The Last Bass Outpost

Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: Denis on January 31, 2014, 09:14:44 AM

Title: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on January 31, 2014, 09:14:44 AM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage-1980s-Ned-Steinberger-Gibson-USA-20-20-Gold-Bass-w-Speizel-Tuners-/301084125417?pt=Guitar&hash=item461a0328e9
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on January 31, 2014, 11:42:51 AM
Looks kinda cool, decent condition.  Fortunately not my thing.   ;)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on January 31, 2014, 12:34:45 PM
I placed a bid  8)
But I got outbid pretty fast
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: ilan on January 31, 2014, 12:56:52 PM
I have it on my watch list. What do you figure is a good price for a 20/20?

I know many dislike the shape but I think they look awesome. Always have (well since the 1987 catalog anyway).
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: 66Atlas on January 31, 2014, 01:08:42 PM
If it didn't violate my "no bolt-ons" policy I'd consider it   :o
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on January 31, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
Isn't it generally thought that Gibson made about 100 of them?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 01, 2014, 06:38:47 AM
Our consensus on this board was likely less than 100. When I emailed Walter Carter a number of years back, he said that he had only seen two and thought only 12 were produced. I've counted more than 12 that I've found on the web. It's still quite rare though............. :vader:
 Since the JMJ 20/20, the only one that came & was sold, was this one on GBase........... http://www.gbase.com/gear/gibson-20-20-ned-steinberger-1987-silver-luna   At least until this one.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 02, 2014, 10:38:42 AM
I have it on my watch list. What do you figure is a good price for a 20/20?

I know many dislike the shape but I think they look awesome. Always have (well since the 1987 catalog anyway).

It seems like around $900.00 has been the going price for the last few years. I paid about that for my Luna Silver bass with a modifiable new hard shell case. Almost exactly 3 years ago, I paid $1,280 for a close to mint Ferrari Red one which is a bit more rare. Many thought I had lost my marbles............ but I haven't seen another. This one seems to be in great shape, the only thing I see as being missing is the "Leg Rest". That might be a standard Steinberger item that can still be found.......... Good Luck!!
(http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af119/Grog_03/19872020sFerrariRedLunaSilver-1.jpg) (http://s999.photobucket.com/user/Grog_03/media/19872020sFerrariRedLunaSilver-1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on February 02, 2014, 11:26:52 AM
Perhaps you need a third one?  ;D
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 02, 2014, 01:02:20 PM
Perhaps you need a third one?  ;D

That would set me up for an "Intervention"! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on February 02, 2014, 02:29:58 PM
Is that what we call "sectioned" over here...? ;D
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on February 02, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
I won't be surprised if this gets up to $900 or more.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Aussie Mark on February 02, 2014, 05:01:25 PM
The coincidental thing about the 20/20 for those of us who live in cricketing-playing parts of the world, given that the 20/20 is often jokingly called a cricket bat, is that 4 or 5 years ago a short format of cricket was developed using the name 20/20 (because each team bats for 20 overs).   It's a hugely popular format of the game now.

(http://www.montysports.co.uk/image/data/products/SS-TON-20-Bat.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on February 02, 2014, 05:36:58 PM
Gibson... ahead of their time, yet again... ;)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 02, 2014, 08:12:50 PM
No other bass has so many other useful options that it can used for.................. How can you put a price tag on that!! :vader: :vader: :vader:

We could use another 20/20 Brother on the LBO.............
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: planetgaffnet on February 03, 2014, 03:07:11 AM
I had a bit of a horn for one of these a few months ago...I just figured it might be a more whacky bass to use in the punky band I play in, but at the same time it still having a degree of credibility in an, 'Oh, it's a Gibson,' kind of way.
P
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on February 04, 2014, 12:01:42 AM
Woah! It went for $2025! :o
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: ilan on February 04, 2014, 01:27:05 AM
Woah! It went for $2025! :o
Whoa, indeed.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 04, 2014, 05:10:17 AM
I'm speechless. This is the bass we all used to joke about - me included. I don't rule out that the Steinberg origin might be more of a value factor than the Gibson one. And of course, for design buffs, there is something pure about the 20/20. As paddles go, it also seems to be the best balancing one.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on February 04, 2014, 09:58:36 AM
Somebody really wanted that. More likely, two people did and got in a bidding war.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 04, 2014, 10:56:10 AM
Looks like I'm off the hook in the "Paid way to much for a 20/20" category!!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 04, 2014, 12:54:30 PM
Yours will be on exhibit here someday

(http://www.centralpark.biz/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Museum-of-Modern-Art-New-York-300x196.jpg)

with a commemorative plaque for the "Grog Foundation", naw, make that "Grog Trust" and an audio installation of your favorite licks!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 04, 2014, 12:58:21 PM
Somebody really wanted that. More likely, two people did and got in a bidding war.

Which will go down in ebay history as "The Battle for the Paddle"!!!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on February 04, 2014, 03:42:11 PM
I nearly fell of my chair when I saw the price that beastie went for...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on February 04, 2014, 04:40:34 PM
As paddles go, it also seems to be the best balancing one.

High praise indeed.   ???
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: chromium on February 04, 2014, 04:52:20 PM
cough*shill*cough

Who knows... but sure looks like it from user a***b with their 31 feedbacks.  Won't be surprised if it pops up again.

Another bidder was right up there with 2K in the last few hours, though!  Yeaowch  :o
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 04, 2014, 07:18:56 PM
It's just a plank of wood, with a neck bolted on it................... :o
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 04, 2014, 07:23:43 PM
Yours will be on exhibit here someday

(http://www.centralpark.biz/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Museum-of-Modern-Art-New-York-300x196.jpg)

with a commemorative plaque for the "Grog Foundation", naw, make that "Grog Trust" and an audio installation of your favorite licks!

Would an exhibit with two 20/20's be a 40/40?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on February 04, 2014, 08:31:05 PM
cough*shill*cough

Who knows... but sure looks like it from user a***b with their 31 feedbacks.  Won't be surprised if it pops up again.

Another bidder was right up there with 2K in the last few hours, though!  Yeaowch  :o

I doubt it was shill bidding.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: 66Atlas on February 05, 2014, 06:10:57 AM
2X what they've sold for in other auctions makes me wonder if it will re-appear in a week "re-listed due to a non-paying bidder".
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 05, 2014, 06:26:56 AM
Would an exhibit with two 20/20's be a 40/40?

You mean the Guggenheim won't get one? That's harsh.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 05, 2014, 06:42:45 AM
High praise indeed.   ???

