1979 RD Artist (or the luckiest so-and-so in the world)

[uwe]

You mean the single cut Rippers where actually discarded prototype successors to the more original double cut Rippers? I doubt it. While some sellers have indicated that they found theirs midseventies at Gibson, the singlecuts have certain traits such as the chrome mock-mudbuckers that place them firmly into the early seventies. They also have typical prototype hiccups (not string-thru, neck angle not optimal, too little routing in the body making it excessively heavy) you would not expect had they been a development from the Rippers already out for some year. And then the hugeness of the singlecut body, after making the Ripper shape smaller from the original doublecut shape, I cannot imagine Gibson going back to a body even larger than the first doublecut - those singlecut Ripper bodies are huge!

 

[EvilLordJuju]

Yep, thats what I mean.

here is the story again, in case you've forgotten.

In 1976 Star Case (Orland Park, Il) was contracted by Gibson to build flight cases for a couple of custom made guitars they were making for Joe Walsh. I took the cases up to the Kalamazoo plant. I met with Carl Spinosa who was the production manager. He took me on a tour of the factory. We ended up in a room where they kept prototypes and custom one off guitars. I spotted the bass in question hanging on the wall. I asked him about it and he said it was 1 of 10 basses that they made as a possible model to supercede the Ripper bass that was their current production model. It never had a name designation as I recall (though the seller said it was a Les Paul bass) He said that of the 10, 5 were built of mahogany and 5 were maple. All the basses had neck variations of their EB2 hollow body bass design. 3 were finished in black, 4 were cherry, and 3 were sunburst. There were 3 different pickup configurations for them. Dual large chrome humbackers, 1 large & 1 small humbucker, and 2 humbuckers with black plastic covers. (like the Ripper bass pickups) Carl said they gave 2 basses to Greg Lake (Emerson, Lake, & Palmer) 1 to John Wetton (King Crimson) 1 to Leland Sklar (James Taylor) and the others I don't recall. I asked him if I could buy this bass (which I did for $175.00) and played it on and off for a couple of years. Now about the bass. The finish looks washed out. That's the way I got it. The bow in the neck existed, but I worked around it. I took it to a couple guitar techs who both told me that the truss rod might be bent and couldn't be adjusted. Both suggested replacement. I put the first strap button on the neck heel. (the hole on the upper bout was were the original button was placed) I did that because my guitar strap kept coming off because of the angle. (keep in mind this was before strap locks were on the market) Obviously the screw suffered fatigue at the heel which is why a second screw was inserted at the heel which I didn't do. I used the bass only for certain songs because it had too much bottom,(no highs) and it was very heavy.(my shoulder hurt after extensive use) The 6 position switch was useless. As far as the serial number goes. Carl told me candidly that prototypes don't follow a pattern that would acurrately give you a date of manufacture since hardware, electronics, and other factors may differ because they used whatever was in the bin at the time. He said that bass was probably made in late 74'. It was the second one made.

Remember the first Ripper - the groovy December '73 advert?

Well this proves that the body shape was ready before the pickups... Dartanyan Brown mentioned that they needed a christmas advert, so they chucked whatever pickups they had around for the photograph. So how were the single cut "prototype" Rippers ever shipped with Ripper pickups? Unless we regard the story above as completely false in every way?

I personally regard this bass as closer to a LP sig in body shape...

[uwe]

Jules, I think the above story is very likely by and large right, all you have to do is transpose it a year or two back in time and it makes still sense (except that the doublecut ripper is already supposed to be in production). I take a look at my singlecut Ripper and it is an early seventies bass, not a mid seventies one. The fin, the shape, the ungainly size, everything to it. Who in the mid seventies would have gone back to the chrome pups and given up the weight-decreasing and production-easening routing as well as give up the string through concept so en vogue at the time? Plus: In 1974 the Ripper/Grabber family was selling like hot cakes, it was the most successful Gibson bass since the EB-0/-3 twins (and their various spin-offs) of a decade before. It was long scale, had a brighter sound and looked suitably unfenderish, what on earth would have possessed someone to then come up with an outsize singlecut alternative much heavier and more oldfashioned looking? And I don't believe for a moment that Greg Lake who by the mid-seventies played Alembic would have wasted a thought on the singlecut Ripper. They might have given him one in 1972/3 though.

