The Last Bass Outpost

Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: Hörnisse on February 17, 2013, 09:31:09 PM

Title: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Hörnisse on February 17, 2013, 09:31:09 PM: I just bought a late 1992 three knobber and was wondering if they came stock with a blank truss rod cover? I have seen some with the "Les Paul" cover (ala SG/Les Paul) but mine appears stock. It is nice having a Gibson back in the stable!
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Dave W on February 17, 2013, 09:56:16 PM: I've seen 'em both ways. There are enough out there with a blank TRC that it must have been stock on some of them.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Denis on February 18, 2013, 05:52:44 AM: Pics, Robert!
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on February 18, 2013, 06:34:06 AM: All of mine from the nineties era - eight of them, original passive to Standard and everything in between - have the Les Paul TRC. Just the kind of thing guitarists nick to put on their toys!
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Dave W on February 18, 2013, 12:17:12 PM: I was specifically talking about the early ones, 92-93 era.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Hörnisse on February 18, 2013, 02:44:00 PM: Here are some quick shots. Has a few dings here and there but plays very nicely.

(http://i48.tinypic.com/dyok5f.jpg)

(http://i45.tinypic.com/andafo.jpg)
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on February 18, 2013, 04:42:49 PM: That might be, they probably didn't have them printed in time. Not that it would bother me one way or another. If you don't recognize an LP shape from afar, the TRC ain't gonna explain it to you, Dumbo!

I liked those early passive ones and the carved top Standards (once they had beome passive again) best. The Specials were remorseless brutes and the Deluxes too hifi. And with the active Standards the hi-charged chrome TB Plus chrome pups (always bitier than the more docile "teflons") could have used another 9 volt bat with the Bartolini TCT electronics, they tend to be a bit shrill in their treble attack. My TM Stevens one off 8-string active Standard (actually they built two for him at the time) is a bit sharp and nasty like that.

The early passive ones are nice players and do everything a Les Paul bass should do.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Denis on February 18, 2013, 06:00:10 PM: Looks great, Robert! Nice color and beautiful grain.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Nocturnal on February 18, 2013, 06:54:23 PM: Quote from: uwe on February 18, 2013, 04:42:49 PM
And with the active Standards the hi-charged chrome TB Plus chrome pups (always bitier than the more docile "teflons") could have used another 9 volt bat with the Bartolini TCT electronics, they tend to be a bit shrill in their treble attack. My TM Stevens one off 8-string active Standard (actually they built two for him at the time) is a bit sharp and nasty like that.

My Standard with the Bart pre was super aggressive. Even after I (actually Chromium) changed it to a push\pull active\passive setup it was still super powerful. I like those pickups tho and have them in two basses. They do have more bite than the black soapbars for sure.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on February 19, 2013, 04:25:18 AM: No mistake about it, the compressed construction of the guitar humbucker size TB Plus has - accidentally? - added a sharpness to them (while retaining bass ooomph and mid raunch) that most of you who clamor for the sound of sixties TB pups especially should dearly appreciate. I think they are the prime TB Plus version - and not because of the chrome or as the case may be gold look. With the combo of the Bart TCT electronics it gets a bit much though - those work better with the soapies.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: 4stringer77 on February 19, 2013, 07:43:05 AM: (http://i48.tinypic.com/dyok5f.jpg)

(http://i45.tinypic.com/andafo.jpg)
[/quote]

That's hot! I'd give my left nut for one of these in tv yellow.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: gearHed289 on February 19, 2013, 09:28:45 AM: Nice bass! Dig the 3 knobbers. Great pickups. I pulled the Bart pre out of my LP pretty early on.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: 4stringer77 on February 19, 2013, 12:52:51 PM: Gibson must have thought the bart pre wasn't great in this bass either since they made the 07' Les Paul faded with 2 vol and 2 tone. There's one on the bay now. Hey Hornisse I see you're in Austin, did you score this bass from guitar center down there? I see one listed on the web site that looks just like yours. Great deal if you snagged that one.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on February 19, 2013, 02:05:14 PM: Phil Jones, the original LP designer, thought the Bart TCT harness was - back then - God's gift to bass electronics, he put it pretty much in any (even slightly) upscale model (later LP Specials, all LP Deluxes, early pre-toggle-switch LP Standards, EB-750, LP Doublecut Prototype, Primavera Prototype, Smartwood LP). Hardly any bass escaped!!! He once wrote to me "that it was a good harness at its time, when such things weren't so widely available", so I detected some remorse in that! :mrgreen:

I guess his quest was to make a true Gibson bass, set neck, maho and classic shape and all, yet one that would sound "modern" in the early nineties to appeal to perceived tastes. Let's forgive him, we all err once in a while, he's a nice man and has always been helpful to me. Nobody else on earth owns a korina TBird, so there! :mrgreen:

"Gosh, I feel really, really deeply sorry about all those TCT harnesses, guys ..."