It has a lot of clever ideas. The counter-clockwise tuners - not classic 2+2 E A (top) and  G  D (below), but A E  (top) and D G (below), a nut that could be elevated Warwick style (but ahead of Warwick), the fold-out contraption so that it doesn't slip off your leg when played seated, the elongated horn which makes it balance well and doesn't put the low F outside of comfortable reach of smaller players as the body hangs pretty much to the left of the player looking down, the sturdy and immediately accessible (no cover) truss rod adjustment nut, the fat, but surprisingly ergonomic neck ... It's been thought thru. It wasn't just "Hey, let's do a Steinberger something!" The only real concessions to Gibson tradition were the wood construction and the phat neck. It's a dead spot free bass. What it does lack is mids, but that was owed to the prevailing tastes in the late 80ies.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 05, 2014, 03:42:02 PM
This $2,000 + purchase had..... " the fold-out contraption so that it doesn't slip off your leg when played seated" thingy missing............. and the seller either didn't know it was missing or chose not to disclose it.......... It might have gone for more had it been complete.......... :-\
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: gearHed289 on February 06, 2014, 09:18:29 AM
This $2,000 + purchase had..... " the fold-out contraption so that it doesn't slip off your leg when played seated" thingy missing............. and the seller either didn't know it was missing or chose not to disclose it.......... It might have gone for more had it been complete.......... :-\

I noticed that early on too. That was a Steinberger "innovation" BTW on the original plank bass.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Chris P. on February 20, 2014, 07:59:28 AM
Someone told me there is/was one for sale in Belgium for around 900 euros. Will try to find a link.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 20, 2014, 08:50:14 AM
Mine was from Italy - certainly an international bass. I'll never forget how the Italian seller wrote to me that "to protect your bass, Uwe, I have especially taken the neck off and send it seperately". And there the bass came - in two packages.  :mrgreen: Italians being Italians, I was of course worried that not all the bolt-on screws would be there ..., but, va bene, they were. My very Germanic preconceptions proved unfounded. :-[ He had even included the paddle bag and all the necessary tools for truss rod and nut height adjustment.  ;)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on February 20, 2014, 01:10:47 PM
Someone told me there is/was one for sale in Belgium for around 900 euros. Will try to find a link.
I put a bid on it. The seller lowered his price somewhat. Still in doubt wether I should drive the Antwerp to go and pick it up…



Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 20, 2014, 01:45:18 PM
Rob, what's wrong with you? From hobbit to laser gun! Or is it that B&CH needs inspiration for a new model?  :-X
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on February 20, 2014, 02:09:46 PM
A bad case of GAS I guess
Ever since I laid hands on your 20/20 I've had the itch for that weird paddle.
The more I look at the design, the more I like it.

It's just that I have enough bass guitars already.
Been trying to downsize, but haven't been very successful...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on February 20, 2014, 02:28:44 PM
From laughing stock (or stick!) to cult object - the 20/20 sure has a career here!

10 years ago you had to duck even mentioning it as a "Gibson" bass.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on February 20, 2014, 06:27:40 PM
Mine was from Italy - certainly an international bass. I'll never forget how the Italian seller wrote to me that "to protect your bass, Uwe, I have especially taken the neck off and send it seperately". And there the bass came - in two packages.  :mrgreen: Italians being Italians, I was of course worried that not all the bolt-on screws would be there ..., but, va bene, they were. My very Germanic preconceptions proved unfounded. :-[ He had even included the paddle bag and all the necessary tools for truss rod and nut height adjustment.  ;)

I just received the Markbass Little Mark III, made in Italy............ The box was mismarked for European power, crossed out on one side. It had a power chord for European power. But the amp is marked 120 volts, 60 Hz. It seems to work fine. That's my first experience with Italian musical gear...... Confusing! 
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on February 20, 2014, 09:44:09 PM
Aside from the AC plugs not matching, the switching power supply of those amps will operate on pretty much anything that can keep enough power on its supply rails to keep it stable. That's an advantage they have over linear-supply amps.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 01, 2014, 12:48:26 PM
Look what I got!

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/923495_10203235885042967_1833558645_n.jpg)


All I need now is a canoe  :toast:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on March 01, 2014, 01:32:34 PM
Don't forget, you're up sh1t creek without one... :mrgreen:

(at least the beastie will have a nice home... congrats)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on March 01, 2014, 07:45:25 PM
And another one joins the elite owners' club. Congrats!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on March 02, 2014, 11:22:54 AM
Congrats!! Welcome to the Secret Society of Paddle Bearers! I think the LBO must have the market cornered on these.............. Where did you find it? What's the story?? I it the one from Belgium??   :vader:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 02, 2014, 12:47:23 PM
Yeah it's the one from Antwerp, Belgium.  The seller asked 900 euro, But that was way out of my league. So I put a ridiculously low bid on it. I didn't expect a reaction, but he came with a real good offer. So I took the bate. And I picked it up yesterday. It's a one hour and forty minutes drive.
The bass is in pretty good condition, though there is some crazing in the finish. And the volume pot of the bridge pick-up is a bit dodgy. And the zipper from the original gigbag has left some traces on the lacquer, But I think I can buff those out.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 02, 2014, 03:45:51 PM
In a land mostly under sea level, one needs a paddle.

Congrats, Rob, paddlephiles (careful pronounciation of the word recommended!) of the world unite. I'd have never thought that this bass would one day reach cultish popularity here - of all places!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 02, 2014, 04:02:35 PM
Thanx Uwe. It's all your fault actually.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on March 02, 2014, 04:37:17 PM
I'm glad to hear you got it at a reasonable price.

Sure, it's an oddity but I can see the appeal. After all, if Gibson bass fans only limited themselves to traditional shapes, we wouldn't have a T-bird cult, would we?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on March 02, 2014, 06:56:23 PM
In a land mostly under sea level, one needs a paddle.

Congrats, Rob, paddlephiles (careful pronounciation of the word recommended!) of the world unite. I'd have never thought that this bass would one day reach cultish popularity here - of all places!

Four of us isn't exactly a huge herd............. but we have a Global presence. Germany, England, The Netherlands & the US of A............
Here, on the upper Mississippi River, we know what to do with such a device!
(http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af119/Grog_03/charter1_zpsca8ff8a6.jpg) (http://s999.photobucket.com/user/Grog_03/media/charter1_zpsca8ff8a6.jpg.html)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 04, 2014, 01:46:17 PM
Took it to rehearsal last night.
It is a brutal sounding bass. Lots of punch. Tight sound.
The E string is a bit overbearing. And the G string is a bit weak.
But maybe I can fix that by tilting the pickups a bit?
What are your ideas on that Grog and/or Uwe?

Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on March 04, 2014, 03:38:32 PM
Jools has (at least) one, but not sure when he was last here, so there is a UK presence...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 04, 2014, 09:14:32 PM
Took it to rehearsal last night.
It is a brutal sounding bass. Lots of punch. Tight sound.
The E string is a bit overbearing. And the G string is a bit weak.

Dammit! Don't say things like that! You're making me want one and in the middle of divorce and between full-time jobs, I have NO money.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on March 05, 2014, 04:51:25 PM
Took it to rehearsal last night.
It is a brutal sounding bass. Lots of punch. Tight sound.
The E string is a bit overbearing. And the G string is a bit weak.
But maybe I can fix that by tilting the pickups a bit?
What are your ideas on that Grog and/or Uwe?

I've only played it at a rehearsal a few times, and it's been a few years. I don't recall any issues EQ'ing it in the surrounding I was in. I had new strings on it & had just set it up. I just remember liking the baseball bat neck & the balance. I play my beater Hobbit 95% of the time............
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 07, 2014, 01:31:16 PM
Took it to rehearsal last night.
It is a brutal sounding bass. Lots of punch. Tight sound.
The E string is a bit overbearing. And the G string is a bit weak.
But maybe I can fix that by tilting the pickups a bit?
What are your ideas on that Grog and/or Uwe?

Had that issue too, has to do with the electronics. That bass- and treble-heavy active circuit sound without any real mids makes a G string sound anorectic quickly. Tilting helps, you can actually get the G string to sound balanced, even stand out a little (I like for whatever reason the E and G on my basses slightly louder than the A and D). Those mid-oriented Ernie Ball Cobalt strings help too.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 07, 2014, 11:33:30 PM
I just remember liking the baseball bat neck & the balance. I play my beater Hobbit 95% of the time............
Same here.  ;)

Had that issue too, has to do with the electronics. That bass- and treble-heavy active circuit sound without any real mids makes a G string sound anorectic quickly. Tilting helps, you can actually get the G string to sound balanced, even stand out a little (I like for whatever reason the E and G on my basses slightly louder than the A and D). Those mid-oriented Ernie Ball Cobalt strings help too.

Thanx for confirming what I heard.
And thanx for the tips. I'll try to fidget a bit with tilting the pickups first.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on March 08, 2014, 04:17:30 AM
These pickups are unique...........

(http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af119/Grog_03/2020pickupback.jpg) (http://s999.photobucket.com/user/Grog_03/media/2020pickupback.jpg.html)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Rob on March 08, 2014, 01:29:22 PM
These pickups are unique...........

(http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af119/Grog_03/2020pickupback.jpg) (http://s999.photobucket.com/user/Grog_03/media/2020pickupback.jpg.html)

WTF!  :vader: What all is going on there?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on March 08, 2014, 09:29:48 PM
The preamp or active circuit is built into each pickup. Jules had a gut shot on Fly Guitars when he got his. If I recall correctly, there was a 9volt battery wired in series with the pickups & pots. No other circuitry. The pickups have felt glued to the bottom.  :vader: :vader: :vader:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 18, 2014, 03:00:05 AM
The 20/20 in action

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/10007235_596619037085917_544922425_n.jpg)

(https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/7577_596618697085951_1307898300_n.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on March 18, 2014, 10:38:22 AM
Looks like a weapon in your hands!  :)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 18, 2014, 11:04:38 AM
It is.
Lethal.

The sound engineer couldn't stop telling me how great it sounded in the mix.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: chromium on March 18, 2014, 11:15:07 AM
That's pretty cool!  Look forward to any audio if you happen to get some...  Glad you found a great tonal fit in that thing.

I've always had a soft spot for some of those futuristic 80s designs - Factors, Spector NSX, the L2/XL2, Roland G-77, etc...  I wanted the latter something fierce back then!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 18, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
Nice to see you with an instrument for grown-ups, wretched hobbit-wielder!!! You went from this

(http://bfme2.heavengames.com/lore/article_pix/hobbits_at_weathertop)

to this

(http://www.informationen-bilder.de/der-herr-der-ringe/uruk-hai.jpg).

Way to go, assault and ... battery!!!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Duracell_9_Volt_0849.jpg/200px-Duracell_9_Volt_0849.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 18, 2014, 11:28:37 AM
Such blissful satisfaction! I have corrupted a vintage shortscale basses player that once took out the battery of his Stingray into an ardent 20/20 modernistic paddle player. My influence here is nothing short of ...

tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfmrX_WlM2w


 :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 18, 2014, 11:42:59 AM
Anything to confuse the conservative folks in the audience (read: bluesrock connaisseurs)  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on March 18, 2014, 12:08:41 PM
Holy Cow! That thing looks a lot larger than I thought they were. Having never seen a 20/20 in person I always assumed they were smallish.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 18, 2014, 03:57:24 PM
Yeah, and they make you look like a mean MF.    :toast:

(https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1606954_683888205003631_480874658_n.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on March 18, 2014, 04:15:42 PM
Yeah, that neck looks a mile long.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on March 18, 2014, 05:19:39 PM
Maybe 20/20 was intended to be a caliber, not an axe for visionaries. It looks BADASS!! :vader:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Lightyear on March 18, 2014, 06:02:50 PM
Yeah, and they make you look like a mean MF.    :toast:

(https://scontent-a-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1606954_683888205003631_480874658_n.jpg)

No, not the bass - it's the cowboy shirt! ;D

For some reason I do like the bass - though I've thought them beyond fugly for years.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: TBird1958 on March 18, 2014, 09:21:08 PM


 Looks good on ya Rob!  ;D
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Nocturnal on March 18, 2014, 09:56:45 PM

 Looks good on ya Rob!  ;D

Agreed! Glad that you are able to add this one to the mix. It does look much larger in the live shots than it appears in pics by itself.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 19, 2014, 02:49:42 AM
To put things into perspective: The 20/20 measures longer than an LP Signature and almost as long as an Epihone Embassy. Since most paddle players play the bass much higher than our gunslinger Rob does, the size just isn't as apparent with them.

Or maybe Rob is just a midget, I really dunno.  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 19, 2014, 02:51:40 AM
Or maybe Rob is just a midget, I really dunno.  :mrgreen:

Hobbit?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 19, 2014, 04:20:31 AM
I never saw your feet naked, so I'm careful with that assessment.

