A while ago this dark fretless Ripper prototype popped up on Ebay.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-GIBSON-Bass-Long-Neck-With-Original-Case-Age-Unknown/322809273538?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5t8AAOSwNglZ1oLU/s-l1600.jpg)
----
It looks a lot like the one that Uwe has in Ze Kollekshon (featured in The Gibson Bass Book)
(http://www.thegibsonbassbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ripper-prototype1500-1024x1024.jpg)
----
Last week I got an email from a guy who told me he has a prototype from 1973 too.
It has the same burst as the Mark Evans Ripper that was sold the other day.
He is thinking about selling it. But he's not sure about the price.
(https://13376708-689899567947305371.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/1/3/3/7/13376708/protobass-002_orig.jpg)
----
And that gentleman that sent me the email also told me there is one more Ripper prototype at Dave's Guitar in Wisconsin
Which looks really nice. He tells me they are asking $10.000 for this bass. Which is too much if you ask me.
http://davesguitar.com/dgs_collection/prototype-bass-mid-70s/
(http://davesguitar.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/18363_040168.jpg)
So that makes four Ripper prototypes of this type.
Who would have thought!
I imagine that if you can switch those two pickups in series it's terrifying!
Now there's so many afloat that I'm beginning to think they were actually the first serial produced model, though extremely shortlived even by Gibsons standards. ??? Anyone know if these have regular serial nr's or are they in any way marked as being prototypes?
Here's a pic of the back of the headstock on the bass from the gentleman that emailed me
(https://13376708-689899567947305371.preview.editmysite.com/uploads/1/3/3/7/13376708/protobass-005_orig.jpg)
Close to April 1st ;)
But really: I think the same. The control lay-out look so the same it more looks like a small series than prototypes. Maybe made for some artists? I dunno. Would be nice to find out.
Quote from: Chris P. on April 05, 2018, 02:13:13 AM
Close to April 1st ;)
Maybe made for some artists? I dunno
I was thinking the same. Maybe a testrun handed out to various artists or otherwise suitable people.
When I was at Dave's in La Crosse a month ago, I checked that prototype out. In his huge collection, he only has a handful of Gibson Basses. Mostly vintage Thunderbirds. He does have an original EB(1) with an early humbucker. It must have been one of the last ones shipped.
And what was your opinion about the prototype?
It was never a one-off, they built a whole bunch of them - they were the earliest Rippers, but the shape was discarded due to weight considerations - the later shape featured a huge pg that allowed for excessive routing to combat weight.
The guy who sold me mine had connections to Gibson and told me that inter alia Greg Lake made a visit to the plant when they had a dozen or so of these around in '72/'73 - different woods (there were maho ones too) and pup configurations. Jack Bruce was involved in the early designs too, but jumped ship when he didn't like where it was going.
There is not much of a dif in tonality to an early regular Ripper. Lurking underneath these mudbucker casings are the same sidewinders that were later under plastic.
The Rippers were for Gibson standards at least a moderate success, but I doubt that this would have been achieved with the early single cut shape. Both weight- and size-wise, those were ungainly for anybody but the very tallest players (with well-developed shoulder muscles!).
PS: The bridge on mine is not the original three point which made a sensible action impossible, so I put a Blackbird three-point on it (my Blackbird has a Supertone bridge) which went quite a bit lower. The plastic saddles, however, were featured on the original as well.
I understand from a legacy perspective that these hold some interest, but man alive, that body-shape is a bit of a dog.
At what production volume does a prototype stop being a prototype? IMHO these have to be considered at least a short run. Odd how we never heard of these until a few years ago, or at least I hadn't.
Quote from: Chris P. on April 05, 2018, 09:44:15 AM
And what was your opinion about the prototype?
I was only able to look at it, his collection is just for viewing as far as I know.................
Well how about that , Ripper pickups under mudbucker covers . Routed for ripper size pups then?
Quote from: Dave W on April 05, 2018, 02:39:19 PM
At what production volume does a prototype stop being a prototype? IMHO these have to be considered at least a short run. Odd how we never heard of these until a few years ago, or at least I hadn't.
