' date='Feb 22 2010, 03:03 PM']I agree but can't see anything Existential about valuing a Fender because it's seen better days [/quote]
Absolutely. An existentialist would probably view such a practice as delusional and thus detrimental to the development of one's personal authenticity.

[xilddx]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='753845' date='Feb 22 2010, 02:15 PM']I apologise in advance for the length of this post. The value is in inverse proportion to the volume.

The widespread, though not universal, belief in the inherent superiority of vintage guitars encompasses a number of separate though complementary assertions. Broadly, these are that they play, sound and look better than their modern counterparts. The descriptor of 'cool' is often applied to them. The important point is that these are qualities which are judged subjectively by the individual and can be neither proved or disproved. The only truth upon which we all might agree is that vintage instruments are, by some measure, older than contemporary instruments.

Yet the term 'vintage' is less descriptive of an instrument's age than an assertion that the instrument possesses certain desirable qualities absent from other instruments. These qualities are derived not only from the manufacturer who produced it but, through some osmotic process, the culture which pertained at the time of production. Who among us has not sniffed an old guitar and not instantly visualised some fuzzy yet emblematic image of a bygone period?

Many in modern society believe themselves to be faced with a contracting horizon and a flattening of distinctive local or national culture. Many see modern life as lacking a quality which may be embodied in certain historic practices or artefacts. These might include antiques, allotment gardening, classic cars, collectables, old musical genres. When people contrast these examples of 'the old ways' with modern life, they often attribute an 'authenticity' or truthfulness to them which stands in stark contrast to 'value-free' contemporary artefacts and culture.

This belief is, of course, nothing new. In the UK, shape was first given to the concept by Victorians such as William Morris and Cecil Sharp, who attributed an 'authenticity' to furniture, tools and folk song which they believed to be wholly absent from the age of 'The Machine'. Heidegger pronounced upon authenticity. Existentialism is all about authenticity in a personal sense. Japanese culture venerates authenticity.

And, of course, where there is desire there is money to be made. The heritage industry (National Trust, English Heritage, Wm Shakespeare Walking Tours of Stratford Upon Avon), Antiques fairs, retro clothing manufacturers, forgers, Fender Roadworn instruments; the examples are countless and ubiquitous. 'Authentic' sells.

The qualities attributed to vintage instruments may have a basis in fact. But the belief is supported by a far wider ranging desire for authenticity. In this respect, vintage basses are simply a tiny corner of a broader social phenomenon.

To me, the most interesting aspect is the inconsistency of application. As Bloodaxe rightly noted: If it's a Fender, it's 'mojo'. If it's any other manufacturer, it's just damage.[/quote]

Interesting and thought provoking as usual.

I am wondering now if it is purely tradition, the Fender bass being our traditional instrument, the exclusivity, which EBS Freak mentions, of owning an old one being closer to the inception of that tradition and, being rare, attaching great value to such.

[Low End Bee]

I would have an old one for it's historical value. If I had a windfall, one from the year I was born would be a nice thing to own. As much as a Victorian chair say would be nicer to own than a modern repro one that'd do the same or a better job.
My 3 year old one is miles better than my 1969 one was. I think the vintage tone thing is generally guff. It may have relevance on purely acoustic instruments I'll concede.
It's a sentimental thing related to supply and demand. Plus the majority of lemons from that era probably ended up as firewood so mainly it's the good ones that are left.

[josh3184]

[quote name='silddx' post='753894' date='Feb 22 2010, 02:54 PM']What we are interested in, and what we are discussing, is what creates the demand.[/quote]
ah, my apologies.

Edited February 22, 2010 by josh3184

[xilddx]

[quote name='josh3184' post='753938' date='Feb 22 2010, 03:32 PM']ah, my apologies.[/quote]
No need, my friend.

The supply side is the easy part, uncle's attic.

