I found a VERY intriguing postcard under a mudbucker in an old Epiphone Rivoli. I've got an interesting story to tell!
But first, before I tell all, can anyone tell me where this is? France? Holland?
(http://www.flyguitars.com/graphics/postcard1.jpg)
Looks more Holland than France to me!
water table level says Holland, make of cars says France ... darn sure ain't Texas!
Houses could be Dutch, but the flags on the bridge are more like they do in Belgium, France or Germany. I'm very curious.
My first guess would be The Hague...
My first guess was the Hague. It looks like the houses of parliament in The Hague. The water is called 'Hofvijver.'. I googled Hofvijver Den Haag and got this. I think we have a match:
(http://www.htgservices.nl/service/images/Hofvijver%20Den%20Haag.jpg)
Another angles, first one with the flags, second one with the zebra crossing:
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_HnON-VfacvM/S32fXYrUMLI/AAAAAAAATuw/Fqf8CCy7zgo/Hout_Hofvijver.jpg)
(http://www.tuttocollezioni.it/cartoline/Europa/Netherlands/slides/O115%20DEN%20HAAG%20L%27AIA%20NETHERLANDS%20HOLLAND%20BUITENHOF%20MET%20HOFVIJVER%20TRAM%20CARS%20VG%20Formato%20Lungo.jpg)
So if it's from The Hague it has to have a link with the Golden Earring and Rinus Gerritsen??
Here's another one from a similar angle
(http://www.deansicht.nl/ansichtkaarten/12372.jpg)
OK thanks, the Hague it is.
So, I bought this a couple years back
(http://www.flyguitars.com/graphics/Rivoli-Violin.jpg)
An Epiphone Rivoli cut down to violin shape, and the sides filled in with mahogany (just an edge about 1cm wide). I'm not a great fan of Violin basses, but it was going cheap. Rather it was relisted a few times on ebay; a little cheaper each time. It had some original parts, and I thought about restoring it, but in the end I just thought i'd use the parts.
Anyway, a few nights back I decided i'd take the pickup out and put it in another Rivoli that has a Dimarzio model 1 in at the moment.
Started unscrewing and found 8 pieces of card underneath - used to adjust the height.
I reassembled the pic (that I assumed to be Holland, and as we now know is the Hague)
And a short message on the back became clear
QuoteAmerica September, October, John Mayall
Tony
It was addressed to a lady in New York, but unstamped and unsent. So to me, this was a postcard from the bass player in John Mayalls bluesbreakers telling someone in the US when they were coming over.
15 mins on google confirms this.
The bassplayer was Tony Reeves who was in John Mayalls Bluesbreakers from April to Aug '68. The Bluesbreakers did go to the US in September, but before this time Tony Reeves left (with John Hiseman, and Dick Heckstall-Smith to form Colosseum)
According to http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/mt/taylor68.htm (http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/mt/taylor68.htm) they were in Holland between June 21st and June 23rd 1968.
So, Tony Reeves bought the postcard on one of them three days, and used it to adjust pickup height rather than send it.
Now, this was a great line up for John Mayalls Bluesbreakers - the guitarist was Mick Taylor. I now know Tony recorded the 1968 Bare Wires album with this Epiphone, and I have seen several live shots of him using it with Colosseum too (not sure whether he recorded with it again - he certainly used an EB3 quite a lot)
Check this pic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jean-paul-margnac/361726029/
So that is his old Rivoli? :o Seems like you won't be parting it out now after all, right?
By The way, I contacted Tony, and he confirms that it was his bass. Plus he's gonna do a Fly Guitars interview (I need to finish Dennis Dunaway first)
So, check these clips.
This is the Epiphone with John Mayalls Bluesbreakers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TAugUQfdrg
Tony commented on this in youtube "The Epiphone Rivioli sounds very plastic, and a bit loud" - I think it sounds great though
This is the Epiphone with Colosseum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNL2US6rS1M
Colosseums best known track (and a great example of Tonys playing) might be the Kettle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZRXrgkHF0 - not sure what bass this was
Tony went on to be in Curved Air, Greenslade and many more - he now runs MTR Audio (http://www.mtraudio.com/)
Wow, that's one cool story!!!!!