My first memory of these was a natural one and that must have been during the Dudepit era, possibly around 2005-2006. It was'nt on Ebay or any other auction/sales site but must rather have been just two or three pics someone found at random coincidence. I remember it caused some confusion, because everything looked like it could be a legit prototype using the lovely early promo pic as reference, but the body shape was so off and could never simply be a modification. You'd have to add wood to the lower horn and there was no visible seam or grain/nuance difference.
Well it looks a little more like its cousin the l6s guitar. Still weird though. (http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gibson_L6-S_Custom_Front.jpg)(http://https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Gibson_L6-S_Custom_Front.jpg/375px-Gibson_L6-S_Custom_Front.jpg)
Quote from: planetgaffnet on April 05, 2018, 11:33:54 AM
I understand from a legacy perspective that these hold some interest, but man alive, that body-shape is a bit of a dog.
I dunno, I kinda like it!
Quote from: Dave W on April 05, 2018, 02:39:19 PM
At what production volume does a prototype stop being a prototype? IMHO these have to be considered at least a short run. Odd how we never heard of these until a few years ago, or at least I hadn't.
I'm not aware that these ever really hit the shops (Gibson employees might have sold them off one by one), there were certainly no advertisements for that shape. The first Ripper advertisemnt I know of still had the mudbucker covers, but already the first version of the classic double-cut version as regards the shape.
(http://www.vintageguitarandbass.com/graphics/ripper74.jpg)
http://www.vintageguitarandbass.com/adDetails/201
That said and looking at it now ... :o, that shape isn't quite the first version of the double-cut version either (more elaborate bevelling than on what later came out) and it doesn't have the large routings yet either, the pg only covers the neck pup, not almost the whole bass as the final versions did.
The Greg Lakes and Peter Ceteras of this world (as the initial name players) already had the (first version) of the classic double-cut shape in the promo pics of the time.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bb/af/36/bbaf36eae4ad1cf9e6c478dd4cfcf287.jpg)
(http://www.flyguitars.com/graphics/petercetera.jpg?222)
(http://www.brain-salad-surgery.de/images/greg_the_ripper.jpg)
I now understand that white suits and whimpish ballads -
"C'est la if you leave me now" - were de rigueur if you played an early Ripper. :P :P :P
Quote from: planetgaffnet on April 05, 2018, 11:33:54 AM
I understand from a legacy perspective that these hold some interest, but man alive, that body-shape is a bit of a dog.
Quote from: slinkp on April 06, 2018, 07:50:33 AM
I dunno, I kinda like it!
I'm in the bit of a dog camp. The upper portion is much like a Tele, especially the bass side upper bout, grafted onto a big rounded Gibson-style lower body. It doesn't fit. It's good that they changed it.
If I had one and really loved playing it, I might change my mind. But I'm currently in the dog camp, too.
In real life, there is something unproportionate and even handicraft about the shape. Approaching Wishbass. :mrgreen:
Quote from: uwe on April 09, 2018, 06:52:21 AM
In real life, there is something unproportionate and even handicraft about the shape. Approaching Wishbass. :mrgreen:
Here's a Wishbass. Still think so? ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/JOdw8U4.jpg)
Another pre-cursor Ripper has popped up.
https://reverb.com/item/39685447-gibson-l-6-s-bass-prototype-ripper-grabber-1972-sunburst
(https://images.reverb.com/image/upload/s--EthXXOvy--/f_auto,t_large/v1616944353/fmkf0jetf4pwkspqtccr.jpg)
Quote from: planetgaffnet on April 05, 2018, 11:33:54 AM
I understand from a legacy perspective that these hold some interest, but man alive, that body-shape is a bit of a dog.
Yeah, that lower horn is, like, well it makes me think the designer had a bit of a complex as well as not much frame of reference.
Quote from: clankenstein on April 05, 2018, 07:27:09 PM
Well how about that , Ripper pickups under mudbucker covers . Routed for ripper size pups then?
Remember, Ripper pups are just smaller mudbuckers; both are sidewinders with single central magnet and poles. So it makes total sense; the mkII if you will.... actually considering the very earliest EBs with the single coil sidewinder lets make that mkIII.
