The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: Basvarken on October 06, 2017, 10:06:23 AM
-
Definitely one for Ze Kollekshun!
https://entertainment.ha.com/itm/vintage-guitars-and-musical-instruments/1976-gibson-rd-artist-natural-6-string-electric-bass-guitar/a/7172-85160.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
(https://images.talkbass.com/attachments/lf-set-path-5b1-2f5-2f8-2f6-2f7-2f15867379-5d-call-url-5bfile-3aproduct-jpg.2774777/)
-
Nice looking.
-
There's a tune-o-matic bridge that won't tilt thanks to the through body stringing. Shame they couldn't fit proper strings on it. I suppose this is basically a baritone G-3 similar to a Fender VI or the six string EB.
-
That ain't no Artist. Love those G3 pups, thoughit would be nice if they were closer to the neck :vader:
Also bolt on. I don't even think this is a real Gibson at this point. Best case employee project for personal use.
Also also zoom in on the bridge - what's up there with the string spacing?
Shame they couldn't fit proper strings on it. I suppose this is basically a baritone G-3 similar to a Fender VI or the six string EB.
That's what I thought at first too , but then I zoomed in a bit and that low E (or whatever; the 6th) is pretty thick. This would predate modern style 6 string basses so they may have added 2 higher strings (to litterally be a guitar but an octave lower) vs a Low B.
-
Yep. No Artist but Standard.
At closer inspection this bass is a bit of a sloppy job. The head stock doesn't have any ferrules for the machine heads. The way it is stringed with the silks is sloppy.
The bridge looks incrediby crude. Indeed the spacing is way off.
The pickguard shape is sloppy.
But still a nice concept.
The bass looks kinda new to me. The wood looks so blank. No yellowing. A bass this ago would have yellowed over the years.
And so does the fretboard. Too fresh. Too purple. I think rosewood of that age would have turned a more even kind of brown.
-
The thread at TB that mentioned this bass also mentioned this prototype Ripper.
Which looks similar to the one that Uwe has. Except for the knob layout
(https://images.talkbass.com/attachments/s-l1600-jpg.2774776/)
-
Yep; avoid.
... is it just me or are the outer strings precariously close to the edges of the fretboard too, at least the low E. That explains the missalignment at the saddles. It's as if the bridge was mounted off center and they tried compensating for it by slotting the saddles off center the other way. Def not a Gibson.
The OG Hobbit for $900 openning bid on that same site is a much better deal. Too bad about the gold aftermarket tuners, but for that price I'm not gonna complain.
-
I discussed this previously with Rob during our habitual border skirmishes. I missed the bolt-on plate then, that is a dead giveaway, good eyes Jake! This bass certainly contains original Gibson parts and is Gibson-inspired, but it is not a Gibson prototype. At best, something a Gibson worker with access to all these parts attempted thought it is a bit sloppy for that. But mixing a 60ies bridge with 70ies pups and varicontrol on a late 70ies/early 80ies body is weird.
-
Considering how sloppy the build is, I don't even think a gibby employee made this (unless it was the janitor).
The body is probably not a Gibson part - the bolt on neck joint sticks out too far for it to be an actual RD body.
-
Not a real Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk
-
More like bring out the holy hand grenade. It's an abomination.
-
I wouldn't immediately rule this out as legit... clearly got some new hardware, but remember the first RD prototype was indeed bolt-on...
I also feel I have heard about a six string RD (though I can find no reference to it now I look)
That headstock looks pretty good - where else would that have come from?
I'd like to have a proper look (not willing to buy it though)
Shame we can't email the seller for more pics.
-
Welcome back Jules! What took you so long?
Don't you think it looks kinda new? The colour of the body (not yellowed). The freshness of the fretboard. They don't look like they are more than forty years old.
-
thanks.. yeah maybe... stuff kept in a case for 50 years can look pretty good still though. I have an untouched L6S that looks similar
I am not asserting any strong opinion on this, just that:
1) the first RD was bolt on... nobody has seen that in recent years (perhaps Bob moog has it)
2) that headstock looks too good for a fake - if it is longer than a normal headstock where did it come from? No evidence of other tuning keys, and the ones fitted are right
My biggest doubt is the bridge - but then Gibson didn't have a six string bass bridge, so who knows what they would use if they were considering making one.
clearly work has been done with parts changed. Would love to see under the scratchplate, and in the control cavity - maybe the neck is legit and the body is a repro? Maybe body is good too?