I've often wondered what my basses were up to in the 40 years before I got them. It's great to now find out about one of them.
So, now I need opinions from you guys.
What to do with the bass?
I've always liked Colosseum, and John Mayalls Bluesbreakers; so bearing this in mind i'm certainly now going to keep it. I was going to remove the neck and pickup at one point, but not now...
I'd love to restore it - but obviously this will never be a Rivoli again. So any real restoration is out of the question. So if this was your bass, what would you do? Refin? if so how? or keep it as original as possible?
If he played it the way it is, I wouldn't put it behind glass and never touch it, but keep restoration to the minimum of what you need to make it fully playable for you. I think everyone here will agree on that.
It's a British Blues Invasion artefact.
Or sell it for amazing bucks to Tony Reeves!
Wow, what a cool, story!
It would be cool to put this in our Dutch bass-magazine De Bassist, don't you think Chris?
In that Mayall video the bass sounds like an upright bass.
Not sure what he means with plastic sounding. I really like it anyway.
Quote from: uwe on March 02, 2011, 12:19:18 PM
If he played it the way it is
I don't think he is responsible for the violin-isation, I think it was always Rivoli shape whilst he owned it. Would be interesting to know where it went after he owned it, and who did this to it.
Part of me wants to refin, but another part thinks it looses something once the original finish goes.
Quote from: Basvarken on March 02, 2011, 12:26:07 PM
Wow, what a cool, story!
It would be cool to put this in our Dutch bass-magazine De Bassist, don't you think Chris?
Yeah, especially with the Dutch connection - when i've spoken to him in more detail, and found exactly what he used it on, and maybe what happened beyond '68 - i'll give you all the info. Would be good to get some pics of those few Dutch gigs (not easy I guess).
From what i've read he was an upright player initially, and this Epiphone was his first electric bass - maybe some of that upright style of playing rubbed off?
Great story! Always nice to get some knowledge about the whereabouts of ones instruments. In my mind Tony Reeves is one of the originators from the beat boom, so all respect!
Great story, Jules. If I were you, I'd put off any decision until you talk to him more and possibly find out who had it next or any more of its history.
Now, who was the lady in New York?
Rob mailed me and my De Bassist-colleague the story. Keep us posted!
I would,leave it as is.
Great story! Investigative guitar collecting! :thumbsup:
Man that is a great story! I remember that bass. Knowing this, I'd probably keep it as is (just fixing whatever is needed)
The only foreign object that I've ever found in a bass (my EB-2D) was a ball point pen ...and lint. :bored:
Nice story, Jules...
I'll offer similar advice I offered Chris when he was thinking about parting with his Rickie (4005?)...
1) you are a collector - she is not an original instrument and has novelty value only, an interesting history, yes... but novelty value only... is she a true collectors item, as she stands now...?
2) how does the lady play, and does she offer you a useful sound...?
3) would you gig her (or would she just be a wallflower)...?
What was that Meatloaf number - 2 out of 3 ain't bad...?
If you keep her, leave her as she is, or maybe go all out and do something truly psychedelic... :vader:
Very cool!
Quote from: uwe on March 02, 2011, 12:19:18 PM
If he played it the way it is, I wouldn't put it behind glass and never touch it, but keep restoration to the minimum of what you need to make it fully playable for you. I think everyone here will agree on that.
It's a British Blues Invasion artefact.
My opinion perzackly. It's a unique bass, keep it that way.
QuoteI'd love to restore it - but obviously this will never be a Rivoli again. So any real restoration is out of the question.
I disagree with the conclusion. This "modification" is retarded, and I would restore it. The important parts - neck, hardware and electronics are all there. That is the hardest stuff to find in one piece on old Gibsons. I would scout out an EB-2/Ravioli with a broken neck and use it as a donor. Yank the neck, reset the good neck on the good body, hook up the parts, boom.