That body shape weighs a ton, hence it was ultimately discarded and only the disemboweled Rippers went into production, the outsize cavity hidden by the scratch plate. Not the most elegant solution, but there you have it.
And since the Ripper was intended as a bright sounding bass - another stab for a Gibson Jazz Bass - I'd wager to guess that they wanted to get away from the mudbucker look which after more than a decade of overdriven ooomph was hardly identified by the larger public with a transparent sound.
For the weight relief I don't think it makes much of a difference where the routing is done, front or back side. Neither does the upper horn shape make the difference in weight.
They simply selected the wrong slabs of wood to make the body from, if they're so heavy.
The two mudbuckers alone weigh a ton.
It really is heavy. Not just Gibson Victory, Gibson RD or Peavey T-40 heavy, but heavy-heavy. And that prototype body was near solid and huge.
Quote from: Granny Gremlin on May 31, 2021, 07:17:05 AM
So it makes total sense; the mkII if you will.... actually considering the very earliest EBs with the single coil sidewinder lets make that mkIII.
I see DP references coming... No thread without it :-\
Shall I?
I hold back a lot.
Quote from: uwe on June 01, 2021, 05:23:39 AM
Shall I?
I hold back a lot.
You are the very model of restraint.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0253/9041/5981/products/Blank_Instagram_Portraits_313ee8b1-cd44-40b3-843d-8a923305d4a1_large.png?v=1621522607)
I'm sure that sort of restraint will really end up with shades of deep purple bruising, imho... :mrgreen:
I feel typecast here.
Quote from: uwe on June 02, 2021, 03:32:15 AM
I feel typecast here.
I would do that to you, yes ;)
Quote from: uwe on May 31, 2021, 08:30:18 PM
It really is heavy. Not just Gibson Victory, Gibson RD or Peavey T-40 heavy, but heavy-heavy. And that prototype body was near solid and huge.
And that, in lbs. or Kg, would be what?
I have it in storage currently - no idea!
Just a ballpark figure then.
Kramer alu neck heavy! Brace-yourself-heavy when taking it out of its stand or putting it around your shoulder/neck. No country bass for old men (with degenerated discs!)-heavy!! One-and-a-half or more kilos heavier than a regular maple body Ripper.
Quote from: uwe on June 03, 2021, 10:54:05 AM
Kramer alu neck heavy! Brace-yourself-heavy when taking it out of its stand or putting it around your shoulder/neck. No country bass for old men (with degenerated discs!)-heavy!! One-and-a-half or more kilos heavier than a regular maple body Ripper.
You're hanging onto it with one hand here.........I don't recall your shoulder separating that day ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/XECJ7Dz.jpg)
So 14-15 lbs.?
Also - are those standard mudbuckers, or something else under the covers?
BTW with this finish the Wishbass reference is clearer.
De-mudded mudbuckers! Actually not that much different in sound (if not in look) to the Bicentennial Bird pups which are sidewinders too IIRC.
That's all a Ripper pup is - a mudbucker with smaller coils (less windings; lower DCR etc etc).
On my (now finally sold) '74 P I put a demudded mudbucker in neck pos. Had a broken pickup, just wound both bobbins with thicker wire. Lower output, less mud, matched the p pickup nicely. But awfully polite, not very gibbish at all.
Well, "awfully polite" sums the Ripper pups up, certainly the weakest component of the whole instrument. It wasn't for nothing that many players (who could have afforded a Ripper) preferred the cheaper Grabber's more raucous output or the G-3's snappy bite. The Ripper had substance, but it was put across in such a docile manner, you would have never described it as, say, 'assertive'. Of course, the set neck also had something to do with it.
Gene Simmons was given both Rippers and Grabbers by Gibson, yet ended up playing only the latter, because Kiss needed something snarly live. Peter Cetera, Greg Lake and Mel Schacher played Rippers only transitionally and had all established "their" respective trademark sound before with different basses. Of those three, I'd say that only Mel had a dominant sound (Chicago wasn't the type of band for anything to sound dominant, they had to leave room for each other; Lake's hi-fi'sh clank never approached Chris Squire's Ric-ferocity), but if you listen closely, by the time Mel was playing a Ripper***, his sound had become more subdued due to Grand Funk having left the Railroad in the station and departed the trio format, discovering songwriting along the tracks as opposed to the improvisational frenzy of their early years. (Not a knock, I prefer the later GF(R) to the earlier one and liked what Craig Frost brought to the band.)