(http://www.herr-der-ringe-film.de/v3/media/galerie/sonstiges_1/sonstiges5/cinematrix05-cb182482.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Chris P. on March 19, 2014, 09:39:09 AM
I think you're one step away of a Warwick, Rob. If I can help you purchase one, please let me know.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 19, 2014, 11:40:14 AM
Maybe one day when I can get over the scared hare ears of the Warwicks
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 19, 2014, 02:25:16 PM
"One step away from a Warwick" - lovelier insults have never been committed to screen here!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: TBird1958 on March 19, 2014, 03:21:31 PM
 Glad it wasn't directed at me!  :o
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on March 19, 2014, 05:26:28 PM
What's the string spread at the bridge on these? The typical 19mm or narrower?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on March 20, 2014, 12:04:46 AM
Are you working on a long term ZZ Top trib with that beard, Rob...? :mrgreen:

(agreed about the length of the beastie... really surprising)

Hmm... maybe a Clutch trib...? (http://loudlifescene.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/neilfallonlollerfallon.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 20, 2014, 12:13:04 AM
What's the string spread at the bridge on these? The typical 19mm or narrower?

It's a Schaller bridge with roller saddles. I have them set at 18 mm.

Are you working on a long term ZZ Top trib with that beard, Rob...?
Hmm... maybe a Clutch trib...?

Haha, both ZZ Top and Clutch can be found on our setlist.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on March 20, 2014, 12:20:21 AM
Got it...! :mrgreen:

You've definitely got to get some footage posted...!

(what does Floor and the little Basvarkens think of the hirsuteness... it's coming on great... mine's just gone ground-zero again and was just about that length... stops the comments from some not a million from here... mind you, mine's more Sinterklaas these days... ;))
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 20, 2014, 01:35:28 AM
Floor & the Basvarkens! Cool band name.  :mrgreen:

In this pic the beard looks even longer  8)

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/1240478_844245305602246_516326067_n.jpg)


There's no footage of the Clutch song we do (Electric Worry).

But here's video of the ZZ Top we do. Not with the 20/20 but with the BaCH longscale semi acoustic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttj6KtY8_2U
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 20, 2014, 05:48:06 AM
I'd recommend ... 


Basvarken Floor Overdrive!!!



You should really wear some (other) fur to that beard too, Rob. Your shirts are already fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFRk0FfaQi0






Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on March 20, 2014, 05:51:17 AM
B-B-Brilliant
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 20, 2014, 09:20:17 AM
 :mrgreen:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on March 20, 2014, 02:05:42 PM
C F Basvarken...?

He'd have to get a Ric...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on March 20, 2014, 05:29:30 PM
It's a Schaller bridge with roller saddles. I have them set at 18 mm.


Thanks, I figured you might have it set narrower. The 24 fret neck and the headstock shape make it look even longer and thinner.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on March 21, 2014, 06:47:15 AM
That neck is a halved baseball bat, totally at odds with the otherwise modern design. But one of the secrets to the bass' power.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Basvarken on April 07, 2014, 02:37:14 PM
A friend of mine in Japan saw that I have a 20/20 and he sent me a pic of this bass he owned a couple of years ago.
It's a Burns bass called Flyte.

(http://www.enkoo.nl/uploads/1/3/3/7/13376708/289413_orig.jpg)


Wonder if it'll take us another ten years to decide this is a design classic.   8)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on April 07, 2014, 03:57:37 PM
It looks pretty close to Luna Silver............
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 07, 2014, 04:13:00 PM
A Flyte just like that hung in a music store in Darmstadt (15 km from my home town) for a long time in the seventies. It cost over 2.500 Deutsche Mark at the time, hugely expensive by any standard. I circled it for ages, it was uattainable for a student like me, I had to settle for a Korean JB Ho at one tenth the price. Last time I saw it was with a local Top 40 dance band (in suits) in the late seventies. Man, how I loved that bass. It didn't sound so great in that Top 40 band though.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Grog on April 07, 2014, 05:51:03 PM
http://www.vintageguitar.com/1965/burns-flyte/
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on April 07, 2014, 06:52:10 PM
I thought of the Flyte design as being influenced by the Flying V.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: gearHed289 on April 08, 2014, 07:47:08 AM
Looks like an 80s Riverhead.

(http://www.guitarsite.com/files/gdb_upload_images/hande-logo.gif)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 08, 2014, 12:22:19 PM
Headless variant - the Burn's had heads ...

(http://wp.myredstar.com/burnsguitars/files/2011/11/Slade-playing-Flyte.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 08, 2014, 12:32:45 PM
Isn't your new avatar/handle taking things a bit far, Ken, no one is gonna bring up that ole Hellcat incident again here. Or the Ripper blindness. I hate it when small human failings are dug up ...

 http://www.myvideo.de/watch/7759589/Status_Quo_Again_And_Again
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on April 08, 2014, 01:14:33 PM
The 20/20 and Riverheads came much later than the Flyte.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 08, 2014, 01:47:31 PM
The 20/20 resemblance is passing and mostly fin-induced, but those Riverheads are way too close for comfort. Someone was very "inspired" here. Reminds me of those guys of the long defunct South Californian Gould bass boutique (not the other, still active Gould bass maker) who always claimed their basses had "nothing to do with the Kubicki design". Yeah, my ass, the Gould Rebel Bass is the green one om the left in the pic below, the Kubicki Factor is the black one on the right. Fine basses by the way, more organic sounding than the Kubickis via their Bartolinis.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/uwehornung/DCP_0026-1.jpg)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 08, 2014, 02:32:24 PM
Isn't your new avatar/handle taking things a bit far, Ken, no one is gonna bring up that ole Hellcat incident again here. Or the Ripper blindness. I hate it when small human failings are dug up ...

Nah ... I could have gone for Corsair ...

(hmm ... now there's an idea ...) :mrgreen:

(typical - vid not available in UK - but point taken ;))

Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: TBird1958 on April 08, 2014, 03:47:23 PM
Isn't your new avatar/handle taking things a bit far, Ken, no one is gonna bring up that ole Hellcat incident again here. Or the Ripper blindness. I hate it when small human failings are dug up ...

 http://www.myvideo.de/watch/7759589/Status_Quo_Again_And_Again


 I'll be reminding him of that for quite awhile yet!

It's best cold!  :-*
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 08, 2014, 11:32:13 PM
Claws away, Dear, or I'll let everyone know you've been seen out in men's clothing ... :mrgreen:
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Dave W on April 09, 2014, 06:33:22 AM
The 20/20 resemblance is passing and mostly fin-induced, but those Riverheads are way too close for comfort. Someone was very "inspired" here. Reminds me of those guys of the long defunct South Californian Gould bass boutique (not the other, still active Gould bass maker) who always claimed their basses had "nothing to do with the Kubicki design". Yeah, my ass, the Gould Rebel Bass is the green one om the left in the pic below, the Kubicki Factor is the black one on the right. Fine basses by the way, more organic sounding than the Kubickis via their Bartolinis.