(http://www.gruhn.com/philjones.jpg)

But look at all the good things I did too!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/uwehornung/BG1652.jpg)
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: gearHed289 on February 20, 2013, 09:26:12 AM: Quote from: uwe on February 19, 2013, 02:05:14 PM
"Gosh, I feel really, really deeply sorry about all those TCT harnesses, guys ..."

No apologies needed - I sold mine on ebay! :P
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on February 20, 2013, 12:24:37 PM: They have their fans! Still.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on February 20, 2013, 09:52:09 PM: Ironically, I remember when the Bart Les Pauls were new and a small local dealer (try finding many of those for Gibson) had a couple in stock and the one he sold while I was hanging out one day only sold because the kid who bought it was a Pearl Jam fan and his friend told him the Barts in the LP were the same as what Jeff Ahmet had in his bass. Both played like dogs (bad setups) and sounded like crap but the guy bought the less worse of the pair. It's doubly funny now that Jeff has a signature T-Bird knockoff that uses passive pickups.

I wonder how many Epi LP standards there are out there. Specials are obviously a dime a dozen, but you don't see many Standards; they're a whole different ballgame. Anybody know where I could find out when Epi made their flower pot Les Pauls and how many of them there were and what their specs were? Of the few I've played, the neck width at the nut and the profile has varied WILDLY.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: ramone57 on February 21, 2013, 04:39:55 AM: know where I could find out when Epi made their flower pot Les Pauls and how many of them there were and what their specs were?

PBG, this site may help you figure it out.

http://epiphonewiki.com/index.php/Main_Page
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Barklessdog on February 21, 2013, 04:42:30 PM: Nice bass and I like the Ice Cream Cup headstock.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: SKATE RAT on March 02, 2013, 02:49:19 PM: exactly like my red 92 'cept yours is in better shape. mine has a Les Paul trc with white border
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: 4stringer77 on March 02, 2013, 02:57:22 PM: Blank trc on this mint condition closet classic.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-Gibson-Les-Paul-Bass-LPB-1-Tobacco-SunBurst-w-OHSC-Hardshell-Case-/200902250583?pt=Guitar&hash=item2ec6b51057
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Dave W on March 02, 2013, 03:42:12 PM: Quote from: 4stringer77 on March 02, 2013, 02:57:22 PM
Blank trc on this mint condition closet classic.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-Gibson-Les-Paul-Bass-LPB-1-Tobacco-SunBurst-w-OHSC-Hardshell-Case-/200902250583?pt=Guitar&hash=item2ec6b51057

Yep. Very early one. IMHO way overpriced though.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 03, 2013, 02:10:55 PM: Quote from: 4stringer77 on March 02, 2013, 02:57:22 PM
Blank trc on this mint condition closet classic.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-Gibson-Les-Paul-Bass-LPB-1-Tobacco-SunBurst-w-OHSC-Hardshell-Case-/200902250583?pt=Guitar&hash=item2ec6b51057

That's seriously overpriced. The ONLY cool thing about that bass is flowerpot and case. There's a reason they weren't made that way for long. Two years of production for a bass at Gibson is what, 50 or 60 instruments? (I'm ALMOST being sarcastic.)
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: 4stringer77 on March 03, 2013, 06:43:52 PM: I'm still attracted to the early model LP. Passive, simple controls and classic looks. I'd rather pick up a cheaper older beater than a pristine expensive one.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on March 03, 2013, 09:33:29 PM: Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on March 03, 2013, 02:10:55 PM
That's seriously overpriced. The ONLY cool thing about that bass is flowerpot and case. There's a reason they weren't made that way for long. Two years of production for a bass at Gibson is what, 50 or 60 instruments? (I'm ALMOST being sarcastic.)

Why so harsh ??? - there is nothing wrong with those basses at all if the shape is not too guitarish for you. And this particular model only tested the market (gibson was sceptical at the outset and toyed with the idea of bringing out a doublecut instead) initially to eventually blossom into three versions, all of them active initially to court then perceived prevailing tastes: LPB-1/Special, LPB-2/Deluxe and LPB-3/Standard before towards the middle of that series' life cycle they first faded out the Deluxe and then the Special, reverting the Standard to passive for a couple of more years. Towars the very end of the cycle, the LP Faded was basically the initial model (ie passive) again, sans inlay, and with 2+2 controls, ABM bridge and the soapies slightly more upfront. Those sound near identical to the first ones. The single cut LPs went then dormant for a while until the three pup BFG version brought them back for a short time only to pave the way for the oversized body versions that they still produce today though the "Oversize" moniker has meanwhile been dropped (with the body extension retained).