The '76 pots sound right - doubt they came from the G3 that the pups came from because the shaft would be too short. Be very interested in more pics.
Glad to be back!
-
2) No evidence of other tuning keys, and the ones fitted are right
But they don't have any ferrules... Did Gibson ever do that? Or anyone?
-
I remember the bolt-on RD prototypes though I have never seen one (just like there were Victory set neck prototypes). But the six string configuration in a late seventies model seems strange to me - six string basses in guitar tuning (which had all been short scale) had gone long out of style back then, there was just no market for them, this guy excepted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2377uGYN8D0
And six-string basses with a low B were still a long way off, there weren't even strings for those yet. (Not that obtaining strings for this baby seems to be easy looking at what it is strung with.)
-
Jules!
OK, good points (the headstock thing did occur to me, but there are other possible explanations), but what about the pathetically sloppy workmanship (even by Gibby standards - the pickguard cutout could be rationalised away for a prototype, but not the string spacing/bridge misalignment).
The one thing that really makes no sense if how the neck/headstock is so nicely done when the rest is so shit.
-
The carve of the neck heel looks like the type on set-necks not the standard Gibson bolt on heel. Plenty of those 70s set neck blanks have been available over the last couple of decades. Someone could have picked up one of those and built a bass around it explaining the decent woodworking on the neck and lack of hole filling VS the middle school shop class work on the body.
-
But they don't have any ferrules... Did Gibson ever do that? Or anyone?
true - is there space for them? could they be just missing. Hard to say from the pics. The earlier (Ripper etc) open gear tuners had a narrower post hole than the later BM - if drilled for the former yet fitted with the latter there would be no room for ferrules. Obviously this could have been done by anyone at any point.
six string basses in guitar tuning (which had all been short scale) had gone long out of style back then, there was just no market for them
yes, true...
the pickguard cutout could be rationalised away for a prototype, but not the string spacing/bridge misalignment).
I am certainly not convinced by the bridge either!
Plenty of those 70s set neck blanks have been available over the last couple of decades. Someone could have picked up one of those and built a bass around it
also true, I have a couple- but none had a finished headstock with silk screened logo (not something easy to do yourself), plus this has a scarf joint joining the headstock to the neck - something only seen at that time on Grabbers / G3s - this fact makes the neck the most interesting feature.
I'd like to know width at neck, and headstock length. This would rule out (or not) a four string conversion.
-
Most of those 'silk screened" logos aren't silk screened at all. They are waterslides.
Here's an example of the Epiphone Newport that I restored a while ago.
The logo was beyond repair and I just bought a brandnew waterslide Epiphone logo.
Can you tell the difference?
(http://www.enkoo.nl/uploads/1/3/3/7/13376708/1748302_orig.jpg)
-
The carve of the neck heel looks like the type on set-necks not the standard Gibson bolt on heel. Plenty of those 70s set neck blanks have been available over the last couple of decades. Someone could have picked up one of those and built a bass around it explaining the decent woodworking on the neck and lack of hole filling VS the middle school shop class work on the body.
Kinda what I was thinking, except I'm not sure a set neck would have enough tenon to convert to bolt... also might change the scale or at least the point at which neck meets body.
The easiest explanation would be Ripper neck,.... and it seems maybe doable; I didn't remember how far out the neck joint goes vs older models (that way they could keep all the G series body blanks the same I guiess; production efficiency).
(http://www.flyguitars.com/graphics/1974-RIPPER-7.jpg)
also, re logos, even without decals, silk screening is super easy - none of y'all even DIYed yer own band Tshirts? I mean this is even just one color - no need to line up the next screen for the second colour, which is the hard bit (and I've done that).
-
Here is a photoshop comparison of the headstock vs a production RD - matching the tuning keys for size as close as possible. With slight changes in camera angle it is hard to be exact - but it certainly seems that this headstock is larger than the standard RDs...