And the Kubicki design had nothing to do with Rickenbacker.  ;)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 09, 2014, 11:36:48 AM
Now don't you start!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 09, 2014, 04:21:40 PM
[Cleese] You started it ... you invaded Nashville ... [/Cleese]  :mrgreen:

Gibson, Gibson,  über alles ...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on April 10, 2014, 07:30:07 AM
[Cleese] You started it ... you invaded Nashville ... [/Cleese]  :mrgreen:

Gibson, Gibson,  über alles ...

Hahaha!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on April 10, 2014, 08:25:07 AM
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 10, 2014, 12:26:52 PM
Hmm ... some resonance here ... anyone read "The Man In The High Castle" ... ?

A man dreams that the Allies won the war, when actually, the war ended when the Germans and Japanese forces met in the Midwest ...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 11, 2014, 07:59:46 AM
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

That is one smart*** neat  and smooth military operation we would have prided ourselves in - and contrary to common sentiment: totally in line with the Hague War Convention too, the Japanese committed horrible war crimes, but Pearl Harbor wasn't one of them -, if only all those carriers had been anchored too! Of course, we had nowhere the logistic means to do what our Japanese Allies did. Third Reich naval power was makeshift at best.

***Unless of course ... the US weren't actually smarter still! I generally don't go for conspiracy theories, but I'd be darn surprised if US intelligence and administration did not know that attack (not just any attack) was coming. It cost you a couple of outdated WW I battleships and a few thousand men (lamentable deaths everyone of them, but "small change" in the cynic scope of a budding world power deciding to go to war), yet it so effectively and totally turned US public opinion which had been anti-interventionist into wholehearted war support, kicked the US economic war machine into gear (and shape), and - happy coincidence! - the really strategically important stuff (the carriers) was left unscathed to deliver blow after blow against the Japanese Fleet in a comparatively short time.

I'm not believing the "surprise attack out of the blue"-scenario (the Japanese Empire had in any case only fuel for another six months left - thanks to US sanctions being so effective, it was do or die for them) until those Pearl Harbor records are no longer classified in toto.

No disrespect for those of you who lost ancestors in Pearl Harbor intended. I know that along with Gettysburg it is one of your nation-defining, pivotal war occurrences.

 
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on April 11, 2014, 11:12:42 AM
People have theorized for decades that Roosevelt and/or other members of his admin knew that the attack was likely or imminent, but that they needed a lever to move the isolationist US population to get into the war and so they let it happen.  I doubt whether that question can ever be resolved, especially in the minds of those who treat it as reality.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 11, 2014, 11:20:46 AM
I wouldn't even blame Roosevelt if it has indeed been the case. On an abstract level and leaving aside the individuals who lost their life during the attack, it was the correct and morally right thing to do. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a conditio sine qua non for the liberation of German concentration camps by US, UK and CCCP troops in 1944/5.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on April 11, 2014, 11:33:57 AM
Without arguing the Pear Harbor end, I think it's a given that without the US involved in WWII the Axis would have prevailed.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 11, 2014, 12:07:38 PM
Yup, same goes for taking Russia out of the equation though. The US supplied the goods, Russia supplied the blood - no Western democracy could have spent as many lives as the CCCP did fending off Nazi Germany without considering an armistice at some point. If all those Wehrmacht divisions in the East had been in France in the summer of 1944, even a major operational feat and highly impressive logistical mission such as D-Day would have proven too costly in lives (and btw left France as a barren wasteland). The US and its Western Allies could have held Nazi Germany in check regarding further extension of its sphere of influence, but they could not have liberated the Continent. And Nazi Germany would have been happy to leave the UK alone and South America and Asia to the US if it could have kept the Continent and great parts of Russia in exchange. Hitler's land grabbing instincts never extended beyond Europe (sans Great Britain), Russia and - for the oil - a bite off the Middle East. Africa, the Americas, the Pacific Region and the Far East/Oceania, all that did not interest him in the least.

Russia's importance and its huge sacrifices in beating down Nazism are often conveniently overlooked (which hurts Russian self-esteem and is historically incorrect). That is why I prefer Uncle Joe to Adolf. A lot.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on April 11, 2014, 01:06:27 PM
Russia's importance and its huge sacrifices in beating down Nazism are often conveniently overlooked (which hurts Russian self-esteem and is historically incorrect). That is why I prefer Uncle Joe to Adolf. A lot.

One should not ignore the fact that outside of wars, Uncle Joe killed as many of his own people as Hitler did Jews...and also expended lives freely as nothing but cannon fodder in making those huge sacrifices.  I can't say that I'm any more a fan of his than I am of Adolf.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 11, 2014, 01:27:37 PM
Without him (and his ruthlessness), Hitler would have won, simple as that. Ask Ilan whose survival he would have preferred.

Or a more selfish view: Stalin never did anything to me except co-save me from becoming part of some vile fascist machinery intent on subjecting all of Europe and enslaving the East. And he didn't have my grandfather shot who, Nazi party member and all, attacked Russia with no imaginable excuse and lived to return from Russian captivity in 1949 (he never said a bad word about his treatment: "the Russkies had nothing to eat and neither did we, but I was never hurt by even one of them" was one of his standard sayings). I'm thankful for both. From my point of view then: Joe was the lesser (even if still gigantic) evil.

Admittedly, a Kulak, one of those Polish officers mass-shot in Katyn or Trotzki himself are allowed to think different.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Pilgrim on April 11, 2014, 01:33:20 PM
I appreciate your point of view!  It's much closer and more personal than mine.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 11, 2014, 02:15:24 PM
Danke, I know it's a controversial statement (in Germany as well), but I really hold the view, grim as it is. Do not amass together and co-mingle all evil as one individually indiscernible monolith. There are shades of it and the shades look different from varying perspectives.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 11, 2014, 04:55:15 PM
I can't remember exactly when in '41 it occurred (only a few months iirc), but according to Japanese historians (again, iirc, not gone down this research path for a while) it was the American Government declining to allow the Japanese access to fuel that was the primary catalyst, along with supplying armament to a force they had been actively fighting/annexing for about a decade.
It was inevitable that it was going to happen and I hate to say that they (the US Gov) asked for it but any historian worth his salt would say just the same thing, and the We The People paid the price, as they always do...
I know that this is an extremely sensitive subject to the American people but, it's like my dad's war, it was all about the oil and not about the Burmese people... they were incidental...
Japan had been in China and Korea for a decade in '41 and the old expression applies: my enemy's friends...

Probably best discussed elsewhere...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 11, 2014, 05:09:00 PM
Have always held that: The US' engagement against Nazi Germany was a predominantly noble cause; the Pacific War one about markets, spheres of influence and the prevention of an empire of a rusty colonial power (the UK)  disintegrating too quickly with the spoils falling to a highly aggressive Asian military dictatorship (Japan) rather than to the new heir apparent/rising western hegemonial power (the US). That doesn't change the fact that the Tenno's men committed gross crimes almost everywhere or take away anything from the valor of the US Navy men in the Pacific.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 11, 2014, 05:18:08 PM
Amen ... and rip...