All in all, the Phl Jones spawned long scale LP series has been a longstanding model and - for Gibson standards - a consistent seller. And hardly anybody is ever less than satisfied with the sound of these basses which give you a maho tone that's more ballsy and focused than, say, a TBird though the high register experience is of course not the same.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Denis on March 04, 2013, 05:21:44 AM: Quote from: Barklessdog on February 21, 2013, 04:42:30 PM
Nice bass and I like the Ice Cream Cup headstock.

I like the Ripper ad. :)

http://epiphonewiki.com/index.php/Ripper_Bass
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 04, 2013, 04:40:19 PM: Quote from: uwe on March 03, 2013, 09:33:29 PM

Why so harsh ???

The tobacco burst (which looks good on a LP Jr to hide the body seams) combined with that horrible Fenderannabe bridge and the TB pickups just doesn't work. It looks more like a bad Chinese knockoff than an actual Gibson. I DEMAND the three point on the LP Standard bass. I despise the Warwick bridge and Fender-inspired bridges do not belong on it either. It needs chrome and a carved top that actually has some depth to it. Give the damn thing some pickup rings out of pity!
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on March 05, 2013, 03:47:17 PM: :mrgreen: Ok, ok, we can discuss the esthetics all night, but neither the TB Plus soaps nor the Schaller bridge made it a bad sounding bass! And I never understood why the carved top LP Standards did not retain the tried and trusted Holy Immaculate Trinity bridge but went for that heathenish Warwick Panzer bridge. That said, the brutal assertiveness of an LP Standard does have to do with that German chunk of metal in it.

And incidentally, didn't the use of chrome TB plus pups (with rings!) on the Standards please you no end?
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 05, 2013, 05:13:55 PM: I've got Fralin Bassbuckers, which are guitar sized, not TB, with creme rings on mine, but the covers are chrome. My major issue with the eBay bass is that the finish looks like it's hiding something.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 05, 2013, 05:29:37 PM: Quote from: uwe on March 05, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
That said, the brutal assertiveness of an LP Standard does have to do with that German chunk of metal in it.

I've played a few with the Warwank bridge. I prefer the three-point, though in all honesty, those basses were setup less than optimum. My gripe with the Warwick is in changng the strings. Even when I was doing 5-10 guitar and bass setups a day, I could never string a Warwick without the damn ball ends popping loose from the tailpiece. For the first few, I chalked it up to inexperience. After that, I just got pissed off. I never could find a 'trick' to hold them in place while bringing them up to tension; the slack always pushed them out the back of the slot and they'd pop right off. Eventually, I just started making the people who brought them in hold the string while I tuned them up until it had enough tension to not fall out, but I will forever hate them and ALL open top-slot bridges.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: 4stringer77 on March 05, 2013, 05:45:46 PM: At least you don't end up with silk and overwrap on the E and A string saddles. Even the two point bar bridge on my 66' EB3 has better ball end to saddle string travel than those 3 pointers.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: amptech on March 06, 2013, 05:25:10 AM: That´s why I never been a big fan of the three point. When you set up the guitar just the way you like it and found the
perfect strings for it... My main axe for the moment is a ´63 EB0F with a 3P installed. The .045-.100 chromes is my favorite set for this one, and I have to remove the silk wrapping with my dremel... It ends up a bit wooly, but I just dip the ends in some fast drying black enamel paint - and I get rid of the silly D´addario ball colours as well.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 06, 2013, 05:42:57 AM: I've got the same Chromes on mine (they just came in an Ernie Ball package ;) ) and the silks don't get anywhere near the nut or the bridge saddles. They all stop about 2" past it. The extra you're paying for the D'darrio name must go toward extra silk wrapping and ball end paint.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: uwe on March 06, 2013, 06:19:18 AM: Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on March 05, 2013, 05:29:37 PM
I've played a few with the Warwank bridge. I prefer the three-point, though in all honesty, those basses were setup less than optimum. My gripe with the Warwick is in changng the strings. Even when I was doing 5-10 guitar and bass setups a day, I could never string a Warwick without the damn ball ends popping loose from the tailpiece. For the first few, I chalked it up to inexperience. After that, I just got pissed off. I never could find a 'trick' to hold them in place while bringing them up to tension; the slack always pushed them out the back of the slot and they'd pop right off. Eventually, I just started making the people who brought them in hold the string while I tuned them up until it had enough tension to not fall out, but I will forever hate them and ALL open top-slot bridges.

