The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Gibson Basses => Topic started by: PhilT on March 21, 2011, 05:29:27 PM
-
So, having bored you all to death with my 78 Ebony Ripper, I finally got it to sound like I wanted and now love it to bits. So much so that I've bought another one. Not quite the same, though, and with cosmetic issues rather than electronic.
This is/was a natural finish, serial number 182193, which Guitar Dater suggests is 1970-72, but I guess must actually be 73 or 74. It has the pickups with screws through the body and the 4-way chicken head selector pointing north, but the ring with the numbers on is missing. Knobs look original, maybe missing metal position markers? I'm not at all certain about the pickguard - it has one small hole above and two below each pickup and they look very neat to be a DIY addition. Pickups are good, except the bridge pup has an indentation in the top - looks like it's been screwed down too tight at some point. Works fine though, both pickups sound great and all the selector positions work.
On to the finish. The body has been resprayed matt black, with a lot of orange peel all over and a lot of buckle rash on the back. Haven't had the pickguard off, but it looks like there might be original finish under it. Where the black is worn away it feels like the original finish is still there. Neck has some kind of clear lacquer on it, worn in places. Serial number, with Made in USA under it, is quite faint and there is what looks like lacquer runs around it, so I suspect it's been tampered with. Great low action, neck plays very nicely despite the worn finish.
Main question then is - what would you do with it? Is it likely to be feasible to remove the black back to the natural finish, if so any tips on how? What about the neck, would you do anything about the lacquer? Any thoughts on original bits that may be missing?
-
Pictures of course ....
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Natural%20Ripper/IMG_1832a.jpg)
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Natural%20Ripper/IMG_1836a.jpg)
More on Photo Bucket http://s242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Natural%20Ripper/
-
If you got it for a bargain price, I'd be inclined to strip it and have it refinished in the colour of your choice.
-
So the gods wouldn't be offended by a period and model incorrect colour choice, like
(http://www.flyguitars.com/graphics/uwe_hornung82G-3.jpg)
-
So the gods wouldn't be offended by a period and model incorrect colour choice, like
Not me. I think most of us Gibson fans would love the opportunity to cost effectively own a Ripper in any other colour than black or natural.
-
The only other color I would consider on one.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Fenderbird/PelhamBlueOrville63-65clone020.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Fenderbird/PelhamBlueOrville63-65clone015.jpg)
-
I remember her!
-
Excluding fins is silly, you like it, you paint it that way. This looks like one of the very early ones with the plump shape - those also existed in a fireburst type fin, so if you want to stay period-correct you have one more option.
-
Excluding fins is silly, you like it, you paint it that way.
Damn straight...and if you don't like it after you paint it, do it again until you do!
-
Excluding fins is silly, you like it, you paint it that way. This looks like one of the very early ones with the plump shape - those also existed in a fireburst type fin, so if you want to stay period-correct you have one more option.
Definitely early, shape is different from the 78, string through is just holes at the back, not a plate. Looking at it in daylight, the neck has been varnished over the dot markers. Pickguard is still a puzzle, it's 2-ply black, not dark tort, and there's a raised insert underneath it which brings it up to 5-ply thickness.
I've just emailed the local luthier to see if he'll take on a refin. Not a fan of that fireburst (the 77 fretless on Jules' site?), either the solid CAR or that translucent red are leading the pack so far.
-
I'll give her a nice fin for you, Phil... :vader:
(no guarantees which decade though...)
-
Ballpark estimate for professional job is just slightly less than the bass cost. I see a summer of 800 grit and rattle cans.
Trouble is, I'm starting to see the character in its faults. A bit like loving an ugly child.
-
Did you ask him how much it would cost if you brought it to him ready to paint? The stripping, sanding and prep work are the hardest, and nastiest, bits to do and the price may come way down if you bring to him bare of hardware and electronics clean and sanded to 320. Just a thought.
-
I'd never let somebody I didn't know prep a body for me to shoot. That is truly the job that requires the most experience to do correctly IMO. Amateurs almost invariably have no idea how level a surface has to be to get a ripple free mirror finish. The most I would do is to let the customer disassemble and chemically strip it and charge an hourly rate for the rest of the prep work.
