What's not to like about it? It's kinda cute.
Why didn't they use the exact body shape of the original?
Personally, I have to squint my eyes to see a difference between the new bodyshape and what my cherished brethren here profess it should be. On any stage of the world this would be immediately recognized as a "bass in an LP Junior shape".
A shape which incidentally did so well and was so appreciated by the general public when the original EB-0 came out that it lasted for about 12 months before it was swapped with the SG shape. :rolleyes: Some success.
It's clearly not a bass in a Junior shape. I don't see how anyone who knows the Junior/Special shape could think so.
The change of the original EB-0 had nothing to do with success. It was done b/c Gibson switched everything to the SG shape.
It's a short scale Monkey Bass. All it needs is a tacky TRC.
As if!
....
Anybody with less than severe eyesight impairment will regard the upper two basses as more similar than the lower two - the Mon(k)ey has an offset waistline. Dali did it.
Someone has to break it to you: The era of the mudbucker is - like that of the biplane - over. :mrgreen: You'd bring a kid to tears today if you gave him a seriously "real" EB-3 for Christmas and he would then vainly attempt to sound like his favorite bassists with it.
Bringing it out as limited edition is another matter. If, say, the Custom Shop did 30 EB-3s for about 4.500 bucks a piece, aged and all, they would probably all sell over time. Not quickly though.
A mudbucker sound is a joy for the player, but it doesn't really record well (though in the CD age you could at least hear those sublows for the first time) nor work well on a stage. Never did. We'd see and hear a lot more of them if it had been otherwise.
And I'd never thought I'd see the day where I would read a Martin Heidegger quote here!!! :mrgreen:
Needs more strings. ;D Seriously, I really like it.
(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9735/hamer12.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/148/hamer12.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
New paparazzi shots of Dave W, walking his dog (no doubt fleeing from prog rock sound emissions), have just arrived!!!
As Rob has observed, the new inner curves are a tribute to better neck joint stability. Since when is improving something a crime?
As Rob has observed, the new inner curves are a tribute to better neck joint stability. Since when is improving something a crime?
Total Gibson BS. Hamer managed to make a 12 string neck stay put with out bastardizing the shape.Well thank you Carlo.
Well thank you Carlo.
As you can see the Hamer doesn't have a pickup straight at the end of the fret board. So no deep routing there.
I can tell you for a fact that cutting away that much wood with such a neck joint design is asking for trouble.
I'm almost positive I've spent more money on pickup R&D in the last year than Gibson has.
I'd reserve judgment on something like the LP Jr DC bass until actually playing it. The original LP Jr guitar had very humble beginnings but is actually a great sounding guitar. It greatly exceeded expectations.
Money spent recreating / reverse engineering a Gibson design pickup 8)It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. ;D
I've owned one with that neck joint for 45 years with no problem...but it's made of real mahogany.
But wasn't the original primitive too? That was part of its archaic charm. I actually find that they captured that utalitarian look quite well. Only a hammer paint fin could have enhanced that aspect more. Slab of wood sprayed in one color, two pups, bridge and tuners on it, finito!
Of course, a spalted maple top could have ... :mrgreen:
Maybe you were lucky?
For example: none of my Gibson basses have ever had a headstock fracture.
That doesn't say the problem doesn't exist.
They could have at LEAST offered a 2-color burst on it.....that thing makes a Telecaster look elegant.
I dont know how it can be any different sounding than the SG reissue?
A 'burst finish would require using a better grade of wood and a higher level of craftsmanship. What do you want for $900 list or whatever it is? :rolleyes:
Well thank you Carlo.
As you can see the Hamer doesn't have a pickup straight at the end of the fret board. So no deep routing there.
I can tell you for a fact that cutting away that much wood with such a neck joint design is asking for trouble.
I dont know how it can be any different sounding than the SG reissue?
It's a tough job but somebody has to do it. ;D
Not meant as a slight to your efforts Carlo, because it's surely a labor of love, but Lull beat you to it.....Ask TV Jones or the guys at SD as they both produce it for him.
In this forum of bitter and bickering old men, which you can never ever please, the little bass has an appreciation rate of 30% so far - not bad!
