The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: Hutton on January 19, 2009, 01:30:03 AM
-
I have just bought this Gibson IV Bass (1987) and have been trying in vain to find out a bit more about it than just the basic details. I was directed to this site so am hoping someone here knows a few things about the IV Bass.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c322/Williamwood/Gib7.jpg)
-
Welcome!
The IV is essentially a Thunderbird, but with a more modern body design (and great upper fret access). They're great basses.
What do you want to know about it?
-
Thanks nik. I would like to know some factory setup details i.e. radius/truss rod/action. I have set the bass pretty much to my liking but would like to know the factory settings. Some historical stuff might also be good to know such as years of production and how many were built.
-
Is that you on that picture? :-* :)
-
Welcome Hutton. You've come to the right place. ;)
Uwe is about to chime in with detailed info, any moment now.
-
to give you a little history, try this site. it talks about the Victory model which was Gibsons precursor to the lV.
Jules (evil lord juju in here) has a site that is very informative about Gibson bases, although it doesn't have much on the 4, 5 or the Q-90 if anything at all. http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/Victory.php
Uwe is grinding on his reply, i can here the wheels turn here in the midwest all the way from Germany. with that said, Uwe is prolly one of the definative resources on Gibby history on this side of the universe.
-
if that's a 51 year old male in the pic then i guess that's him. ;)
-
Wow, I wish the 51 year old males in Holland looked that way.
Where's Uwe? Busy fighting the credit crunch?
-
Where's Uwe? Busy fighting the credit crunch?
prolly trying to expand his Gibby collection or his Spandex wardrobe!
-
Thanks for the replies and info chaps. I should perhaps clear up the story behind the photo. It's definitely not me holding the bass. The photo was taken by a bass-playing pro photographer who can call upon various nice young ladies to make his photos look rather splendid.
-
Welcome!
I saw that post on TB, I *think* JZumbro may have this bass as well, hopefully he'll stop by and prove me right..........
Wow, I wish the 51 year old males in Holland looked that way.
Where's Uwe? Busy fighting the credit crunch?
As for you!.................. ;)
-
I had a red one for a while, in fact it's still in my avatar. By the time I got it, the factory settings were long gone. According to the Blue Book they were made from 1987-1989. Don't bother going to the Blue Book for anything else, it says they're Alder/Maple, when it's obviously Mahogany all through.
You should probably brace yourself for the "Poor man's TBird" quip, though they've treated you kindly so far. Whenever Uwe's posted pictures of his, it still had the price tag on, so he can probably measure the factory settings for you. ;D
I remember seeing that picture, must have been on eBay? They don't come up often.
-
Thanks Phil for your helpful info. I don't really mind any 'poor man's T-bird' quips. I think this is a great bass in it's own right. It feels very comfortable to wear. It's very well balanced and plays superbly.
-
Oops! I've just read the rules for the forum which states that there should be no pictures of girls with basses. Many apologies to the moderators but it's the only photo I have that shows the whole bass. The others showed different angles but not the whole thing. Not a very good start! :-[
-
well, she did show a fair amount of skin, you're forgiven.
-
Oops! I've just read the rules for the forum which states that there should be no pictures of girls with basses. Many apologies to the moderators but it's the only photo I have that shows the whole bass. The others showed different angles but not the whole thing. Not a very good start! :-[
Your photo is fine (in more ways than one :mrgreen: ). The rule is referring to a "girls with basses" thread at another departed forum, it was nothing but an enormous bandwidth suck and wasn't about basses.
I'm sure Uwe will be along soon to say a lot more about the IVs. My take: the only reason they would be called a "poor man's T-bird" is because the resale today isn't as high. At the time, it was Gibson's attempt to do a Gibson interpretation of a P-bass-type shape. It might have sold well if they had actually promoted it.
I'm not aware of Gibson ever publishing factory setup specs on basses.
-
Tastefully photographed girls and basses..................All good ;)
-
Had the bespectacled young lass who graces the beginning of this lively thread been employed by Gibson in the late eighties to promote the IV/V (for the 5 string model) line, history might have been different ...
Alas!, 'twas not to be: In the words of its creator, Phil Jones (then junior luthier at Gibson and not to be mistaken with the amp designer), the IV/V was "Gibson's failed attempt to bring the TBird into the eighties after the failure of 'The Loser' " (less than respectful internal Gibson moniker for the Victory model which sold like lead by the mideighties). The TBird was a classic shape, but unergonomic to many bassists with bad upper register access, break-prone at the fragile neck-huge headstock transition zone and expensive to make due to the neck-thru construction. So Herr Jones, who despised the Victory as a "bad Fender knock-off, Gibson never got bolt-ons right", set about creating something modern, yet Gibsonesque, a return to mahogany tradition (as opposed to the many maple models Gibson had released since the late seventies up to the mid-eighties), set neck, ergonomic with added frets and affordable too. He thought. He didn't get much farther than headstock (a nod to Gibson tradition in the Grabber and Flying V vein and also stylishly "eighties") and mahogany, when the sales department intervened and demanded a shape which reminded of a Victory body drawn by a child (Jones was a fan of the LP Junior shape). Adding insult to injury, Henry J, then already Gibson CEO, demanded a 1.000 buck price tag to the bass which killed it commercially. It bombed, didn't last long and the end of 1987 saw the reissue of the real TBird in pretty much its classic shape (which made the concept of the IV/V redundant), albeit with a smaller headstock for better stability and balance. Both models incidentally used the same pups.