What would you do if it were a building?
Must be depending on what building it is. Buckinham Palace? No doubt one would restore and rebuild it. But if it was my 120 year old timber shack out in the wilderness? Well, no doubt one would build a new one instead. Why? Because there's plenty of them in the forests in the northern hemisphere, possible to get without having to high costs. So if my insurance company would build a new house for me, then I would go for it.
You can have a fresh Ravioli any old time. But an Epiphone Rivoli from the 60's?
Quote from: eb2 on March 02, 2011, 10:56:26 PM
I disagree with the conclusion. This "modification" is retarded, and I would restore it. The important parts - neck, hardware and electronics are all there. That is the hardest stuff to find in one piece on old Gibsons. I would scout out an EB-2/Ravioli with a broken neck and use it as a donor. Yank the neck, reset the good neck on the good body, hook up the parts, boom.
Where is the difference between that and parting it out? ??? ??? ??? It won't be the same bass then.
The "added value" in this Rivoli bass is that is you can track it down to a certain point in time, used by Tony Reeves and the bass can be heared on certain records. You should restore it to the way it was at that time.
The violin shape has no part in that story (as far as we know). Unless there is great story to be told about the violin-isation there is no reason not to restore it.
I would leave it just as it is. It has a history.
Quote from: Freuds_Cat on March 03, 2011, 01:02:18 AM
What would you do if it were a building?
I know the answer to that.
In our house we have part of a base cruck, a huge piece of timber dating from the early 14th C, part of a mediaeval hall house that stood on the site. Somewhere around the 17th C, someone with the Tudor equivalent of a chain saw hacked the end off it, because it was in the way of their new staircase. Now, even if we wanted to, there's no way of restoring that. The original wood is long gone, along with the 700 years of soot and seasoning that would have been on it. So, we're grateful for the bit we've got.
Going back to the bass, the fact that it was turned into a violin bass is as much part of its history as its time in John Mayall's band.
I agree - the mod is so radical and off the wall. There is probably no other bass like it. On earth.
BTW: Is the sustain block still inside? In that case it would in fact now be more of a solidbody!
Quote from: Bart! on March 03, 2011, 05:24:34 AM
The "added value" in this Rivoli bass is that is you can track it down to a certain point in time, used by Tony Reeves and the bass can be heared on certain records. You should restore it to the way it was at that time.
The violin shape has no part in that story (as far as we know). Unless there is great story to be told about the violin-isation there is no reason not to restore it.
There is no way to restore this bass without rebuilding the body, to do this you will have to discard much of the existing body and in the process remove it's history.
Quote from: PhilT on March 03, 2011, 06:30:36 AM
I know the answer to that.
In our house we have part of a base cruck, a huge piece of timber dating from the early 14th C, part of a mediaeval hall house that stood on the site. Somewhere around the 17th C, someone with the Tudor equivalent of a chain saw hacked the end off it, because it was in the way of their new staircase. Now, even if we wanted to, there's no way of restoring that. The original wood is long gone, along with the 700 years of soot and seasoning that would have been on it. So, we're grateful for the bit we've got.
Going back to the bass, the fact that it was turned into a violin bass is as much part of its history as its time in John Mayall's band.
That your house has timber from the 14C is amazing tell us more please! Pictures!
Where is the difference between that and parting it out? It won't be the same bass then.
The difference is you are restoring it to what it was supposed to be, before a goof ball did something batsh!t to it. If the neck broke, you could repair it or replace it. If the pickup shorted, you could rewind it or replace it. If someone took the bridge off, get a correct bridge. This is just the body - same thing. I guess to me it is a crime to have done that, and leave it like that. The purchase was based on the idea that it was good only for parts, based on the butcher work. So in this one, Einstein chopped 3/4 of the body off. Get a donor body, and make a whole Ravioli. Doc Bass has done more Herculean work. Not easy, but not impossible.
Don't you think, though, that the body is the essence of the bass, whereas the other bits are just ... bits.