A 'burst finish would require using a better grade of wood and a higher level of craftsmanship. What do you want for $900 list or whatever it is? :rolleyes:
For LESS than $900, Gretsch delivered to me a hollowbody bass with impeccable finish, TV Jones Thundertron pickups and quality build throughout. It's my avatar at present.
If Gibson can't do the same, they need new management.
As I said earlier, that bass looks extremely basic, and looks comparable to a Squier Bronco, or perhaps to one of the new Squier Vintage modified series - which DO come in a variety of colors, including 'burst. AND - they sell at GC for $299.
That bass looks BORING, BORING, BORING, and as I mentioned earlier, looks like a Japanese knockoff that would sell around $200. if it costs more than that, it's overpriced.
Hey, I'm a Sicilian. Strong and/or unreasonable opinions the only ones allowed!
Yes, but it's hard to gesture effectively in this medium.
Looks like it will be available in July with a street price will be $1229. I like it, but not that much.
http://backstage.musiciansfriend.com/Bass/Electric-Bass/4-String-Electric-Bass/Les-Paul-Junior-DC-EB11-Electric-Bass-Guitar.site1prodH71164.product
This bass is supposed to look basic. If it is inspired by the LP Jr. guitar and 1960 EB-O bass, I don't see how it could look like anything other than this. If it's a simple looking bass whose design is a nod to the past, but it sounds great, that would be part of its deceptive charm for me. I realize that's a minority view, but I honestly can't look at this any other way.
The Junior was also basic in price. At an $1899 MSRP, this one isn't. That's more expensive than the Thunderbird, which has always been considered a deluxe model. And it looks like yet another Gibson bass with a satin finish. NTTAWWT if the price is in line, but most Gibson buyers expect a gloss finish at this price.
Compare this to the Gibson LP Melody Maker or SG Melody Maker, both $829 MSRP, or even the regular Melody Maker at $699 MSRP.
On top of this, it's only a nod to the past. You want to get a price based on nostalgia, at least give us a faithful reissue.
Long ago, sometime in the eighties, a restructuring specialist and investment banker who played a little bass, took over Gibson (or what was left of it) and decided to further on down the road to not make product as cheap as possible but to sell the brand on and the myth around the product at the highest market price achievable. Don't blame the little bass for a 25 year old strategy, ok?
How is that different from -let's say- a Fender Precision Bass?
It's not. Two wrongs don't make a right. All American mass made instruments are overpriced, G&L are the most reasonable than the others IMO. I have no brand allegiance to anything that does not give me value no matter what I may own of their earlier production.
I don't blame Gibson for trying to squeeze every drop out of the brand. It's modern marketing. Why should they be any different to Prada, Ralph Lauren, Rolex, Harley Davidson or Bentley? If you just want a very good tool to make music, Ibanez caters to all your desires.
Long ago, sometime in the eighties, a restructuring specialist and investment banker who played a little bass, took over Gibson (or what was left of it) and decided to further on down the road to not make product as cheap as possible but to sell the brand on and the myth around the product at the highest market price achievable. Don't blame the little bass for a 25 year old strategy, ok?
I don't blame Gibson for trying to squeeze every drop out of the brand. It's modern marketing. Why should they be any different to Prada, Ralph Lauren, Rolex, Harley Davidson or Bentley? If you just want a very good tool to make music, Ibanez caters to all your desires.
Some luxury brands are worth the money for quality of design, materials and workmanship and attention to detail. Gibson not so much.
I'll take a Gibson over any 7ender any day.
I don't drink Uncle Leo's Kool - Aid, tried it 3 times left a bad taste ;)
Compared to what the Junior EB-0 cost in 1960 (a bass with one less pup and gutar tuners not geared to the requirements of a bass) is the new Junior really so outrageously expensive when cost-of-living indexed and buying power-adjusted? I have my doubts.
I'll take a Gibson over any 7ender any day.