(http://www.flyguitars.com/graphics/6-stringRDartist_headstock.jpg?2)
-
Yeah screen printing may be easy Jake, but most people don't own screening frames and all the other material you need to do screen printing.
Waterslide is ready to use and super easy. No tools or equipment needed.
-
Here's an example of the Epiphone Newport that I restored a while ago.
The logo was beyond repair and I just bought a brandnew waterslide Epiphone logo.
Can you tell the difference?
No it's a good job. I can tell that is not 50 years old though...
-
Yeah screen printing may be easy Jake, but most people don't own screening frames and all the other material you need to do screen printing.
Waterslide is ready to use and super easy. No tools or equipment needed.
Oh, not arguing your point - it most likely is a decal whether fake or not (even easier as well as cheaper; and what Fender uses; not sure about non-inlay Gibson stuff, but probably as well, at least these days). Just sayin that screen printing is not hard at all, (you can get most of what you need at Home Despot) and just about anyone could do it if they wanted to.
And with Jules' shop job, there goes the Ripper neck theory (though it is close.... note also the volute difference - did headstock sizes change at all over time?).
-
No it's a good job. I can tell that is not 50 years old though...
Could have done that. But I hate relics ;-)
-
Gibson did build bass guitars with head stocks big enough to accomodate six large machine heads.
(http://www.thegibsonbassbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/EB-6-SG-1000.jpg)
-
Yes, but did they do it in the 70s with all maple?
... You know I am quite sure the headstock on my RD Artist is big enough; they damn thing is huge. Don't have it here with me to check.
-
I do remember that initial Ripper prototypes were bolt-on before they resorted to set-neck for production, kind of Victory in reverse.
-
Yes, but did they do it in the 70s with all maple?
... You know I am quite sure the headstock on my RD Artist is big enough; they damn thing is huge. Don't have it here with me to check.
My EB-4L neck is all maple & a fairly large headstock.
I'll post a photo of the RD Artist, don't know if it will show the headstock well enough............
(https://i.imgur.com/4gKt55z.jpg)
-
I remain unconvinced. This bass wasn't manufactured by Gibson.
-
My EB-4L neck is all maple & a fairly large headstock.
I'll post a photo of the RD Artist, don't know if it will show the headstock well enough............
Right - series II EB3s - forgot about those. L version too probably. Weren't those 3 pc? .... anyway from the pics on your site (small; grainy when enlarged to match your previous shop) it seems the 1972 EB3L headstock is a bit bigger but still not that big.
I remain unconvinced. This bass wasn't manufactured by Gibson.
Neither am I, but if Jules isn't so sure I want to follow that line, just to see.
-
Why are you guys so focussed on the maple neck with large headstock? The fact that they haven't done it before, doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to.
The entire bass looks like something Gibson could have done. But it just isn't very likely that it's an official Gibson product.
Maybe the late Les Paul had something to do with this bass?
He had a reputation for cutting out crude pickguards and putting together parts ;)
-
Because if they did it somewhere else, then we likely know where the neck came from. If not then there is more of a chance this was a custom one of Gibby neck and the bass is (partially) legit (because the workmanship is generally so horrible it's unlikely the person who put it together made that neck).
-
I really don't think the workmanship on this bass is all that horrible.
There are two things that are a bit dodgy: the pickguard and the bridge.
The rest looks perfectly fine.
-
Why are you guys so focussed on the maple neck with large headstock? The fact that they haven't done it before, doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to.
Yes, how would they even come up with new models without making new custom parts? Gibson was definitely experimental enough in the 70's to come up with the idea of a longscale baritone guitar. Also if they wanted come up with such a thing they would need a bridge that fit (heavier gauge strings). In that case they probably had nylon saddle material leftovers for that bridge along with all the other parts periodically correct for that time. The only thing not convincing me it's a Gibson hasty made prototype is the sloppy cut pickguard. It could'nt have been that kind of hurry right?
-
Maybe the pickguard isn't even the original.
Lots of things can happen over forty years time.
-
Did anybody ever throughout the 60ies and 70ies play a long scale six string bass tuned B to E i.e. C to F? I'd be surprised. There was zilch market for it and any experienced luthier would have frowned at the sound implications of the string tension on the high B and E i.e. high C and F. You cant get those to "sing" if they are thick enough to still sound like a bass and if you thin them out they sound like an overstretched guitar.