If you can get over the ugly "Fender larvae" body (I thought the less rounded Victory shape cool, but the IV/V shape is just anodyne and reeks of Fareast budget bass of the worst kind), the IV/V leaves you with a very ergonomic and comfortable playing experience, approximates a TBird sound (a TBird offers more sustain due to the neck thru construction, but the IV/V is no slouch in that department either as you will have undoubtedly noticed by now, also the pups used by the original IV/Vs and reissue TBirds called TB Plus pups have been consistently souped up over the years for more output, older ones have a tendency to be microphonic) and gives you a high E whereas a conventional Bird already has you struggling with a high C#!
While my IV did indeed have a price tag, it was second hand and bought in this millenium, factory set-ups had long vanished. From my experience (I have one IV and two five string Vs which have a slightly thicker and wider neck), IV/Vs can be set up with lower action than a TBird. The cavity for the truss rod nut tends to be a bit tight for full adjustment tool access, you might have to make a little room via scraping away some of the soft mahogany behind the adjustment nut with a screwdriver. The neck can be very straight with little relief.
Our freelance contributor and TBird collector, the honorable George Carlston, once described the IV/V as "a TBird, albeit in Clark Kent mode". That sums it up nicely.
Uwe (currently on business in England and now late for dinner due to your collective call to arms!)
-
Well Uwe you certainly don't disappoint! You obviously have a well-justified reputation for having in-depth knowledge of the low end. Many thanks for the story of the IV!
-
That's just because no one gives a crap about Gibson eighties basses here! They all pretend to never have sported a mullet ...
Me, I recently even bought the remastered version of my then style icon's "Living in Oz" album! "We all need ... ".
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cgBE_4-rZ6Y
-
As basses go its pretty good looking....at least to my eye.
But her black bra is nice too, they're more affordable and I have a nice collection ;D
-
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1428/1471193565_f66c72b4fd.jpg?v=0)
They're not without their vocal fanbase!
-
Now where did that come from? A tattoed IV fan? The mind boggles.
-
n!k,
Your tat?
Awesome! :thumbsup:
-
Even the saddles are set up to intonate! :rimshot:
-
As basses go its pretty good looking....at least to my eye.
But her black bra is nice too, they're more affordable and I have a nice collection ;D
I always wondered ... :-[, cup size?
-
Inquiring minds........
Normally I'm a nice girl but since it's you Uwe ( and you're a gentleman) I'm a 36 C.
-
Contrary to your moniker here, that doesn't make you neck heavy then, Mark. :popcorn:
-
No..........I'm shapely :-X
Actually it helps counteract a Thunderbird's headstock, its all about proportion. ;)
-
wow a Victory and a Black Flag tatoo.this person rules
-
Thanks for the replies and info chaps. I should perhaps clear up the story behind the photo. It's definitely not me holding the bass. The photo was taken by a bass-playing pro photographer who can call upon various nice young ladies to make his photos look rather splendid.
too bad it ain't you :)...and the photographer did a great job...oeh la la...of course with an EB3 it would look even more splendid.
-
At the time, it was Gibson's attempt to do a Gibson interpretation of a P-bass-type shape. It might have sold well if they had actually promoted it.
One thing that hurts it IMO is the combination of pointy headstock with a traditional F type body. If it had a 4 in line headstock it would be more acceptable to the masses. Heck, I probably would have kept the one I had that was finished in Heather Poly from the factory.
(http://www.mojohobo.com/images/bass1.jpg)
-
The low price makes it a great inexpensive bass for those who want one.
-
Isn't it typical that nobody ever complains about other brands looking like a 7ender? But if Gibson makes a bass with a similar shape it's considered ugly or weird... (Which of course all 7ender shaped basses are. Let's be honest :mrgreen: )
-
I must be really weird. I like this bass a lot. I like the way it looks, sounds, and plays. There is no doubt that it is a good bass. If you don't like the look then that's ok. There are plenty other great basses without searching out the rare ones. I have been a P Bass player up until I got the IV and that's maybe why I like it. It feels so familiar and such a good compliment to my precisions. The headstock provides it with it's own character and look. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
-
I really don't think it is offensive, just bland like a Honda- a great car/bass that does what it does well, but does not inspire or offend.