A Tbird body with a Fender neck is still recognizably a Tbird, whereas a Jazz body with a TBird neck is ... ok, someone's going to say "a Victory". You know what I mean.
I just think changing the body changes the bass in a way other parts don't.
I've done some pretty disgusting things to instruments over the years, but I've always considered the neck to be pretty much sacrosanct...
QuoteDon't you think, though, that the body is the essence of the bass, whereas the other bits are just ... bits.
Sure - all basses are bits. Even a Tbird. If someone hit a T-bird with a sledgehammer, and knocked off one of the wings, then you would want to repair that bit, no? Much like this thing, you don't have to. But in that instance, and this thing, it is doable. I think sawing off chunks of an ES body to make a moronic violin shape changes the bass into something fairly wrong headed in nature. But, much as if one were to back up an f-150 over the body of an EB-2, the damage can be repaired. You remove the neck - which is glued in anyway - and glue it onto a new body. My initial point was Jules ruled that out as an option, whereas I think that is a conclusion that overlooks the ease in which it could be done.
Quote from: godofthunder on March 03, 2011, 08:36:38 AM
That your house has timber from the 14C is amazing tell us more please! Pictures!
Rather than clutter this thread, it's here http://bassoutpost.com/index.php?topic=5310.0
Anything is restoreable. I didn't have to remove much material for this restoration but I sure had to add a lot! (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/100_1979.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/Charjazzband12-09pheonixbass002.jpg)
you don't rebuild or rewrite history. beside this bass has an interesting 'proffesional' story that goes with it. not just another project by anybody.
Quote from: nofi on March 04, 2011, 07:35:38 AM
you don't rebuild or rewrite history. beside this bass has an interesting 'proffesional' story that goes with it. not just another project by anybody.
Agreed. The metaphysical point I was groping towards is that the spirit/mojo/soul of a bass is in the body. So whatever's left of the body, that's what lay in the back of a van listening to John Mayall snoring. You replace that with another body, it may look like the original, but it's not that bass.
Would you believe I'm an atheist?
Quote from: PhilT on March 04, 2011, 10:01:07 AM
Agreed. The metaphysical point I was groping towards is that the spirit/mojo/soul of a bass is in the body. So whatever's left of the body, that's what lay in the back of a van listening to John Mayall snoring. You replace that with another body, it may look like the original, but it's not that bass.
Would you believe I'm an atheist?
I agree with the above I am not trying to make a case for a new body, I would leave it as is.
John Mayall snores? :mrgreen:
I believe by the time the moron filled in the sides of the new violin shape, the soul had departed this world entirely. I am neither an atheist nor an animist, but mojo too is gone forever for this thing. Whatever was around for Mayall snoring was a pleasant memory, and nobody that heard or played this poor thing back in those days had anything to do with the post-mortem. Just badness.
Spiritually there is no greater proof of universal good than the sight Bobby Orr flying through the air in a Bruins uniform, and no greater proof of evil than him hobbling around in a Black Hawks uniform - and this bass.
Quote from: saltymonkey on March 04, 2011, 10:19:38 AM
John Mayall snores? :mrgreen:
Have you heard him sing? :o
Quote from: PhilT on March 04, 2011, 11:07:01 AM
Have you heard him sing? :o
Badum-ching! :rimshot:
Thank you. I'm here all week.
Don't forget to tip your waitress.
(as long as we're channeling Henny Youngman)
And be sure to try the veal.
And when you use the men's room, don't eat the mints. They're imported.
Fresh mints anyone?
(http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af119/Grog_03/Mints.jpg)
Quote from: EvilLordJuju on March 02, 2011, 11:00:43 AM
By The way, I contacted Tony, and he confirms that it was his bass. Plus he's gonna do a Fly Guitars interview (I need to finish Dennis Dunaway first)
Great news about the interview, Tony is a fantastic bassist. Could you ask him about what happened to his old Telecaster bass he used with Greenslade. Did he sold it to Stewart Copeland who then used it for his Klark Kent stuff perhaps? Tony also did play a 60's reverse Thunderbird II with Curved Air.