I say DIY, the finish will be as good as the mental and physical prep you put into it. If you're using a solid color there's no need to strip the finish, it's basically auto body work.
-
Congrats, Phil!
After getting my black Ripper (an '80) I found a project natural one as well.
I used naptha to remove the hideous blue paint on the Smurf Ripper.
http://bassoutpost.com/index.php?topic=3092.0
-
I'd never let somebody I didn't know prep a body for me to shoot. That is truly the job that requires the most experience to do correctly IMO. Amateurs almost invariably have no idea how level a surface has to be to get a ripple free mirror finish. The most I would do is to let the customer disassemble and chemically strip it and charge an hourly rate for the rest of the prep work.
I say DIY, the finish will be as good as the mental and physical prep you put into it. If you're using a solid color there's no need to strip the finish, it's basically auto body work.
Your point has some merit Carlo - sandpaper in the wrong hands can be a trainwreck. Keep in mind though the rattle can paint will come off with just a quick coat of citrus stripper and the nitro will come off with lacquer thinner, steel wool and some elbow grease. This is most likely an early maple Ripper so it will be less prone to sand unevenly - a stiff sanding block with a cork face and 220 paper as a starting point should yield a nice flat surface - no matter who does the painting.
-
Congrats, Phil!
After getting my black Ripper (an '80) I found a project natural one as well.
I used naptha to remove the hideous blue paint on the Smurf Ripper.
http://bassoutpost.com/index.php?topic=3092.0
Thanks Denis. How did your project turn out? The thread ended just as it was getting exciting.
If yours is the Smurf bass, don't know what mine would be - the Black Fingernail? (Only Carry On film fans will understand that.)
Can't decide what's on the neck. I think it's varnish, because it's peeling in places. Any suggestions for getting that off? (I don't have a good track record with maple necks - I wrecked the last one, which was only an SX thankfully).
-
Mostly what's happened since that thread ended was I've been stripping paint. Under the blue was white paint (I suspect an epoxy because it was tough as nails) and in some places red paint. The naptha takes a long time to do the job on all those but with a ScotchBrite kitchen scrubber it will work. The benefit is that it doesn't harm the original clear finish.
Yours looks like a darn nice project!
-
I'm only slightly concerned that you've been stripping that paint for over a year.
-
I'm only slightly concerned that you've been stripping that paint for over a year.
Heh, I hear you. If it were my only project it would have been done by now. I need to unload some projects.
-
Well, I made a start.
Turns out the black pickguard has a 1-ply tort pickguard underneath, which was sprayed black at the same time as the body. Doesn't look orginal and the paint has destroyed it anyway. Under the pickgard is natural finish. The pots I can read are 70-021, 1377344.
Peeled the bad varnish off the neck using a craft knife. That's coming up nice. Started on the back of the body with paint stripper. The black is awful stuff, but there's natural finish under it that the stripper seems to be leaving alone. I wonder if this was a victim of punk, looks like they just sprayed over everything.
-
So, getting the paint off was easy enough, though messy. It's now gone from this
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Natural%20Ripper/IMG_1875a.jpg)
to this
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Natural%20Ripper/IMG_1885a.jpg)
Body is quite a bit darker than the neck. Time to take stock I think, for example how would it look polished up as it is now with a new tort guard?
-
Wow, that looks nice! It looks to be alder. Is the clear finish that was under the black rattle can in good shape? If so you might be able to give her a scrub with some 0000 steel wool and mineral spirts and polish it up with auto compounds and polishes.
-
Wow, that looks nice! It looks to be alder. Is the clear finish that was under the black rattle can in good shape? If so you might be able to give her a scrub with some 0000 steel wool and mineral spirts and polish it up with auto compounds and polishes.
I assumed it was maple, based on the early shape, the serial number and the pot codes, which would make it 73-74. But none of the pictures I've seen of other natural Rippers have any visible grain, so if anyone can explain that I'd be interested. I think it would polish up ok, given that it's old and doesn't need to be perfect. Much less work than painting it.