(and +1 about the UK) ;)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: westen44 on April 13, 2014, 04:01:02 PM
Have always held that: The US' engagement against Nazi Germany was a predominantly noble cause; the Pacific War one about markets, spheres of influence and the prevention of an empire of a rusty colonial power (the UK)  disintegrating too quickly with the spoils falling to a highly aggressive Asian military dictatorship (Japan) rather than to the new heir apparent/rising western hegemonilal power (the US). That doesn't change the fact that the Tenno's men committed gross crimes almost everywhere or take away anything from the valor of the US Navy men in the Pacific.

As well as the U.S. Army men in the Pacific (such as my father.)  Air Force and Marines, too, of course. 
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: westen44 on April 13, 2014, 04:21:44 PM
Have always held that: The US' engagement against Nazi Germany was a predominantly noble cause; the Pacific War one about markets, spheres of influence and the prevention of an empire of a rusty colonial power (the UK)  disintegrating too quickly with the spoils falling to a highly aggressive Asian military dictatorship (Japan) rather than to the new heir apparent/rising western hegemonial power (the US). That doesn't change the fact that the Tenno's men committed gross crimes almost everywhere or take away anything from the valor of the US Navy men in the Pacific.

A desire for more influence in the Pacific had been something that had existed for a long time, although it was very controversial.  James K. Polk certainly wanted California and its ports to expand influence into the Pacific.  I wouldn't even try to go into all the reasons for the Mexican War, but personally I think Polk wanting California was one of the main reasons.  He seemed to be very focused on the Pacific from what I've been able to gather. 
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on April 13, 2014, 07:14:56 PM
I can't remember exactly when in '41 it occurred (only a few months iirc), but according to Japanese historians (again, iirc, not gone down this research path for a while) it was the American Government declining to allow the Japanese access to fuel that was the primary catalyst, along with supplying armament to a force they had been actively fighting/annexing for about a decade.
It was inevitable that it was going to happen and I hate to say that they (the US Gov) asked for it but any historian worth his salt would say just the same thing, and the We The People paid the price, as they always do...
I know that this is an extremely sensitive subject to the American people but, it's like my dad's war, it was all about the oil and not about the Burmese people... they were incidental...
Japan had been in China and Korea for a decade in '41 and the old expression applies: my enemy's friends...
Probably best discussed elsewhere...

The US also declined to sell scrap steel to Japan, if I remember correctly.

True, Japan had been in China and Korea for quite a few years prior to 1941. Their troops' behavior explains why neither China nor Korea are the world's largest fans of Japan. How many Chinese did the Japanese kill? Several hundred thousand, wasn't it? Didn't they turn many, many thousands of women into sex slaves for the Japanese army's entertainment? What do Japanese historians say about that?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: patman on April 13, 2014, 07:21:06 PM
Ask my 90 year old Dad about the Japanese. He will go to his grave with the grudge. He was an engineer...the Chinese were ok, not the Japanese. He was on Okinawa.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 14, 2014, 07:50:51 AM
As well as the U.S. Army men in the Pacific (such as my father.)  Air Force and Marines, too, of course.

I had no intention of excluding anyone!!! But weren't the Marines part of the Navy and the pilots in the Pacific mostly Navy Airforce as opposed to USA(rmy)AF? Whatever, I herewith include all other parts of the US Armed Forces too. Historical question: Did the US Army even take part in the island hopping or was that all Marines?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 14, 2014, 07:55:04 AM
"What do Japanese historians say about that?"

That is one huge can of worms, sigh! Japanese treatment of their less glorious WW II history is appalling and all self-denial and apologetic. I wouldn't mind their worshipping of their Kamikaze heroes if they managed an honest sorry about the other stuff too.

Also, US intervention, even if not spawned by the urge to liberate Asian nations from Japanese subjection, was certainly in so far a positive thing as it resulted in exactly that byproduct. Japanese genocide and war crimes were such in China and Korea that they deserved to be kicked out several times over.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: westen44 on April 14, 2014, 09:00:49 AM
I had no intention of excluding anyone!!! But weren't the Marines part of the Navy and the pilots in the Pacific mostly Navy Airforce as opposed to USA(rmy)AF? Whatever, I herewith include all other parts of the US Armed Forces too. Historical question: Did the US Army even take part in the island hopping or was that all Marines?

I just wanted to make sure everyone was included.  I should have ten times more info on this.  Unfortunately, a member of my family (and myself to an extent) lost a lot of the pertinent info.  However, just based on the general info that's out there (even just Wikipedia,) I can provide the basic points on what my father was involved in.  He was in the U.S. Army 25th Division which did fight in key battles in the Pacific.  Scrolling down to Pacific War and beginning with "the 25th began moving to Guadalcanal, 25 November, 1942, to relieve Marines near Henderson Field," he was involved in all of that, ending with Luzon and the liberation of the Philippines.  Of course, it's the battle of Guadalcanal which has always stuck out to me as being especially important.  He was in the thick of it; that's for sure.  Several months ago, I happened to catch the last part of that movie about Guadalcanal "Thin Red Line" on cable.  Since I only saw part of it, of course, much didn't make sense.  And although part of it is fictionalized, it does have some basis in reality.  For instance, the part about the U.S. Army soldiers relieving the Marines at Henderson Field, I do remember as a child my father talking about that.  Incidentally, those Marines were very glad to be relieved.  He said those were the happiest and friendliest people he had ever seen in his life.  Unfortunately, there isn't much I can say about anything, since my father very rarely said anything at all about World War II.  After four years, his service ended, though, and he wasn't involved in the occupation of Japan which the 25th Division participated in. 


I'm just going to have to copy and paste this Wikipedia info since I'm having trouble with the link. 

25th Infantry Division  (U.S. Army)


Pacific War[edit]


U.S. Army soldiers push supplies up the Matanikau River to support the 25th Infantry Division's offensive on Guadalcanal in January 1943.
After the Japanese air attack on Schofield Barracks, 7 December 1941, the 25th Infantry Division moved to beach positions for the defense of Honolulu and Ewa Point. Following intensive training, the 25th began moving to Guadalcanal, 25 November 1942, to relieve Marines near Henderson Field. First elements landed near the Tenaru River, 17 December 1942, and entered combat, 10 January 1943, participating in the seizure of Kokumbona and the reduction of the Mount Austen Pocket in some of the bitterest fighting of the Pacific campaign. The threat of large enemy attacks caused a temporary withdrawal, but Division elements under XIV Corps control relieved the 147th Infantry and took over the advance on Cape Esperance. The junction of these elements with Americal Division forces near the cape, 5 February 1943, ended organized enemy resistance.

