EB3 Anomalies?

[GonzoBass]

While doing research and working on my project EB3 I've noticed a few weird things:

- No serial number.
I've seen them stamped into the back of the headstock,
but there's no sign of one here.

- No truss rod access.
Nothing under the cover plate on the headstock or at the neck butt.

- Most EB3s I've seen have a black face on the headstock,
with the inlayed logo.
This one was always stained the same color as the cherry body,
with a black pinstripe around it
and "Gibson" in white paint.

Do any of these seemingly odd facts mean anything to anyone
or are these just normal variations?
 

[eb2]

It sounds downright batty.  You need to get some pics up here to illustrate this.  I have heard of Gibsons with no serial number from the mid 70s as many of them for a short time came with a serial number on a sticker which could have been peeled off or lost.  I don't know if those were on the last EB3s.  But every Gibson came with a truss rod, and never have I seen an EB3 with a painted on logo.  I hate to say it but it sounds like a Philippine or Vietnamese knock-off from the bad old days.  The Japanese instruments - good and bad - had truss rods.

[EvilLordJuju]

Yeah, that sounds really dodgy. No truss rod is a REALLY bad sign

[Dave W]

Just for reference, here are the pics you've posted before at Jules' place and here:

[Dave W]

I hadn't looked closely at the pics before. If there's no headstock truss rod access -- or evidence that there was access that has been plugged up since -- then everything else aside, it's not a Gibson.

Most slothead-era EB-3s had no black overlay but they had pearl inlaid lettering. Obviously this is not a slothead anyway, it's styled like the later EB-3 incarnation. You wouldn't have found one from the factory with painted-on letters and a pinstriped border.

[eb2]

The 5 screw holes on the tuners are unusual as well.  Older Gibson/Klusons had 4, and the later Schallers did not have that footprint, and by the appearance the body is like a later Schaller era bass.  The body looks good, but if it were built to fake out the GI's, then that is not a surprise. 

I did see a 60s Jazzmaster Vietnamese copy that was pretty inventive - right down to the Fender logo on the whammy bar plate - but it was made out of bungo wood, and sandcasted parts.  The shape and contours were dead-on though.  I am not saying that is what yours is - but it would be in line with that kind of work.

But it is a project.  If you were being inventive, you could get one of those semi-finished Gibson factory leftover bass neck from ebay, and glue it on.  Maybe even use that fret board.  I would love a closer pic of the neck near the break, and the front of the headstock.

[EvilLordJuju]

The truss rod is just missing as opposed to never there?

The body looks like a '72 after-slothead, pre-three-point bridge. In fact the pickup and bridge say it can't be anything else.

But, that should have a maple neck. Body and neck look the same on that. Also the neck pocket is different. Look at those greatdealz necks for an example. Wrong number of fret dots too

mine is here if you want to compare screwhole by screwhole
1972 gibson EB3

[Dave W]

D'oh! Of course! It should have a maple neck. And 20 frets.

[eb2]

As I said before, the body looks good.  It could be that someone without a lot of luthier experience but above-average woodworking experience attempted to make their own neck - skipping the whole truss rod thing.  I know that as Gibson bass fans, we have seen some fascinating work done on these.  I had a headstock break that someone made a new headstock for, just that whole headstock pitch they couldn't understand.  In that light, they may have removed the neck, made up a close enough version and there you go.  The pups are filled really well, so anything is possible.

[GonzoBass]

Thanks for taking a look at this one for me.

Here's a few new pics of the repaired headstock.
I can't say "no truss" for sure
(the neck was always stable for me)
but no truss access.
That's for sure-





The original tuners were "elephant ears" but there were only three screws.
(Odd in itself. No?)
What appears as the two additional holes were indentations from the worm gears-




The original bridge was a two point bar with a mute-





It's definitely a 21 fret neck
but it doesn't look or feel like maple.
...much darker and softer.
Like the body-




I'll have to dig out and scan some old pics of the original
(It was a beaut!)
but if there's anything else in particular you'd like a shot of,
please let me know.

Thanks again guys!
 

[GonzoBass]

Found some old photos to scan.
 

Here is one right around the time I brought it home in '82-



These two must have been taken around 83,
'cause I've already started wearing the chrome off the neck pickup,
broken the input jack and apparently lost a knob 





and this one's from 84.
I had replaced the knobs with chrome ones,
moved the front strap button.
Although it's hard to see here
I added a string tree to the headstock to hold down the A and D strings
and had removed the mute by now.



Feel free to snicker at the pants.
Hey, it was the 80s...
 

[Freuds_Cat]

Its the attitude that is important

[Dave W]

Gonzo, first, I was wrong about the number of frets. 1972 and later EB-0 and EB-3 models did have 21 frets -- but they never had a dot marker at the 21st fret.

By 1972 -- which was when the neck pickup was moved away from the butt end of the neck -- they had a 3-piece maple neck. Yours is clearly either mahogany or a mahogany substitute such as lauan, and it's not 3-piece.

It does look like there was a truss rod cavity that was covered. Definitely not a good sign.

Yours has a two-point bar bridge. These were gone from Gibsons sometime in 1967. I have seen them on 70s Japanese copies. Also, Jules pointed out above that the neck picket isn't right.

The bass is definitely not a Gibson. I realize this has nostalgia value to you, so only you can decide if it's worth the effort.

Cool pics, BTW. Never be embarrassed by your old outfits. 

[Granny Gremlin]

I hadn't looked closely at the pics before. If there's no headstock truss rod access -- or evidence that there was access that has been plugged up since -- then everything else aside, it's not a Gibson.

Exactly - Many of the 70s Japanese EB3hOs had a truss rod cover with nothing underneath (like mine did). 

In addition to what I skimmed of what others mentioned, the neck joint is not Gibson-like at all (My EB3hO had a set neck) and the pup routes look wrong as well.

I disagree with EB2 that the body is Gibson - in addition to the routes and joint the wood grain looks weird - like it's not a slab but 20 edge-joined peices or has a veneer on it or something.

[eb2]

I take back my body comments to the extent that in the original pics it looked good.  It still does but not in a good Gibson way.  As everyone else has pointed out, this is a copy bass, and, in and of itself, it is fun as a jumble of 70s style and odd parts, but that is a fascinating copy.

So, personal nostalgia being as good a reason as any, you would be no worse off than any of the rest of us to put it back together, and I would guess upgrade it to some extent.  I still miss my Kent.  I guess it depends on your skill level too, as to what you are comfortable doing.  Not having any truss rod on a bass is maybe not the wisest way to go, but it is possible to put one in.  Or a Martin-ish bar.  But there you go.