I don't drink Uncle Leo's Kool - Aid, tried it 3 times left a bad taste ;)
Parts bass, so it differs slightly in some small aspects, it's still CNC'd and uses the same wood as any other production model, and technology they already possess. If Gibson was reissuing a spec '63 @ 3k, I'd be there.....What a nice thought too ;)
Parts bass, so it differs slightly in some small aspects, it's still CNC'd and uses the same wood as any other production model, and technology they already possess. If Gibson was reissuing a spec '63 @ 3k, I'd be there.....What a nice thought too ;)
I understand where Mark's heart is on this one - but you could consider every instrument with a bolt-on neck as being a "parts bass", and for that matter, what's so special about set-necks? Every instrument coming off an assembly line is made from parts which are fed into the system. Some of them have more handwork in fit and finish, and some have different quality parts or parts made to different specs.
I honestly can't see how that Jazz bass can be overpriced at $2K and the Gibson would be reasonably priced at $3K. Doesn't follow to me.
You're right about the parts Carlo, but the construction and finishing is basically Mike , so hand built on an indivdual basis, some paint work does leave the shop, some not. Nothing leaves there without his touch, quite a bit more personal. When my bass was built I had many choices (and paid more for them too). Mike's primary business is actually repair tho.Some people are willing to pay that few hundred dollars more for the original spec neck radius, stack pot layout, pickups, bridge and tuners, pickguard, ashtrays and finger rest, etc. I'm getting a sense of that the more basses I build and sell. I'm really not familiar with what Fender is doing today but I think they've had a pretty good strategy of 'covering all bases (basses?)' from Squier to Custom Shop. I personally wouldn't buy anything BUT a Squier or Custom Shop if I was in the market for a new Fender, I think that's where the value lies...and I'm not so sure about the CS. "Don't mess with Mr. Inbetween" is my motto these days.
The Fender I randomly choose appears to be a "standard" tho vintage spec bass, and while I'm sure there's hands on aspects to it's production, the website makes no note of that and it's not a CS piece either. Try as I might I don't see the 2k plus price, or why it should cost more than other "standard" Jazz basses like this: http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0190660700
...and uses the same wood as any other production model, ...
Still, three new basses this season (five if the rumored Flying V bass and Explorer really show up) is exceptional considering that 12 months ago Gibson was rumored to be approaching Chapter 11. With their Firebird X experiment and three new basses for that laughably small minority of people who give a rat's mahogany ass about Gibson basses the company can't certainly be in the claws of its creditors anymore. Henry J. Had the nerve to see it through (whether the company was just overleveraged and fell into the post-Lehman rut of mnay "innocent manufacturers" that any credit just dried up or whether some or most of the Gibson money had indeed gone into the wrong financial instruments I don't know). You might not like Henry J. And he has his share of daft decisions, but he now has a track record of running and expanding a company for 25 years - that attests considerable more business acumen than Leo F. who was a great engineer and inventor, but a lousy business man (perhaps not entirely fair as Henry studied business and Leo did,'t).
After Gibson's last 2006 offensive of basses (SG, Studio TBs, Mon(k)ey basses and Continental V) only yielded one consistent seller with the SG, another bass offensive just 5 years later and fresh out of an economic downturn that had the company teetering on the brink of insolvency - plus a nasty flood and that wood investigation - ain't too bad in my book.
The average player can't afford a Gibson bass anyway. Fender is smart with their market tiers, and the best values you'll find out of them are the midline Mexican produced basses, at least to my reckoning.
[snip]
Why pay $1-3k for something that is sub-par to a $500 import?
To me, new Gibsons are priced at the level of unobtanium. Fender is smart enough to be pricing at a number of different levels, from entry to professional, and their instruments are easy to customize or upgrade
I thought Epi was the entry level Gibson?
A Squier P Bass isn't any beter than an SX IMO
A Squier P Bass isn't any beter than an SX IMO ( and I have 3 or 4 Squier basses with bad necks that are definitely worse) but it's close enough that buyers will choose the Squier because it's a 'Fender.'
I find that disconcerting to read. It's one thing if they don't reach our shores as Germany is - make no mistake - Fender bass territory (and Warwick), but that they are not able to cover the US market is damning. Especially with the entry level stuff it is key that it is on the hangers so people can sniff, see and play it.
I love the attempt, but a more accurate body shape would draw me to it more. The bridge and pups are fine with me. I didn't care for the money bass styling and I'm not too crazy about this one. It's that simple.Agreed, they blew it on shape.................the simplest detail to get right. :rolleyes:
With the demand they must be aware of for a NR longscale T-Bird, you would think they would have put their R+D money into a Historic Reverse or NR T-Bird like the Firebirds they were dead on with. With a two point bridge, CHROME pickups and 60's specs!!!