-
In looking at your first pic I think it may be maple. The grain is rather strong so it did look alderish. You can give it the thumbnail test - just see if the wood gives at and edge when you press your thumnail into it - maple will not dent much while the alder will be more prone to dent.
-
It's rock hard, can't make a mark in it.
-
That is a beautiful piece of timber...
Minimal, Phil... minimal...
-
That is a beautiful piece of timber...
Minimal, Phil... minimal...
Being congenitally lazy, I think I will do as little to it as possible.
-
The Tone Tech fins are pretty good if your looking for sources...
-
That's coming along nicely! I'm with Lightyear and thing it's alder. Pretty slack of the previous owner to paint over the pg. Must have been painted by Earl Scheib: "Any car, any color, no ups, no extras!"
-
If it's rockhard it ain't alder. It should also be quite light if it was alder.
-
That's coming along nicely! I'm with Lightyear and thing it's alder. Pretty slack of the previous owner to paint over the pg. Must have been painted by Earl Scheib: "Any car, any color, no ups, no extras!"
little grainty for alder. and hard too?? did gibson ever use northern ash on bodies??? is it really heavy??
-
My first impression was that it is light compared to my 78. No hardware on it now, but I weighed it with all the parts hanging off the scale in a bag and it's 9lb, whereas the 78 is more like 11lb.
The body is a darker than the maple neck, the neck looks yellowish by comparison. Hard to photo accurately, but this shows it pretty well.
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Natural%20Ripper/IMG_1905a.jpg)
What should the pickup routing be like? This has a kind of platform under the pickups
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Natural%20Ripper/IMG_1904a.jpg)
There's also some rough wood round the neck pocket that was hidden by the paint. Starting to wonder if it is actually a Gibson body ?????
-
That body looks perfectly Gibsonish to me, routings and all. I'm not aware that anybody ever copied the old big body shape of the Ripper. That wasn't around for very long and by the time the copycats got going they emulated the more elegant, sleeker horns-shape.
-
Thanks Uwe, that's reassuring. So jury's out on the wood. Hard enough for maple, light enough for Alder. As it appears to be a very early one, could they have used anything else?
-
Gibson never officially used ash, but would they have cared if they had it stocked at the time? Of course not. It was a preferred Fender wood and construction-wise Gibson was emulating Fender with the Ripper more than ever. If seventies Jazz Basses used ash what should have kept Gibson from doing the same? No one gave a damn at the time what a Ripper was made out of just as long as it wasn't mahogany (to set it apart from its "too dark-sounding" predecessors).
That wood looks exactly like the wood on my SB-350/450 - basses that came out around the same time as the Ripper. I always assumed that to be alder, but I suck in telling alder and ash apart except via the weight test (and of course, too confuse matters further, there is light ash too).
-
Both my '73 and '80 Rippers are maple. The '80 weighs 10.1 lbs. The '73 neck (with tuners) and body weighs 5.5. I seriously doubt that adding pups, pg, bridge and electronics add another 4.6 pounds.
Like all woods maple varies quite a bit in weight.
-
That body looks perfectly Gibsonish to me, routings and all. I'm not aware that anybody ever copied the old big body shape of the Ripper. That wasn't around for very long and by the time the copycats got going they emulated the more elegant, sleeker horns-shape.
i had a copy of the earlier "big booty" style Ripper. it was made by Ventura. set neck and twice mud (fake mud)
-
i had a copy of the earlier "big booty" style Ripper. it was made by Ventura. set neck and twice mud (fake mud)
I remember when some of the import companies started making Ripper copies and they came into the store.............................I thought they were off their rocker for doing so. They do exist.
-
i had a copy of the earlier "big booty" style Ripper. it was made by Ventura. set neck and twice mud (fake mud)
I preferred Uwe's answer ;D
Pictures I've seen of stripped Ripper copy bodies have flat pickup routs, rather than the step up in mine - problem is you can never prove something doesn't exist.
