The Last Bass Outpost

Interesting.

... though the use of "II" does not bode well from my perspective (seeing as what they've done with the G Series sequels - those may indeed have had room for improvement, but the LoZ series was near-perfect in my opinion and I really am not looking forward to any significant redesigns, especially as regards the decade/varitone and/or coil taps, passive treble & bass tone knobs, and the pups themselves - stacked humbuckers with blade polepeiies).

..... then again, since this is waaaay out of my price range, the thing I am looking forward to most is clarification on the circuit (i.e. pot taper). I don't expect that too many parts (pups, the master switch, which is a little hard to find, the "bass" knob) to come up on ebay due to the short run.

........and did somebody say white?  I don't get to gloat often:

As she came to me (paid CAN$800) - hard to tell but one tuner was busted and the control plate was cracked and badly repaired at the jack, strap buttons removed and replaced with 2" screws holding those stap clips on (so solid and reliable, that I never bothered to fix that)... in addition to then yellowing/cigarette tar (she was a working girl from Montreal):








How I fixed her up:



Some much nicer specimens (starting with one that went for US4k the very week after I got mine - needless to say I felt like a bandit):



that price was amazing considering things like:



A slightly mintier one (none ever sold for quite as much as the above one ever again as far as I know)... or at least less yellowed:

I think you mean C.Y.N.   

Just stop and think about how much you'll be spending on gas, and the yearly repair/maintenance bills and let her go. 

BTW, there was no SWAT gear and there were no guns drawn. The raid was conducted by agents who carry sidearms.

That's the most surprising thing about this whole case then. 

That's the truth, everything else is just rose-tinted nostalgia. Grabber II, Ripper II and the G-3 Tribute are all better-made than their ancestors and sound rounder, more consistent and more assertive too.

Aside from the build quality item (which I am skeptical about given the amount of fit/finish complaints on new Gibsons we see around here, but I can't speak to personally.... the few vintage Rippers/Grabbers/G3s I have seen were damn solid, though I suppose 40 years of use can hide finish imperfections), isn't any judgement about the sound completely subjective?

I mean, I love vintage mud.  The new SG bass sounds great, but my vintage EB3 does a thing I really like that the SG can't. Yes the SG is more versatile and sounds 'better' in a typical this-is-how-we-bass way, but when you have multiple instruments, I would think that a certain specialization is actually more useful than having a bunch of jack of all trades, and I don't particularly care to sound like anybody (everybody) else anyway (I go to great lengths not to). Since the pups are so different on these updated G-series models (not reissues, given the "II" moniker - I appreciate them making this distinction) this may very well be an improvement in many ways (technically; on paper etc), but those old ripper pups (mini-muds as they were sidewinders) had their own special thing, which some people may legitimately prefer, as did the original (Bill Lawrence) G3 pups (I really love those, the new ones may be very good too, I haven't tried them yet). To chalk it up to pure nostalgia is not entirely fair.  Though I understand their decision (being different has not served Gibson so well in the bass market historically), I do think that Gibson is missing an opportunity here by letting these old pup designs languish unused (could they not be updated and improoved with modern materials and manufacturing but still retain a basic character and advantages of the original vs  a completely differant design?).  There is a market for them as clearly shown by consistently rising ebay prices on vintage units as well as clone reissues by other makers.  Gibson has been one of the most innovative companies as regards bass pups and it's a shame that they are abandoning much of that heritage to try to be more Fender/Musicmanish (this is, paradoxically, also something that has historically not always worked out for them so well).  

Also, I find that 'round' and 'assertive' are, if not quite mutually exclusive descriptors,  not exactly things that are easily reconciled in my mind, so your description is a little confusing.  To me, round means mellow in a sine wavey way, with good bass response and extension, while assertive conjures thoughts of mid-forwardness, maybe even a little aggressive brightness or clank.  I have a hard time imagining a sound that is both of these things. .. but that's the eternal problem with descriptions of tone.

Wow, that does look nice.  Congrats.

I haven't seen a burst that well done on a new instrument in a while ("abrupt" is really a good way to put it).

I like unfilled grain with transparent or translucent finishes, providing it's done right. I'm okay with matte or semi-gloss finishes if they're done properly. Even solid colored finishes like the gold can look nice in matte, filled or unfilled. My Melody Maker looks very nice in white satin.

The problem is that Gibson doesn't do it right on many of these. Some of them look like they were run through a spray booth operated by a baboon. None of the smoothness of my $250 Melody Maker, and some of these are $2000 basses. Just awful.

I do agree with that.  ... I just don't claim to be able to tell from an online sales pic how bad the finish is (I believe you guys, that Gibson needs to pull up it's socks in that department though, because  a number of you have bought new basses and complained in the past, going back a good few years), but they seem to only put the better-done ones up for display in local stores here.

I can see why people like oiled finishes on woods like maple, but when wood with grain as deep as mahogany
...
I want to be able to sweat my EB down at a show, and clean it up after.  

See, I would be hesitant to finish a maple instrument in oil.  This is because maple is much more prone to warping and damage (greying) due to moisture exposure (or humidity fluctuation) than maho.  That said I have done this to a maple neck (1980 Gibson Sonex Custom 6 banger).... but I only risked it because a) I actually have a spare neck (Sonexes are bolt on) and b) it's 3 pc opposed grain laminated neck vs 1 pc so warp risk is reduced.

Trust me, oil looks great on maho (e.g. my 60s EB3) ... by deep I assume you mean physically (pores etc, vs visually) because maple certainly tends to look deeper (especially figured - that's the whole point), but maho is physically deeper.  Sanding, including final stages where you wet the wood first (to raise the grain) goes a long way here.  The manual rubbing in of the oil also acts as a buffing stage - kinda fills the grain a bit with a mix of oil and superfine maho dust. It also forms a bit of a protective film (like laquer does) after several coats (but thinner/softer).  For something like a bass I always do like a bagillion coats, 1 or 2 a day lovingly and patiently rubbed in, for weeks.  If done right (and maintained), tung oil will easily protect yer EB3 from a drenching performance.    I haven't needed to reoil it yet (been almost 10 years, actively gigged as a main player for the first 5 or so), though just recently it occurred to me that I should as it is starting to look a bit duller than before (I've been procrastinating because Lucy don't leave the house much anymore anyway).

Think of it this way, have any of your unlaquered fretboards (just about anything rosewood or ebony that isn't a Ric) been damaged by your sweating?  Those are just oiled.