No love for G&Ls

[Dave W]

I sure don't see any styling similarities between the SR and Mustang bodies. The SR is similar a P with the lower body rounded, and so is the L2000. The touches like the 3+1 headstock, the pickguard shape and the big single p/u nearer the bridge are what set the SR apart in style, you know what it is even if you haven't heard it. IMHO the L2000 isn't different enough in style to set it apart from a Fender, even though soundwise it is different.

Agreed, they have always been well made, like Guild. And they have always struggled in the market like Guild used to do.

[eb2]

I agree that the SR is basically a P body shape.  But consider the Mustang design "innovations" that Leo presumably thought to be progress beyond the 2nd version P - he has a bridge that incorporates mutes and larger footprint, the pickguard on the E string side is oval shaped, and the controls are in a separate plate (Jazz hangover). The pup was obviously a cheap P vibe. And the Mustang is kind of a squished P shape anyway.  Those are all carried over to the Stingray.  The big slug pup and 3/1 headstock were things he came up with later, and those would be the innovations that weren't style related.  3/1 supposedly was to deal with dead spots, and the pup and preamp were developed in the era. The SR pup layout is mimiced by the G&L stuff, and I would bet if the tuner layout hadn't been copyrighted for MM, he would have done that on G&L as well.  All the Fender designed basses are simillar, but to me the Mustang was the missing link to the SR.

[neepheid]

The L2000 was a Sabre, but more sucsessful.  The L1000 was a Sting Ray, but less sucsessful.  If you played a pre-EB Sting Ray, then you would have a rough idea of the feel and weight of an early G&L. 

To be pedantic, I'd say that the L-1500 is the Stingray-a-like given where its pickup is located.  The L-1000 had its pickup somewhere around the P position.

[dadagoboi]

Love my post Fender Fenders.  76 'Ray, '81 L-1000 converted to a 2000, '81 L-1000 Fretless, 90s L-2500.  The pickups are the real story.  The SR, alnico/active and the G&L ceramic/passive/active are both extremely versatile and LOUD.  The build quality has always been top notch, no mean feat in the mid '70s-80s USA.  My only quibble is the weight and nipple headstock (my SR weighs 12 lbs).  Great bass if you're buying, not so much selling.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

To be pedantic, I'd say that the L-1500 is the Stingray-a-like given where its pickup is located.  The L-1000 had its pickup somewhere around the P position.

If you want to be really pedantic, the G&L Climax had the same placement as the Stingray. The L-1500's pickup is a little farther forward.

[eb2]

If you want to be suggestive of pedantic, the L-1000 and L-2000 were introduced at the onset of G&L and were made at the same time as the Sabre and SR.  I believe they were made in the same factory at by the same people.  The L-1500 and Climax were created years later.

[gweimer]

As far as I'm concerned,  a bass is essentially a neck and pickup(s).  Anything after that is just icing.  G&L got the basics right.

[neepheid]

Oh dear, I hope I'm a better bass player than I am a pedant

[Psycho Bass Guy]

If you want to be suggestive of pedantic, the L-1000 and L-2000 were introduced at the onset of G&L and were made at the same time as the Sabre and SR.  I believe they were made in the same factory at by the same people.  The L-1500 and Climax were created years later.

IIRC, the Climax was a 90's product, while the L-1500 came out around 2005.

[SGD Lutherie]

...and the Albert Lee bass etc.

The first time I saw the Albert Lee guitar, I thought of this bass I made in 1980.  



Now it looks like this:



Once upon a time, that was a '74 P bass with a maple neck.