If there was a dedicated long scale six-string bassist somewhere, then Gibson might have built this as a one-off for him if he was famous enough, but where is he then? I can't think of anybody. None of the 8-string bassists I know from that time ever dabbled with a 6-string.
That Gibson would say "Let's add a B and E (or C and F) string to our new long scale bass to hear what it sounds like!" seems incongruous to me given how both the 6-string EB-2 and the 6-string EB-3 had flopped even as niche models in the 60ies. If that is how they approached prototypes, no wonder they were technically broke by the end of the decade. :mrgreen:
PS: There is something iffy with the truss rod btw too - looks like they added a spacer below the nut. String pull might be an issue, but I've seen modified 8-string RDs hold up to the additional tension without such "help".
-
I was less concerned about the pickguard, That could have easily been replaced when the original cracked. The thing that would make me steer clear of it is the sloppy routing work on the electronics cavity and un-even line & spacing on othe string through holes.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzwkUGs.png) (https://imgur.com/ZzwkUGs)
If you zoom in more on the aution image it looks like the cover is nice and straight while the cavity itself is meandering around a bit.
(http://i.imgur.com/OnksFEy.png) (https://imgur.com/OnksFEy)
The overall shap of the body seems off, the uppor "horn" almost looks like it is flattened out a bit to me. It also seems to have an inconsistent round over on all the body edges and I cant make out any belly carve or angles carved on the face (but this may just be due to the angle of the photos). To my eyes it looks like a roughly cut two-piece slab body vs the production RD's. Unless it was the first RD body they ever made you would expect it to be much more consistent with the production models.
Anything's possible with Gibson I guess but there are a lot of things about this bass that would make me run the other direction before bidding without a physical inspection.
-
Hmm... yes, that control cavity does look sloppy too. And so does the spacing of the string through body ferrules.
All in all too much evidence that this bass was not put together by an employee of Gibson.
-
Exactly what Attlas66 said. It's not the bridge hardware, but the installation. No way that thing left the Gibson factory (in any official sense) with a bridge that was mounted too far north by at least 5mm (approx 1/5"). Zoom in on the fretboard too and note how close the low E is to the edge vs the high E (assuming guitar tuning).
The string thru body ferrules on the top seem to be not level either (the damage on the high E one, is neither here nor there - could be play wear)...edit: I see Rob beat me to the punch there.
The rear cavity route screams 'freehand' vs using a jig (which Gibson would have, because they already have one in that size/shape or very close so why the hell not?).
So that's why we're fixating the neck or headstock to be more specific, because it doesn't fit with the workmanship on the rest of the instrument.
.... and is that a burn mark (maple doesn't have knots like that does it? ) down on the butt end under the cavity cover? It does look like there's some scorching on the edges of the cavity route - def freehand with a dull bit or crappy router.
-
"that would make me steer clear of it is the sloppy routing work on the electronics cavity"
Yes, I saw that too, just glaring. And the string holes don't just have uneven spacing but also uneven height.
Plastic saddles on a late 70ies bass is strange too.
I don't rule out that some Gibby employee built this from the Gibson scrap heap, it would account for the handicraft pick guard.
-
"the damage on the high E one, is neither here nor there - could be play wear"
Yup, that kinda damage is frequent even on regular models. Of course given how thin that high E must be and the tension it has, it will cut right thru the ferrule very quickly.
-
But whatever this bass is, it has generated more learned discussion than any other RD in a long time. :mrgreen:
One other aberration yet unmentioned: The combo of a natural body with a dark fretboard is very un-Gibsonish.
I might still give this a bid just for the heck of it (assuming it is fake) and because it is an interesting little (large!) Franken-RD. What has me hesitate is getting the right length strings for this baby - that might just be impossible as regards high B and E (C and F).
-
.... and is that a burn mark (maple doesn't have knots like that does it? ) down on the butt end under the cavity cover? It does look like there's some scorching on the edges of the cavity route - def freehand with a dull bit or crappy router.
I suspect this is actually shadow from the stand where it stood in when they photographed it. But when they cut it out in Photoshop they didn't correct the colour there.