-
I must be really weird. I like this bass a lot. I like the way it looks, sounds, and plays. There is no doubt that it is a good bass. If you don't like the look then that's ok. There are plenty other great basses without searching out the rare ones. I have been a P Bass player up until I got the IV and that's maybe why I like it. It feels so familiar and such a good compliment to my precisions. The headstock provides it with it's own character and look. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Caught in the right light I thought mine looked pretty cool, the neck with the ebony fretboard was wonderful and it sounded different, but not in a bad way. The problem I had was I couldn't get the rest of the band to accept it over my MIJ Precision. After a few months of "we prefer the Fender" looks whenever I brought the IV out, I took the hint. However, I've had the same problem with every other bass I've tried to foist on them, including 3 varieties of Jazz, an Elitist EB3 and a Spector, so I can't really blame the IV.
-
Well it's a good thing they're your bandmates and not mine. Nothing on earth sounds or looks more played-out than a P-bass and I can't say that I could be coerced to play one.
-
Welcome!
I saw that post on TB, I *think* JZumbro may have this bass as well, hopefully he'll stop by and prove me right..........
As for you!.................. ;)
Good memory, Mark! I do have one. I'm the one who directed him to this site (under my TB moniker "Showdown").
Here it is, I finally found a TB Plus to replace the Bart bridge pickup in the picture, so it sounds like it was intended to now:
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-5/735419/PDRM0013.JPG)
In my new band I've been using one of my '76 Tbirds as my main bass, with this one as backup.
-
Many thanks for directing me here JZumbro. This is obviously the right place to be for all things basswise.
-
I think IV/Vs are ugly as hell and I own three! But that doesn't make them bad basses nor a bad value for money investment. I prefer a well_sounding ugly to a bad-sounding beauty. And if you like your IV, so much the better
-
I prefer a bad sounding beautifull bass to a good sounding bad looker. You won't see me with a boutique bass.
Rock 'n roll is just about posing ;D
-
I prefer a bad sounding beautifull bass to a good sounding bad looker. You won't see me with a boutique bass.
Rock 'n roll is just about posing ;D
Like posing with a 4005 when you're really playing a Thunderbird.
-
I think IV/Vs are ugly as hell and I own three! But that doesn't make them bad basses nor a bad value for money investment. I prefer a well_sounding ugly to a bad-sounding beauty. And if you like your IV, so much the better
Come on, now. You have three of them. I'll bet you're just hiding your tats from us.
-
Like posing with a 4005 when you're really playing a Thunderbird.
Yep. :mrgreen:
-
Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
I bought the IV being discussed here from Hutton a little less than a year ago, and seeing as they seem to get very little air time I thought I would share a little video of it being played last month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HRlW1ZOBas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HRlW1ZOBas)
It performed excellently, a joy to play both from the ergonomics point of view and the sound (which was amplified by a Hartke HA3500 head and projected (on stage at least) by a Zoot 4x10. It was the clear and cut through beautifully on stage.
Unappreciated, underrated, overlooked, unloved? Not here :)
(http://www.ifb.co.uk/~matthew/pics/gibson_iv.jpg)
Sorry Hutton, I keep nicking your photo. Looks good with the rugged wall behind it though.
-
I think the IVs are really nice looking basses when they are natural mahogany like yours. The last one I saw on eBay was in excellent condition and had a BIN for $350. Wish I'd bought it. THere have been others but when painted they look odd to me.
-
I agree. The Gibson IV will never win a beauty contest, but the natural fin is the best combo with the "Fender larvae" unremarkable shape. And of course they sound great, feel nice, have a high E and probably have the best ergonomics of any Gibson bass. And not every Joe plays one either.
-
I dunno, when I first thought of getting an IV it was a white one I was erring towards. If you're going to do the 80s thing, you might as well go all in :)
-
I think the IVs are really nice looking basses when they are natural mahogany like yours. The last one I saw on eBay was in excellent condition and had a BIN for $350. Wish I'd bought it. THere have been others but when painted they look odd to me.
Agreed, nice looking basses that never go up in value, always a bargin.
-
The offset dot inlays appeal to me too.
-
Nothing screams "80s" more than a pointy headstock!
-
It's rounded like a Flying V, not pointy.
The Q-80 was pointy. Now that screams 80s.
-
I was reffering to that headstock that look out of place in that bass.
-
It does look out of place. Your eyes expect to see it with a more symmetrical body.
-
That is because the body was originally intended to be more Gibsonish, but Henry J intervened. The designer of the IV, Phil Jones, would have opted for an LP doublecut body which he tried to introduce later on once more with the LP line of the early nienties. Again without success, Henry wanted the singlecut LP as the more iconic Gibson shape. In the end, all that remained Gibsonish of the IV was the headstock. Since it was a rushed job, no one got around to rectifying the glaringly apparent mismatch between headstock and body shape.