With the demand they must be aware of for a NR longscale T-Bird, you would think they would have put their R+D money into a Historic Reverse or NR T-Bird like the Firebirds they were dead on with. With a two point bridge, CHROME pickups and 60's specs!!!Bill and I meet a Gibson rep almost a year ago and they mined us for info on a NR reissue..........................nothing yet but it is supposed to be in the works, my hopes are not high at this point in time.
So does this new Gibson have more airbags or get better mileage...or is the ugliness factor the only thing they've increased?
That would require actual R&D, not just pulling hardware and electronics off the shelf. Way too expensive when you have FireTurd projects to fund...it seems to me Gibson is trying to sell basses to guitards who dabble and can't (won't?) adapt to the longer scale that brings out the best in the instrument...IMO
Short scale is a tried and trusted tradition with Gibson all through the fifties, sixties and early seventies. Until the advent of the Ripper/Grabber/G-3 family all Gibson models were short scale with the exception of the poor-selling TBirds and the L-versions of certain EBs i.e. the 400 or 450 versions of the SB line.
Why are you guys so vintage-correct obsessive? When I buy a car of a certain model I expect it to carry the spirit of the original that was first in line, but I don't expect it to be a slavish replica.
People complain about there not being enough high-quality short scale basses out there and even complain about strings for a short scale sometimes being hard to find. Gibson comes out with two interesting short scale basses and somehow gets criticized for it.
As I said, IMO...does this mean Gibson should draw a line in the sand and stop with the development of the only marginally better intonating 3 point (trust me on this) and the TB+ pup?
To me this would be the equivalent of Volvo using all the previous generation mechanicals under a new skin. They worked pretty well so why bother improving?
And I'd agree..............Last time the big F brought out a new body shape was???????
And what kind of success would it meet with from their fans?
Why are you guys so vintage-correct obsessive? When I buy a car of a certain model I expect it to carry the spirit of the original that was first in line, but I don't expect it to be a slavish replica. Progress and learning from mistakes, fashion elements etc are all good things, I don't want my new Volvo V 70
...
to be the same car the Volvo 850 (before it was renamed V 70)
...
was twenty years ago. It's ok if it still has some similarity, but times move on. Today's Levis 501 is not the 501 of the fifties either.
In my book the current TB IV, the SG RI, the Ripper II and Grabber II and now this little Junior are all contemporary (= very gently modified and modernized) versions of old classics. The ultimate test to prove I'm right - bearing in mind that this is the forum of scientific evidence: You could take any one of them, time-tunnel back into a late sixties/early seventies rehearsal room and no one would not recognize them as what they are, people would perhaps marvel at some "cool new features", but they wouldn't exactly think that you were an alien from the future bringing along new gadgets.
And for the record: Gibson has never claimed this new Junior to be a faithful reissue, instead what they have said is this:
"The Les Paul Junior DC Bass is the axe for you! By
blending
several elements of traditional Gibson design,
derived
from the slab-bodied Les Paul Junior guitar and the original 1960 EB-0 bass,
among others,
this new model from Gibson USA ..."
It's a new model in a retro look, nothing wrong with that.
People complain about there not being enough high-quality short scale basses out there and even complain about strings for a short scale sometimes being hard to find. Gibson comes out with two interesting short scale basses and somehow gets criticized for it.
Who's complaining? In the real world outside bass forums, short scales are a very small market segment. They stopped selling well 40 years ago, that's why Gibson and others stopped making them. If people were demanding higher end short scale basses, Gibson's SG Bass would be selling like hotcakes.
Most retail stores carry very few or no short scale strings because they hardly ever sell. That's why you have to go to bass specialty stores or online string specialists to find them.
And I'd agree..............Last time the big F brought out a new body shape was???????
Katana!
(http://billrushing.org/pics/performer/fender_katana_bass.JPG)
OK, maybe it was the Performer.
(http://www.edroman.com/guitars/fender/images/performer%20BAss.jpg)
:rolleyes:
No further comment:
(http://www.strat-central.com/pics/other/bass/perf.jpg)
And I even liked that shape and thought it daring and new. The Fender world did not, however.
I do have somewhat of a fondness for short scales and have sometimes felt a little out of place because of that. But it's not like I have to have a short scale. What I've discovered is that there are more people than I realized who are very devoted to short scales and it seems to mean a great deal to them. There was a time when I was more devoted to them, but not so much anymore, so my views on the topic are ambivalent.
Why doesn't the Volvo comparison fit? Like a bass it is a combination of tool and enjoyment. I drive a car to get from A to B, but I chose the 300 hp version because I enjoy the fun of good torque and the strongest hifi they offer because I like to listen music loud. I play bass because I need to emit low notes, but I could do that with any decent bass, I chose Gibson because they appeal to my underdog taste and have such variety. Yes, the bass is even more for fun, but in reality I wouldn't even need a car to go to work as public transportation would take me to Frankfurt within an unbeatable nine minutes. So the Volvo is sheer luxury.
The Bicentennials were just as far or possibly even more a step from the 60ies Birds than the 87 reissues were from the Bicentennials. A Slothead EB-0 is structurally and visually farther removed from a 63 EB-0 than an SG RI is. Changes in the past are all accepted here as symbols of an era, but if Gibson brings out a Junior today it has to look exactly like a 61 model. That is - with all due respect, my dear brethren -incoherent as it presupposes that changes today are bad, but changes back in the day weren't. Explain the difference to me or is nostalgia your one and only argument?
But my main point is: You could have played that new Junior on the Woodstock stage and no one would have pointed his finger at you and yelled "Oooops, non-period-correct bass, you must be from the future, off the stage with you!".
I have nothing against short scale basses. They do have a devoted following. Just don't be misled by their frequent mention on bass forums. The real world is often very different from the world of bass forums. Short scale basses have only a very small market share.
Likewise with 5- and 6-string basses and flatwound strings. They have their market shares, they're just nowhere near as big as you might think from reading bass forums over the years.
I didn't mean that I thought Gibson's effort in this new bass is unworthy - just overpriced.
The LP Junior bass is really just another version of the SG Standard bass, with a different body and a different color.
Women must feel like that when their husbands want to avoud a sensible discussion, sigh!
The Woodstock masses, connaisseurs of obscure early sixties Gibson basses and prophets of the Japanese instrument invasion. I really should have known, silly me!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Fenderbird/dcbasschopgrn.jpg)
again, makes a huge difference. Same body, just in the details.
You should:
(http://www.altomusic.com/shop/images/product/a4751-e7b03d7b4c36a1a4e3b6a4d6a34fa7c3.jpg)
Too bad the Performers sound like crap.
With an extra control pot to put her into the turbo mode ? :mrgreen: But seriously, I'd probably would've pre-ordered that version. I love P-90s and 1 PUP makes it a true Jr...... ;D
Not unworthy, I agree, but it lacks imagination .... indeed just another version of the SG ...... and it could have looked less cheap-ass if they only put a PG on her ......
(http://www.altomusic.com/shop/images/product/a4751-e7b03d7b4c36a1a4e3b6a4d6a34fa7c3.jpg)
I would buy a single-pickup Victory reissue in a heartbeat. If only they've made its weight lighter...
However, I'm still looking for an original single-pickup "confederacy" model...
Love the patina green silver color of those as well.
I'll add some insult to injury: http://nashville.craigslist.org/msg/2386827173.html
I would buy a single-pickup Victory reissue in a heartbeat. If only they've made its weight lighter...
However, I'm still looking for an original single-pickup "confederacy" model...
I'll add some insult to injury: http://nashville.craigslist.org/msg/2386827173.html
When I took my 4001 over to the Ric Exchange (formerly the Music Connection) to have the truss rod adjusted and wiring checked, I was shocked at the quality of the Rics he had on hand. Strickly from an appearance and build standpoint, I would say that between Gibsons, Fenders and Rickenbacker, the Rics are the basses most worth the money.
....... for the now wealthy older musician. ;D
"Marketing to nostalgia probably sells far better "
I have to say that I've never seen a new Thunderbird in a store anywhere around here and I always looks
Best Buys carry them
Best Buys carry them
They'll have three or four of the same Epi-birds you can find in any GC and maybe one sunburst Gibson hanging on the very top row, 15 feet up and well out of reach.