Or it may be damage from the plasticizers of the stand.
-
Considering how sloppy the build is, I don't even think a gibby employee made this (unless it was the janitor).
The janitor theory is entirely plausible. Scrap parts + someone who's observed a lot of guitar building = this!
-
Did someone of us Outposters score that fretless Ripper prototype?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-GIBSON-Bass-Long-Neck-With-Original-Case-Age-Unknown/322809273538?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649
-
I seem to remember a G4 prototype :-*
-
More Dutch lies.
-
Hmmmmm....
-
Is there any truth in the rumour that the Dutch are always sticking their fingers into dykes...? Or was it thumbs...? :vader:
-
Ken!!! Must you always plunge decorum levels?!
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/c1e3b6946a66e2b9480979ae74f28505/tumblr_mowflzM4WL1spq7vdo1_500.gif)
-
Haha! :toast:
This one was for real.
Did you score it Uwe?
-
Naw, I have a fretted prototype and an early unfretted series model (though that is an aftermarket defret) plus a range of other assorted Rippers ... Not to mention how we will be moving offices in the not too distant future and Ze Köllekshün won't fit all into the new quarters! :-\
-
Ah that's too bad. x 2
Any plans for a Gibson Bass museum yet? 8)
-
Thinking about it ... I wouldn't want it to feature me too heavily though, something modest please.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Lincoln_Memorial.jpg/495px-Lincoln_Memorial.jpg)
-
This might be the missing piece for the museum:
https://reverb.com/item/107428-1929-gibson-mando-bass-1929-gibson-mando-bass
(https://images.reverb.com/image/upload/s--ZuoSLrog--/a_exif,c_limit,e_unsharp_mask:80,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_south,h_1600,q_80,w_1600/v1455320553/zwphopbsvhxs2ni9twns.jpg)
-
Is it period-correct?
-
barely
-
Positioning of the sound hole obviously predetermined where the later mudbucker would go. :rimshot:
-
... Not to mention how we will be moving offices in the not too distant future and Ze Köllekshün won't fit all into the new quarters! :-\
I have room at the inn for any that don't fit, and I promise not to misbehave... (did he see the crossed fingers?) :mrgreen:
-
Naw, I have a fretted prototype and an early unfretted series model (though that is an aftermarket defret) plus a range of other assorted Rippers ... Not to mention how we will be moving offices in the not too distant future and Ze Köllekshün won't fit all into the new quarters! :-\
Crap! When are you doing that?
-
2019?
-
Positioning of the sound hole obviously predetermined where the later mudbucker would go. :rimshot:
Gibson refer to it as the 'mud hole' in early literature.
-
Gibson refer to it as the 'mud hole' in early literature.
No, don't go there. I fear another loss of decorum.
(http://www.philaprintshop.com/images/northct7.jpg)
-
No, don't go there. I fear another loss of decorum.
Loss of decorum on this forum? No, we discuss asstronomy.
Coming tomorrow evening (http://www.iflscience.com/space/you-can-catch-a-great-view-of-uranus-this-month/)
-
This morning I'm drinking coffee and reading these comments and the ones on the De Gier Lowlander. And I'm a happy man, smiling and laughing:)
-
2019?
Whew! I should be there before then! :-*
-
Loss of decorum on this forum? No, we discuss asstronomy.
Coming tomorrow evening (http://www.iflscience.com/space/you-can-catch-a-great-view-of-uranus-this-month/)
:o But Dave, body hygiene isn't only for weekends! (You can get the man out of the 50ies, but you can't get the 50ies out of the man ...)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/36/82/0b/36820b6a9ee5af7eba49e862420dc264.jpg)
-
2019?
No, that's Brexit, not Kolexit... :mrgreen:
-
BREXIT ranks as one of the great noteworthy decisions of the English and Welsh people. Along with Operation Market Garden and invading Iraq of course. Both resolutions with a similar success trajectory.
Taking a minute to think about the long run consequences of what you are doing is sooo overrated.
-
Might mean independence for Schottland and re-integration into the Eu, mind you... :vader:
-
sold for $2,125.00
-
Schottland...? Who too...? :o
-
Wow. Somebody got taken.
-
well, we'll never know....
-
unless it's one us :mrgreen: