Far from it, I relish the differences rather than not caring for them. If the Non Revs were exactly the same now as 45 years ago, I'd be collecting for production dates which is almost as sinful a collecting for fins. The variation within Gibson's wealth of different bass types - unbeaten by any Western producer - makes collecting them so gratifying. I want there to be variances from the old because I already have the old. Which is fine, that was then but this is now.
Dave, come on, a different, still vintage bridge with an idiosyncratic Gibson look and pups that are the modern day development of the sixties pups (and intended that way) are not "major changes". It's essentially the same bass, not a bolt-on maple neck with active circuit and piezo bridge plus medium scale. Let's not get carried away.
Can we all agree that the new Non Revs are a very gentle update of the old? And except here, where any type of deviation of mostly coincidental production traits is perceived as eternal sacrilege (they really should habe mispositioned the bridge on the new ones too, don't you think?!) by pious analysts, most normal bass players will see them as a refreshingly different nod to the past and qualify them as "vintage looking"?
"True Gibson patriots disdain new Non Rev for featuring a 40 year rather than a 45 year old bridge. Spokesman Dave W: It's just amother proof how Gibson shows disrespect to its bassist customers. Forum up in arms."
Any bets on what bridges the late 73 Non Revs would have used to general acclaim had they still been in production then? Of course, those would be near worthless today ...