It could be a web non-compete that GC got Gibson to go with. Lord knows Gibson will do anything it can to keep from having to waste all that fine illegal wood they have on a bass.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Fenderbird/lespauljrbass2xs.jpg)
I'm surprised that no one made one here yet?
That one looks much better than Gibson's but the pup is in the wrong position and why it should look like a guitar pickup is beyond me...I thought we were BASS players.
Because it looks great ? :mrgreen: The Eastwood P90 PUPs sound awesome BTW .....
Actually it's because we are Bass Guitar Players. I like the Les Paul guitar looking pickups on my money bass, and the Rick is good in that respect too. As for placement: different from the Mudbucker position, but that's not a bad thing.
Ebay is $1,900 + 60 shipping while MF is $1,230 + free shipping. I must say, that's quite the spread.
Must say she looks much better on these eBay pics than on the Messe shots, but that price still ain't right ....... :-\
Must say she looks much better on these eBay pics than on the Messe shots, but that price still ain't right ....... :-\
"They didn't grain fill enough before the blue coats, so it shows through. To their credit, the top clear coats is totally smooth, so you can only see the grain, but not feel it. A weird kind of finish I think."
I thought this is purposefully done? ??? Rustic is en vogue, non?
It's probably deliberate since it's appeared on other Gibsons in that price range in the past few years. Intentional or not, it looks like an economy finish.
I see brown ... :-X
Somebody has to keep up the purity of the bass.
OK, I caved and stopped by the House of Guitars today. I played the blue LP Jr. and the new big LP Cherry burst bass. I have to say, I fell in love with the little blue bass. Plays really nice with that short scale and all of that mahogany goodness is a great match to the pups. The finish is not at all that great IMHO. They didn't grain fill enough before the blue coats, so it shows through. To their credit, the top clear coats is totally smooth, so you can only see the grain, but not feel it. A weird kind of finish I think. So, in spite of that, I had them put it away for me while I try to sell some unused stuff I have laying around. What the heck, I love playing short scales!!!
As for the big LP bass, it's just way too much wood to hang around your neck for an hour or more at a gig. They need to make the chambers larger or something, but it's still too heavy for my tastes. The beefy LP bass neck hasn't changed either, so that's another minus for me. Over all, a nicely finished bass, better than the LP jr!
Congrats Bill ! They are a cool little bass. I thought for Gibson the finish was pretty good. Much better than the job I'm doing on my NR :sad: I'm about to send it off somewhere to be done proper.
Make that the Les Paul Bass.
Not that it's going to happen; a short scale bass, with a guitar shape body and very low output pickups (that don't sound like a jazz bass) isn't what most bassists want. ;D
Phat sounding blue meanie it is. And for all those complaining how the neck-body joint doesn't ape the Junior original: Upper register access is much better with this new type of joint!
True enough, but I doubt that Gibson deliberately designed it for better access.
There is one listed on eBay. Buy it now for $1,229. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-Limited-Run-Les-Paul-Junior-DC-EB11-Electric-Bass-Guitar-Pelham-Blue-/150682593909?pt=Guitar&hash=item231561ea75#ht_1135wt_1396 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-Limited-Run-Les-Paul-Junior-DC-EB11-Electric-Bass-Guitar-Pelham-Blue-/150682593909?pt=Guitar&hash=item231561ea75#ht_1135wt_1396)
Seriously, if my SG had sounded this good, I would have kept it. The rest of the band noticed it too. I have to say it gives me Gretsch ThunderJet a run for its money in tone and playability.
I think the SG is more transparent sounding and agile, but doesn't have the ooomph-authority of the Junior, the Junior is denser in tone.
I think the SG is more transparent sounding and agile, but doesn't have the ooomph-authority of the Junior, the Junior is denser in tone. Very much a matter of taste, most modern day bassists would probably prefer the SG, but since when is this forum one of modern day bassists?! :mrgreen:
For those bitten by the mud-bug, the Junior is closer to it than the SG, though still not there (which by rights a commercially sensible bass these days couldn't and shouldn't be).