John (Fertig) once said the Warwick bridge is overengineered - there is more than a grain of truth in that.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: 4stringer77 on March 06, 2013, 12:38:30 PM: Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on March 06, 2013, 05:42:57 AM
I've got the same Chromes on mine (they just came in an Ernie Ball package ;) ) and the silks don't get anywhere near the nut or the bridge saddles. They all stop about 2" past it. The extra you're paying for the D'darrio name must go toward extra silk wrapping and ball end paint.

I live 15 minutes away from a juststrings warehouse so I always buy from them online and pick them up to save on shipping. They sell Chromes for less than the Ernie Balls and at the moment chromes are on sale for even cheaper. The Ernie Balls don't come in short scale either. That's cool that they use less silk though. I might have to check out a set after my chromes die out in another year or two or three. Hope I can still remember.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 06, 2013, 05:30:36 PM: In case I wasn't clear, the EB Group III Flatwounds are the same strings, made by D'darrio OEM for Ernie Ball, one of the few strings they don't make themselves. In music stores, they're usually half the price of their "official" brethren.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: 4stringer77 on March 07, 2013, 07:27:17 AM: Yup that's the comparison I was talking about in my last post. ECB81 chromes are $23.61 regularly on juststrings and now on sale for $21.25. They also come in a short scale winding for $23.63. The same string in a different package, Ernie Ball group III flats go for $26.98 on their site and only come in long scale. I pick up my strings from them in Milford NH usually after a great breakfast at the riverhouse cafe.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: amptech on March 07, 2013, 09:56:06 AM: I assumed we were talkin´bout short scale strings, and could not remember seeing any ernie balls where I shop strings (which by the way happens to be juststrings.com) . I wish it was possible to buy strings locally, just to appreciate non-web shops, but flatwounds is a bit too exotic in a small town in Norway... I´d be surprised if they had heard of short scale strings!
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Dave W on March 07, 2013, 10:13:54 AM: Quote from: amptech on March 07, 2013, 09:56:06 AM
I assumed we were talkin´bout short scale strings, and could not remember seeing any ernie balls where I shop strings (which by the way happens to be juststrings.com) . I wish it was possible to buy strings locally, just to appreciate non-web shops, but flatwounds is a bit too exotic in a small town in Norway... I´d be surprised if they had heard of short scale strings!

Hard to find long scale flatwounds in many retail stores here, much less short scale flats. In the last 20 years, I've only seen short scale flats once in a retail store (they were Chromes), and the clerk told me that's only because they already had a regular customer who bought them.
Title: Re: Gibson Les Paul Bass Question (1992 with flower pot inlay)
Post by: Psycho Bass Guy on March 07, 2013, 11:37:30 AM: I don't remember what I paid for my EB's about five-ten years ago, bit IIRC, it was 19.99, but again, it's been a day or two. I'll shouldn't need to buy strings for the rest of my life. My skin ph doesn't break them down and even though I play extremely hard, I've never had any give me tuning problems with age; they just break. I snapped the low E on my Jazz on the opening note of the second song of our set (or course with no backup bass and certainly no backup strings- I just detuned the other three and carried on). Those were Rotosounds, which I still love for certain basses, including that same Jazz.

It was a problem for me when I had to replace my Ernie Ball Slinky 5's on my G&L L-2500 because I strung it through-body and by the time I bought new strings to replace the ones I swapped for the HORRIBLE factory SIT's, EB had changed the length and the exact same model wouldn't fit my bass through-body anymore; had to bridge-string it. I bought several more sets, puzzled that what I had was different from the what was in stores, thinking I had just found an oddball before contacting EB to find out that they HAD changed the design... ten years before. :D The change had happened right after I bought my old set. Ernie Ball sent me three MORE sets for free and I hadn't asked for anything but info.

On top of that, I got five or six sets of strings from an eBay auction with my G&L L-5500 and traded a crap Jackson bass for another eight or ten sets around that same time. The sad thing is that none of them are EB flats, which I'm throughly in love with on my Les Paul, but the ones that are on it are holding up fine. However, I'm trying to resume playing out, so that may change. It's good to know about the silk on Chromes versus the EB's though: one more reason for me to stick to the EB version.