So, yes, I think most of the details of the above story are correct and there is/was no ill will affiliated with getting the years wrong, the author himself says that the Gibson guy was not sure whether it was 1974. Not that it really matters. The singlecut Ripper is a nice piece of history, but I do not wonder for a second why it took the backseat to the doublecut version. Try lifting the thing!

And a picture (or a few) says more than a thousand words, to me that bass cries "early seventies (with still a good shot of sixties influence)":













On this last pic you see the bridge I put on to get a better action (it was basically unplayable when I got it and sold as such too, the trussrod wasn't frozen, but is hugely stubborn and the first generation three point was too high both as regards plate thickness and saddle height - btw another indication that this bass was an early seventies product, the mid seventies three points had already lower saddles), the bridge is a mix of a Blackbird basis (I have a Hipshot Supertone on my Blackbird) and two point white pastic saddles.

[Barklessdog]

First RD review at Talkbass

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/nbd-gibson-krist-novoselic-rd-bass-yes-830558/

[neepheid]

First RD review at Talkbass

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/nbd-gibson-krist-novoselic-rd-bass-yes-830558/

I'm pretty disappointed by this signature model.  Sure, it's nice to see the RD shape brought back to life but what is it compared to an original RD - apart from more, shall we say, precisely made?  The only good things I can see are that the ferrules for the through body stringing are in a straight line, and the tuners are the same distance from the edges of the headstock.  Unlike both aspects of my 1979 RD Artist

I know they get around the odd pickups by it being a signature model (therefore the signatory's choice) rather than a reissue, but it's just such a let down when I look back at my RD Artist that I have no desire to own (or frankly even play) this bass.  Having said that, I have no interest in obtaining an original RD Standard either, the 2 pickup passive VVT position is neatly filled by my IV.

[Pilgrim]

First RD review at Talkbass

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f8/nbd-gibson-krist-novoselic-rd-bass-yes-830558/

The polite phrasing I can offer is "that bass does not visually appeal to me."

[uwe]

Pole pieces not lining up is a strict no-no on a new bass model - nothing wrong with using the SD pups, but downsize them so that they fit for Chrisssakes! It need not have an impact on sound (though I own basses where it has and others where it doesn't) , but it doesn't look neat.

[Barklessdog]

Pole pieces not lining up is a strict no-no on a new bass model - nothing wrong with using the SD pups, but downsize them so that they fit for Chrisssakes! It need not have an impact on sound (though I own basses where it has and others where it doesn't) , but it doesn't look neat.

Not exactly German engineering is it?

Yankee engineering, I believe so.

[uwe]

Ja, sehr unordentlich.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I have to disagree with his complaint about the clover tuners being oversized. It's a Gibson; if you want small tuners, play the damn banjo.

[neepheid]

I have to disagree with his complaint about the clover tuners being oversized. It's a Gibson; if you want small tuners, play the damn banjo.

They are bigger though - furthermore the shafts are too long, they stick a few mm further out but visually it makes quite a big impact.  These definitely qualify as "elephant ears".  And I think they look ridiculous.

Sorry that's the biggest headstock shot I could find quickly, but I think it illustrates the point.





I think these Grover tuners have never looked right ever since they clapped them on the SG.  The Schallers of old are just a little more compact.  You might get away with this in a 4 in line headstock but not a 2 + 2, it just compounds the problem left AND right.

[uwe]

Obsessives!!! 

[Dave W]

Obsessives!!! 

Pot, meet kettle. 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I dig the elephant ears. It's just one more area Gibson unintentionally sets itself apart in the market. Everyone has the ultra-light super balanced whazzamo doodad tuners. Gibson stands apart by making a headstock that would do a young Ron Howard AND Will Smith proud at the same time! If they meant to do it, they'd screw it up, (like using Fender-style pickups whose pole pieces don't line up) but because it's an accident, it's just one more thing that's actually cool about Gibson basses, and I do not say that sarcastically!