*** VERY fleetingly, I couldn't find a single live vid on youtube from their heydays where he was not playing his mudbucked Jazz Bass which provided his formidable sound in a way a(n unmodded) Ripper never could have
(https://i.prcdn.co/img?regionKey=epd%2FBZ6cgTr0trVQvcnHJw%3D%3D)
Quote from: TBird1958 on June 03, 2021, 12:37:29 PM
You're hanging onto it with one hand here.........I don't recall your shoulder separating that day ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/XECJ7Dz.jpg)
The bottom of the bass is out of the shot. It's probably sitting on a stool that you can't see. ;) ;)
Quote from: uwe on June 04, 2021, 05:16:51 AM
Well, "awfully polite" sums the Ripper pups up, certainly the weakest component of the whole instrument. It wasn't for nothing that many players (who could have afforded a Ripper) preferred the cheaper Grabber's more raucous output or the G-3's snappy bite. The Ripper had substance, but it was put across in such a docile manner, you would have never described it as, say, 'assertive'. Of course, the set neck also had something to do with it.
Gene Simmons was given both Rippers and Grabbers by Gibson, yet ended up playing only the latter, because Kiss needed something snarly live. Peter Cetera, Greg Lake and Mel Schacher played Rippers only transitionally and had all established "their" respective trademark sound before with different basses. Of those three, I'd say that only Mel had a dominant sound (Chicago wasn't the type of band for anything to sound dominant, they had to leave room for each other; Lake's hi-fi'sh clank never approached Chris Squire's Ric-ferocity), but if you listen closely, by the time Mel was playing a Ripper***, his sound had become more subdued due to Grand Funk having left the Railroad in the station and departed the trio format, discovering songwriting along the tracks as opposed to the improvisational frenzy of their early years. (Not a knock, I prefer the later GF(R) to the earlier one and liked what Craig Frost brought to the band.)
*** VERY fleetingly, I couldn't find a single live vid on youtube from their heydays where he was not playing his mudbucked Jazz Bass which provided his formidable sound in a way a(n unmodded) Ripper never could have
(https://i.prcdn.co/img?regionKey=epd%2FBZ6cgTr0trVQvcnHJw%3D%3D)
I don't think he used that Ripper for any long period of time. He used a P-bass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgTtlmqHUmk
I interviewd Suzi Quatro some weeks ago. She loves the Ripper and hates the Grabber.
Mark Farner always had a nice shapely butt and wasn't afraid to flaunt it either. It's the package that sells. Sin's a good man's brother.
Quote from: Chris P. on June 04, 2021, 04:03:37 PM
I interviewd Suzi Quatro some weeks ago. She loves the Ripper and hates the Grabber.
Women are like that. They want you to stay concentrated in/on one place und not slide up and down. Personal observation.
Man those prototype Rippers look like can openers. :o
They certainly deserved no design awards. A Porterhouse steak of a bass: "Make something LARGE!"
Quote from: godofthunder on June 05, 2021, 06:21:56 AM
Man those prototype Rippers look like can openers. :o
Must have been a theme in the Gibson Design Department......
(https://i.imgur.com/Brobrigm.jpg)
Quote from: uwe on June 04, 2021, 05:22:13 PM
Mark Farner always had a nice shapely butt and wasn't afraid to flaunt it either. It's the package that sells. Sin's a good man's brother.
That is a fun song to play. We did it with Definition Of Madmen
https://youtu.be/J4KqbiyDFJU
Quote from: uwe on June 04, 2021, 05:26:25 PM
Women are like that. They want you to stay concentrated in/on one place und not slide up and down. Personal observation.
😂 very true!
Quote from: Chris P. on June 04, 2021, 04:03:37 PM
I interviewd Suzi Quatro some weeks ago. She loves the Ripper and hates the Grabber.
I LOVE SUZI.
Just picked up a Suzi Quatro shirt and will die on the hill of spreading the good word of her.