Edited February 22, 2010 by silddx

[Clarky]

I just acquired two 'vintage' Fenders. Why? I am an old git and I wanted a bass to match. Partly because of history/tradition (I grew up thinking Fender was the iconic bass brand, mainly from Top of the Pops, the Old grey Whistle Test etc) but partly out of vanity - I could afford them so I bought them. This proves absolutely nothing of course. However, I think those of a certain age (40+) are more likely to think my way than those of the younger generation who have been exposed to a much broader range of visual experiences, musical images (MTV etc) and a more diverse market of bass manufacturers.

I will say my 72 Precision plays and sounds better than my 2009 MIA Precision(s) did (my band mates agree), and thats saying a lot as the 2009 P's were damn good. Not so sure my 73 Jazz is any better than the 2009 MIA Jazz I had but its still a lovely bass and it will certainly be a much better investment.

[leftybassman392]

[quote name='skankdelvar' post='753845' date='Feb 22 2010, 02:15 PM']I apologise in advance for the length of this post. The value is in inverse proportion to the volume.

The widespread, though not universal, belief in the inherent superiority of vintage guitars encompasses a number of separate though complementary assertions. Broadly, these are that they play, sound and look better than their modern counterparts. The descriptor of 'cool' is often applied to them. The important point is that these are qualities which are judged subjectively by the individual and can be neither proved or disproved. The only truth upon which we all might agree is that vintage instruments are, by some measure, older than contemporary instruments.

Yet the term 'vintage' is less descriptive of an instrument's age than an assertion that the instrument possesses certain desirable qualities absent from other instruments. These qualities are derived not only from the manufacturer who produced it but, through some osmotic process, the culture which pertained at the time of production. Who among us has not sniffed an old guitar and not instantly visualised some fuzzy yet emblematic image of a bygone period?

Many in modern society believe themselves to be faced with a contracting horizon and a flattening of distinctive local or national culture. Many see modern life as lacking a quality which may be embodied in certain historic practices or artefacts. These might include antiques, allotment gardening, classic cars, collectables, old musical genres. When people contrast these examples of 'the old ways' with modern life, they often attribute an 'authenticity' or truthfulness to them which stands in stark contrast to 'value-free' contemporary artefacts and culture.

This belief is, of course, nothing new. In the UK, shape was first given to the concept by Victorians such as William Morris and Cecil Sharp, who attributed an 'authenticity' to furniture, tools and folk song which they believed to be wholly absent from the age of 'The Machine'. Heidegger pronounced upon authenticity. Existentialism is all about authenticity in a personal sense. Japanese culture venerates authenticity.

And, of course, where there is desire there is money to be made. The heritage industry (National Trust, English Heritage, Wm Shakespeare Walking Tours of Stratford Upon Avon), Antiques fairs, retro clothing manufacturers, forgers, Fender Roadworn instruments; the examples are countless and ubiquitous. 'Authentic' sells.

The qualities attributed to vintage instruments may have a basis in fact. But the belief is supported by a far wider ranging desire for authenticity. In this respect, vintage basses are simply a tiny corner of a broader social phenomenon.

To me, the most interesting aspect is the inconsistency of application. As Bloodaxe rightly noted: If it's a Fender, it's 'mojo'. If it's any other manufacturer, it's just damage.[/quote]


Slow day at the office?

[OldGit]

[quote name='Clarky' post='753963' date='Feb 22 2010, 03:52 PM']I just acquired two 'vintage' Fenders. Why? [color="#000000"][size=4]I am an old git and I wanted a bass to match[/size][/color].[/quote]

Hummmmm Old Git signature basses .. Now there's a thought

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='753585' date='Feb 22 2010, 11:05 AM']Just re-visiting the "things used to be cheap" argument, there are some excellent sites out there that will give you the present value of old money, or the old value of present money. You get slightly different results depending on whether you use the RPI (retail prices index) or AEI (average earnings index). I prefer the AEI for this sort of thing, since we're trying to establish what you could have bought with your wages.

This does NOT apply to any specific item, of course. It's a "typical" calculation for a "typical" basket of goods. Please don't point out that "a Fender Precision didn't cost that in 1965" or whatever - I already know.