A period of garrison duty followed, ending 21 July: On that date, advance elements debarked on Munda, New Georgia. The 25th Infantry, under the Northern Landing Force, took part in the capture of Vella Lavella, 15 August to 15 September 1943. Meanwhile, other elements landed on New Georgia, took Zieta, marched through jungle mud for 19 days, and captured Bairoko Harbor, winning the island. Elements cleared Arundel Island, 24 September 1943, and Kolombangara island with its important Vila Airport, 6 October. Organized resistance on New Georgia ended, 25 August, and the division moved to New Zealand for rest and training, last elements arriving on 5 December. The 25th was transferred to New Caledonia, 3 February-14 March 1944, for continued training.

The division landed in the San Fabian area of Luzon, 11 January 1945, to enter the struggle for the liberation of the Philippines. It drove across the Luzon Central Plain, meeting the enemy at Binalonan, 17 January. Moving through the rice paddies, the 25th occupied Umingan, Lupao, and San Jose and destroyed a great part of the Japanese armor on Luzon. On 21 February, the division began operations in the Caraballo Mountains. It fought its way along Highway No. 5, taking Digdig, Putlan, and Kapintalan against fierce enemy counterattacks and took Balete Pass, 13 May, and opened the gateway to the Cagayan Valley, 27 May, with the capture of Santa Fe. Until 30 June, when the division was relieved, it carried out mopping-up activities. On 1 July, the division moved to Tarlac for training, leaving for Japan, 20 September.

The division's rapid movements during its campaigns led to the adoption of the nickname Tropic Lightning. It remained on occupation duty in Japan for the next five years.




Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 14, 2014, 02:42:01 PM
True, Japan had been in China and Korea for quite a few years prior to 1941. Their troops' behavior explains why neither China nor Korea are the world's largest fans of Japan. How many Chinese did the Japanese kill? Several hundred thousand, wasn't it? Didn't they turn many, many thousands of women into sex slaves for the Japanese army's entertainment? What do Japanese historians say about that?
Korea was officially "annexed" in 1910 and there was an orchestrated occupation of Manchuria in 1931.
Chinese/Korean deaths was estimated nearer 3 million, but no one knows the real figure.
The women were euphemistically known as "comfort women" - it is a highly charged subject in the far-east - an official "apology" (of sorts) was issued 7 years back but it is still controversial and subject to "review", would you believe... many of their historians still deny it took place and the figures involved varies from 5 to 6 figures with the highest being over 400,000; estimates are that 3/4 of them never made it back - my dad's platoon (number 13, believe it or not) overrun one of these places and they chased them off into the jungle being "too tired to have done anything else" ... don't know what was worse for those women on that occasion, but they took no prisoners and they were behind the lines at the time, two months in; no weekends off ...

As for war crimes and atrocities, I've had to study it for my research and it is truly grim, and not for discussion here ... if you want some starters just use Japanese War Crime as a search, or maybe study Unit 731 ... equally as bad if not worse than anything you have ever heard regarding what happened in Poland and other European low-points ...

My personal most distasteful historical low is Macarthur keeping Hirohito as a figurehead for the Japanese people to focus on as it was the best sense business move they could make ... it worked, but for those involved it truly sucked, was generally kept secret, and no apology given (of a sort) by Japan until after he died, and yes, Hirohito was the very last wartime leader to die...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 15, 2014, 07:51:28 AM
Keeping Hirohito as a figure head was a pragmatic move - not doing it would have cost further American and Japanese lives as a surrender leading to his abdication or worse trial for war crimes would have been inacceptable to the Japanese military Junta and a large part of the population and fighting armed forces of the Empire even after Nagasaki. The US would have needed to devastate another Japanese city with mostly women, children and old men or continue its casuality-prone island hopping.   
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 15, 2014, 02:34:30 PM
I never understood dad's hatred of these people during his lifetime but since studying the events, and their denial of them since, I get a better picture, but I still would like to use "They Stopped At Two..." as a book title...

He held a view that the Americans (and I do quote him here) "wasted an opportunity to finish the job when they stopped at two." meaning the two nuclear weapons.

He really meant it ...

God forbid any of us ever has to face what these people went through...

MacArthur could have insisted that there was some sort of apology, but it never came ...

That is a disgrace... imho...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: westen44 on April 15, 2014, 04:18:31 PM
When it comes to MacArthur, that's about as controversial of a public figure as you'll find. 

I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.

--Harry S Truman (statement made in early 60s and quoted in a 1973 article in "Time")
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 16, 2014, 06:04:14 AM
I only recently read something interesting about Eisenhower (always a politically thinking general and not just a brasshead). When the Korean War wasn't going so well, the military aroundd him started thinking aloud about dropping a nuclear bomb on North Korea/China. And he was appalled and said something along the lines of: "Are you nuts, we cannot use the same weapon within only ten years again to kill Asians of all people!" He had a point there.

I know that the nuclear bomb was developed for Berlin and that it could have been viewed as just retribution for the Nazi crimes and that some jewish scientists would have, understandably, liked to have seen it used against Germany after all the horrors of their people. Not quite convinced though whether it would have actually been dropped over Berlin had the Third Reich not collapsed so quickly (within less than a year after D-Day). There was an element of "let's use it on the yellow man" in there - Japan was culturally far enough removed to make the use of the atomic bomb seem "bearable" from a Western point of view.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on April 16, 2014, 07:10:53 AM
In 1984 I took a University Studies course in college. It was called "Peace and War in the Nuclear Age" and was one of the most interesting classes I ever took. We had two instructors. One concentrated on weapons and strategy, the other concentrated on the political aspects.

One day a discussion came up and the weapons instructor asked if we were right to drop atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, especially the second one on Nagasaki.
Some students said it was a horrible thing to do and morally and ethically wrong.

I argued that, as bad as it was, it was the right thing to do for several reasons (and I didn't even mention how it saved many thousands of US troops' lives because we didn't have to invade Japan).
1. Only the US had them available and was the only country capable of delivering them.
2. It was the only time in history where a limited number could be dropped without risking an all out nuclear war.
3. As large as the blasts were at the time, they were tiny in comparison to those developed even a couple of years later. They served the purpose of showing the world how terrible and devastating they were and to this day, no government has ever been so foolish as to risk using one in a conflict.

Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 16, 2014, 07:29:27 AM
I don't see Hiroshima as a crime against humanity - it was a cruel military act, but WW II was full of those. Nagasaki was a bit "Let's see if "Fat Man" works as well as "Little Boy" (it would have been worse had it not exploded at too high an altitude), the Japs haven't capitulated yet ..." - the war would have ended after Hiroshima too. OTOH I have absolutely no doubt that the military clique in Tokyo would not have hesitated to nuke NYC and LA (not to conquer the US, but to force it into an armistice leaving much of the Pacific as a sphere of lasting Japanese hegemonial influence) had the Japanese had such weapons available.

I'm with you that the sacrifices of the Japanese people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki set an example that influences the military weighing of options to this day and has prevented use of nuclear bombs by any sensible power which has them at its disposal. Let's just hope that works in the Ukraine as well as it did in the past.

You can even bring the cynical argument that the nucear bombs over Japan killed mostly women and children and old men which were more dispensable for rebuilding Japan than the Japanese soldiers saved by early capitulation and not dying in the field. Horrible, even vile thought, but if bringing a defeated country "up to speed" quickly to have a counterpoint to Red China is your top priority ...
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: patman on April 16, 2014, 11:56:20 AM
My Dad was on a boat outside Tokyo harbor after Okinawa...they were told not to even think of making it home, that they were going to do hand to hand combat throughout Tokyo.  Dad always thought Harry Truman was a God...didn't much care for FDR, but Truman was a God because he ordered the bomb to be dropped, and Dad didn't have to invade Japan.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: TBird1958 on April 16, 2014, 01:38:18 PM


 Sheese, I wasn't reding this thread because we were discussing boat paddles.........WTF happened!  :o



The bombs were the right option!

 As for Pearl Harbor, I think the US Navy lucked out ( even tho it was a tragedy by any account) in that it wasn't the full-scale fleet action they were planning for. That kind of meeting would have been a disaster for the U.S., the Imperial Navy was likely the best in the world at that point. 
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 16, 2014, 02:09:36 PM

 Sheese, I wasn't reding this thread because we were discussing boat paddles.........WTF happened!  :o


Dunno, I innocently wanted to develop the thread on to slide bass playing, but Dave said better not be led astairway or I'll zep you and you'll be trampled underfoot!  :-\

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4802157583_90d2d33ce6_b.jpg)

It was dy'er, mak'er for me, so we had to change subject.

Does anybody remember laughter?
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Aussie Mark on April 16, 2014, 03:43:37 PM
You can even bring the cynical argument that the nucear bombs over Japan killed mostly women and children and old men which were more dispensable for rebuilding Japan than the Japanese soldiers saved by early capitulation and not dying in the field. Horrible, even vile thought, but if bringing a defeated country "up to speed" quickly to have a counterpoint to Red China is your top priority ...

Like they said after Japan's enormous economic resurgence by the 1960s - "Japan didn't lose the war, they threw it"
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Highlander on April 16, 2014, 04:43:08 PM
Dunno, I innocently wanted to develop the thread on to slide bass playing, but Dave said better not be led astairway or I'll zep you and you'll be trampled underfoot!  :-\
It was dy'er, mak'er for me, so we had to change subject.
Does anybody remember laughter?

Dave will take no quarter for that... ;)
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 17, 2014, 05:42:11 AM
Like they said after Japan's enormous economic resurgence by the 1960s - "Japan didn't lose the war, they threw it"

Not bringing your former enemies up to speed quickly economically can backfire badly - the Versailles Treaty effect. The US had learned a lesson from the post-WW I scenario. And of course they did not want to leave Asia to Red China (just like West Germanny profited from being a border state and the enticing "window of the west").

The inability of Japanese administrations to say a wholehearted sorry for the unspeakable (and militarily unnecessary) crimes militaristic Japan of old did confounds me. No, they don't have to apologize for Pearl Harbor, that was a military operation to surprise-deliver one crippling blow to the enemy (the best-laid plans ...), but they sure as hell could for the Rape of Nanking and Death March to name just two.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: Denis on April 17, 2014, 01:04:40 PM
The inability of Japanese administrations to say a wholehearted sorry for the unspeakable (and militarily unnecessary) crimes militaristic Japan of old did confounds me. No, they don't have to apologize for Pearl Harbor, that was a military operation to surprise-deliver one crippling blow to the enemy (the best-laid plans ...), but they sure as hell could for the Rape of Nanking and Death March to name just two.

The inability of the Japanese to understand the cause and effect idea (the idea that attacking Pearl would result in the bomb being used on them) confounds me.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 17, 2014, 01:21:15 PM
When Pearl Harbor took place, the Japanese did not even dream that in a few years there would be a US four engine bomber (the Superfortress) with a huge range and a flight altitude well out of range of their best fighters, much less that it would drop something as lethal as an atomic bomb on them. Even more than Germany, the Empire saw the airforce as a tactical force supporting their army and navy. The innovation power of a capitalist system and its ability to quickly adapt to wartime requirements within only a few months took them by surprise.

The Japanese never believed they could win the Pacifc War in the sense of conquering America, but they believed that the US was a meek, fumbling democracy that would never pay the blood tribute of an extended war with them. They hoped for a short sharp shock effect, Pearl Harbor and a couple of victorious (for them) sea battles, lots of US POWs on the Pacific islands they took which could be exchanged in an armistice dictated by them with a bruised US, and an isolationist US public led by a President who couldn't even walk right.

It was a shambolic plan, not at all taking a "wake the sleeping giant"-scenario into account. They believed the US would be like Czarist Russia, big mistake. (Just like Hitler underestimated the Soviet Union, thinking they'd be as easy prey as Czarist Russia had been in WW I.) But then Japan had little other choice, their fuel devouring monster of a military machine was on its last drops. They had to do something quickly or give up their Empire building via military force.


Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 17, 2014, 01:31:32 PM
The inability of the Japanese to understand the cause and effect idea (the idea that attacking Pearl would result in the bomb being used on them) confounds me.

I think that the conventional wisdom in Japan is that, yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the storm reaped for sowing the wind of war, but that at the same time those two incidents punished them enough for all their previous sins. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are supposed to equalize everything, but what did the comfort women, the dead US POWs and the slaughtered Chinese in Nanking have to do with nuked Japanese cities? There is no bartering between the two.
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: gearHed289 on April 18, 2014, 07:57:12 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-EEqJ9HyTk
Title: Re: A 20/20 on the 'bay!
Post by: uwe on April 22, 2014, 02:30:53 PM
That is an interesting take on it, Godzilla as a Fukushima rather than a Hiroshima allegory. I might want to see that.

Emmerich's Godzilla remake was a cinematic disaster in all respects except for the animation of the beast itself - unfortunately Emmerich had forgotten its soul and that is really key to understanding Godzilla.