Is this a standard finish for a G3? It looks too red to be sunburst?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/220837695733?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
Certainly looks like natural aging, Phil...
Quote from: BUFF on August 27, 2011, 03:06:55 AM
Certainly looks like natural aging, Phil...
I use that excuse a lot, for hair loss, inability to remember simple bass lines .... so what about the bass?
;D
Looks off to me to redish
my '77 is pretty dark too. it looks legit.
Not sure, I think I've seen one that dark. Can't imagine anyone choosing that for a refin.
Quote from: PhilT on August 27, 2011, 04:22:09 AM
I use that excuse a lot, for hair loss, inability to remember simple bass lines...
Chrome (dome) polish... :o ;D
The original picture may be the culprit for the "color" (USofA edit ;))
It would really need a strange aging process to come out like that if the camera is not deceiving us. Never seen one that red before and neither maple nor alder lend themselves to that kind of color effect. But it looks good.
The bridge is not original though, but borrowed off a Victory or Explorer. Good choice though, doesn't look bad and the original G-3 bridges are the flimsiest of affairs.
Pic #1 shows a pinkish wall behind the bass, especially to the right, and a reddish maple fretboard. The back of the neck has a red cast also. I'm guessing inexpensive camera. Even some higher end cameras are heavier on the red spectrum and lacking in the yellow. Consumers like it that way.
As to the actual bass, I haven't a clue.
The seller said he thought it was a refin, but he also thought G3s were only ever produced in natural.
I hadn't paid attention to this thread until now. At the music store where I last worked, I saw a plethora of Gibson basses (many for the first time) and among them were two sunburst G3's and one natural finshed one. The burst was nowhere near that red and transitioned color much further from the edges of the body. The finish of the two was the standard Gibson tobacco burst. That auction looks like a Fender finish.
my G3 is a very tobacco sunburst. no red at all...
hang tags still attached...
I had a go at rebalancing the colour in the picture, but however much I got the red out of the background, the bass body stayed stubbornly red. Eventually everything else was blue, except the body. So I don't think it's a camera effect.
I was thinking of bidding on it, on the basis that I'd get it for the start price and that's ok for a G3 here. But my Rippers talked me out of it. Ended with no bids and not relisted so far.
Quote from: PhilT on September 01, 2011, 04:24:28 AM
I had a go at rebalancing the colour in the picture, but however much I got the red out of the background, the bass body stayed stubbornly red. Eventually everything else was blue, except the body. So I don't think it's a camera effect.
I was thinking of bidding on it, on the basis that I'd get it for the start price and that's ok for a G3 here. But my Rippers talked me out of it. Ended with no bids and not relisted so far.
Your Rippers are scared of it. Speaking from experience, the G-3 is a great sounding (and looking) bass :)
True. Snappy affair, but with lots of ooomph, both brighter and bassier than a Grabber and more snarly than a Ripper.
You won't compromise my loyalty that easily. :mrgreen:
Actually snarliness is not really what I'm looking for, which is what held me back. I'd really like something Ripper shaped that sounds like my old Gibson IV. But I suppose that would require invasive surgery and new pickups.
Something Ripper shaped that sounds like your ols IV. That's easy: Buy a Grabber II and all your wishes will come true. Imagine a IV on - yes, the old clichée applies - steroids, that's how it sounds.
What's a decent price for a clean natural Ripper nowadays?
800-1,000 USD
Thanks, Uwe!