In order to have the same spending power THEN as earning £1000 a week gives you NOW, you would have needed a weekly wage of:

2005 - £892
2000 - £734
1995 - £590
1990 - £469
1985 - £310
1980 - £201
1975 - £101
1970 - £ 48
1965 - £ 33
1960 - £ 25

Do these numbers have any validity? Well, my first proper job started in January 1975 as a trainee book-keeper in a small travel agency in the West End. I was earning £1360 p.a. (plus LV's - don't forget the LV's!) which is £26 per week. The M/D of the firm certainly earned less than £101 per week - in modern terms he was on about £40k which is about right for that role in a firm of that size.[/quote]
Is that gross or net?

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='leftybassman392' post='754105' date='Feb 22 2010, 05:39 PM']Slow day at the office? [/quote]

Self-employed. Or, more accurately, self-unemployed.

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='EssentialTension' post='754134' date='Feb 22 2010, 05:55 PM']Is that gross or net?[/quote]

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the calculation, Dave.

Have a look for yourself: [url="http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/?redirurl=calculators/ppoweruk/"]http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/?re...ators/ppoweruk/[/url]

[BottomEndian]

Another thing to remember is that specifications change over the years. Yes, it's still called a Fender Jazz Bass, but if you pulled together Jazzes from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and now the 10s they'll all be noticeably different. For example, from a quick noodle, I know that WoT's 70s Fenders have colossal necks compared to the modern equivalent. Then there's the 70s Jazz bridge pup placement, the early 90s "Boner" Jazz, the reinvention of Fender's basses in the 80s, the latest batch (08/09 onwards) of great necks... all that stuff.

If the particular physical characteristics of a "vintage" bass coincide with your personal requirements, and you're interested in the cachet or "cool" or "vibe" or whatever that comes with said bass, then go for it.

[thepurpleblob]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='754802' date='Feb 23 2010, 10:58 AM']Another thing to remember is that specifications change over the years. Yes, it's still called a Fender Jazz Bass, but if you pulled together Jazzes from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and now the 10s they'll all be noticeably different. For example, from a quick noodle, I know that WoT's 70s Fenders have colossal necks compared to the modern equivalent. Then there's the 70s Jazz bridge pup placement, the early 90s "Boner" Jazz, the reinvention of Fender's basses in the 80s, the latest batch (08/09 onwards) of great necks... all that stuff.

If the particular physical characteristics of a "vintage" bass coincide with your personal requirements, and you're interested in the cachet or "cool" or "vibe" or whatever that comes with said bass, then go for it.[/quote]

What you say is perfectly true but, on average, surely manufacturers are aiming to make their products better not worse over the years? I guess it's entirely possible that they have fired their R&D department and kept the "cost reduction" department

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='thepurpleblob' post='754810' date='Feb 23 2010, 11:05 AM']What you say is perfectly true but, on average, surely manufacturers are aiming to make their products better not worse over the years? I guess it's entirely possible that they have fired their R&D department and kept the "cost reduction" department [/quote]
Well, my bass history knowledge is limited, but surely Fender (to take the obvious "vintage" brand) went through many good and bad (on average) periods? It just seemed to depend on who was in control and how much attention they were actually paying to their customers. I've heard rumour that the 70s Jazz pup position was down to the factory screwing up a jig, rather than any deliberate effort to improve. Loved by some, hated by others. Wasn't the 80s reinvention of the lines (Specials, Elites and all that) just a reaction to the cheaper and more technologically advanced basses starting to come out of the Far East? It didn't necessarily mean they were "better"... merely "different". Some people preferred them, some didn't. And the "Boner" Jazz didn't last long either.

And people's perceptions of what actually constitutes "better" seem to change too. I'm sure Warwick want to stay on top of the game, but I'm aware (without being fully appraised of the details) that they've altered their standard neck profiles a few times over the years, and have now gone back to something like the original shape (IIRC).