This is where set necks are a PITA. If this was a Fender I could whip the neck off and have a look at what's written in the pocket.
-
I stand corrected!!!
-
Well, I tried!
Why on earth woud someone glue a Gibson neck to a Ventura body? Set neck instruments are not exactly fake-prone. Too much trouble.
-
I just found an old thread on Jules' site which pretty much convinces me the body is Alder. It sure as hell isn't ash.
http://forums.vintageguitars.org.uk/showthread.php?t=613
The link to the tonewoods description on the Warmouth site has disappeared and I can't find it, but the Alder body blank sample picture looks like what I've got.
(http://www.warmoth.com/Assets/ProductImages/BB1.jpg)
-
crikey
-
Alder 'tis.
-
It's all back together. I'm pleased with how it turned out, given I wasn't going for an "as new" refin, but trying to get to how it might have looked if someone had taken reasonable care of it and not sprayed black over the body, pickguard and pickups. The pickguard, varitone plate and trc are new, everything else is as I got it.
Since I took the pics I put GHS steel precision flats on and they suit it really well. Neck is amazing. Haven't had it in a band setting yet, but subject to that test, I love it.
Its interesting, for me at least, having stock pickups. The black 78 I've got, with the Kent Armstrong rebuild at the neck, sounds very different. Solo'd that KA sounds more like a mudbucker. It's useful, being able to swap from Cream to Nirvana with a twist of the chicken head. Don't think I'll get that from this one though.
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Ripper%20Rebuilt/IMG_1956a.jpg)
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/Ripper%20Rebuilt/IMG_1954a.jpg)
-
FANTASTIC!! Great job, makes me want one (never thought I'd say that).
-
You did a great job on that!! It looks fantastic!!
-
Nice work... ;)
-
Great job! Looks very clean but lovingly used - fantastic save!
-
Looks great! I love those early "fat bottomed" Ripper basses.
-
Sehr hübsch geworden!
-
Very nice! Natural and tort is always pretty!
-
Great job & I love the tort guard,
-
Like mine!!!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/uwehornung/IMG00030-20100311-1537.jpg)
-
Thanks for the support, glad you all like it. It's been an interesting project, especially as I was expecting to find a maple body like Uwe's. Nice Grabber there too, I just need to convince myself I don't need one of those.
I took a risk with the pickguard and bought it unseen from AI Guitars on ebay. Screw holes all line up perfectly, but - there'd have to be a but with a Ripper PG - the tone knobs should be closer to the jack. So a bit of rewiring was required, but it's not a big deal. The red tort looks great. They also made the trc.
I emailed Kent Armstrong to see if they have any records of the bridge pickup on the 78. Got a reply straight back from Kent - his son made it, should find out more soon.
-
It's nice that these basses have found some reappreciation after they were the epitome of uncool in the eighties. Thank you, Herr Novoselic! Even Gibson picked up on that and has meanwhile reinstated both Grabber II (now more of a single pup Ripper) and Ripper II as regular models. Those basses were never really pretty or elegant, but they at least had a look of their own.
-
So when did the 80s become a benchmark of cool? I missed that. :o
Nothing has ever felt quite so right as these Rippers. Don't know why that is, something about me I guess.
-
I agree that one issue that often comes up with Gibson basses - ergonomics (and the critics aren't wrong, the explanation being that many Gibson bass bodies are guitar bodies with too long a neck) - has been eradicated with the Ripper. Heavy as they are, these basses balance well and "hang stably".
I never thought them pretty or desirable though, but these days they give testimony of another time and they look like no other bass, this here maybe excepted, but Gibson was first!!!
(http://guitars411.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/414293.jpg)
Guitarists always call my Rippers "those Music Mans", of course the faintly similar pick guard is the culprit.
-
Gigged with it on Friday. Very comfortable with the lighter body and the neck is a joy.
I made myself a wiring diagram in case anything came adrift while I was working on it. Just wondered, what would I have to change to get the neck pickup solo, say in position 4? Anyone know?
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff24/philtrory/Gibson%20Ripper/74Ripperwiringdiag.jpg)