Edited February 23, 2010 by BottomEndian

[Musicman20]

I need to play more vintage instruments to get a proper perspective on this.

As Fender have really improved their line of Precision/Jazz basses recently, I cant find anything else thats comes close at the price point. Believe me, Ive tried. But, there still are some dogs out there...so that seems to be a continuing problem. Then again it seems to be the same for most large manufacturers. Ive played some awful Laklands, and some amazing ones.

Pre 08 changes, I wouldnt have really bothered getting any modern Fenders unless I found a proper awesome one in the store. As I had bad luck with S1 basses, I stayed clear....but I always wanted a USA P and J. I did dabble with looking for a vintage, but this was before I became more interested in researching on here.

Fast forward to 2008...I picked up the leaflet for the improved line. I waited patiently for reviews, and YES! They has finally come back with additions that most Fender players change on the instruments made before, (eg a much better bridge!).

I would LOVE a pair of vintage Fenders....but I very much doubt I will buy any for the next 5 years or so unless one comes up when I actually have the cash. Im far too picky though...thats my problems!

[evilLordJuju]

[quote name='thepurpleblob' post='754810' date='Feb 23 2010, 11:05 AM']What you say is perfectly true but, on average, surely manufacturers are aiming to make their products better not worse over the years?[/quote]

This is not how it happens. Basses in 1955 were supposed to appeal to upright players with a dull muted thump. Over the next 50 years different styles of playing lead to changes in woods, construction, pickups, pickup locations and also different finishes went in and out of fashion. And of course when guitar companies are suffering financially, they cut costs too, resulting in other changes (70s guitars get a bad press).

So some years basses can be very different to others. Not objectively better or worse, just different. And very different in some cases.

It is why companies like Gibson can offer numerous historic reissues of the same guitar at the same time.

[Sibob]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='754824' date='Feb 23 2010, 11:19 AM']I've heard rumour that the 70s Jazz pup position was down to the factory screwing up a jig, rather than any deliberate effort to improve.[/quote]

I believe it was more to do with aesthetics, they moved the rear pickup back slightly so that it was totally obscured by the bridge ashtray cover. The pickup poked out slightly in the previous position!

Si

[BottomEndian]

[quote name='Sibob' post='756161' date='Feb 24 2010, 03:21 PM']I believe it was more to do with aesthetics, they moved the rear pickup back slightly so that it was totally obscured by the bridge ashtray cover. The pickup poked out slightly in the previous position![/quote]
I don't know which is worse:[list]
[*]accidentally changing the way an instrument sounds through human/mechanical error; or
[*]deliberately changing the way an instrument sounds because it'll look "better"
[/list][size=1][Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure I couldn't tell the difference in sound between a 70s Jazz and any other era of Jazz "in the wild", so it's a fairly pointless thing for me to have brought up. ][/size]

[LukeFRC]

Have you ever looked inside a 1950's or '60 radio or stereo? Compare that to a modern (not high end) one.
The old one will tend to look over engineered, use big old components (valves and old style resistors and caps) and be made using old techniques like point to point wiring.

New stuff will have modern components mounted on a PCB by a machine. Probably in china. Hardwear can be a wee bit flimsier, using cheaper metals. Or conversely better metals for the job.
Now there is a whole argument as to which is better technically. But the old one has more romance.

Point being production techniques have changed. The availability of different types of wood and the way these woods care dried, the finishing on a guitar and so on.
So I don't understand the whole 'they're the same' arguement. Bar finding a massive bargin I would never really want to dive into the vintage fender market personally but I can understand folk who do.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='BottomEndian' post='756166' date='Feb 24 2010, 03:26 PM']I don't know which is worse:[list]
[*]accidentally changing the way an instrument sounds through human/mechanical error; or
[*]deliberately changing the way an instrument sounds because it'll look "better"
[/list][/quote]

Hehe.

Call me a mug but I've got a soft spot for old Mosrites. I've never played one and I don't care if they play like arse and sound worse, I still want one.