Bash the new Gibson Bass!!!

[Chaser001]

I'll take a Gibson over any 7ender any day.

I don't drink Uncle Leo's Kool - Aid, tried it 3 times left a bad taste     

Even as a teenager, I was puzzled why people liked their basses.  Years later, I do respect the fact that a lot of my favorite artists play them, but I doubt if 7ender will ever be for me. 

[Dave W]

Compared to what the Junior EB-0 cost in 1960 (a bass with one less pup and gutar tuners not geared to the requirements of a bass) is the new Junior really so outrageously expensive when cost-of-living indexed and buying power-adjusted? I have my doubts.

That's irrelevant since most guitars and basses made back then would be more expensive when adjusted for inflation. Manufacturing is more efficient today.

I do know that a Junior guitar was $125 in 1959. That's $960 in 2011 dollars. Goofy CEO not included.

I'll take a Gibson over any 7ender any day.

I don't drink Uncle Leo's Kool - Aid, tried it 3 times left a bad taste     

This isn't about whether or not you like Fender. I don't like Fender's marketing either, since they insist on offering dozens of versions of the same thing. But at least you don't have to beg for basses from them. At least they offer an accurate US-made vintage series. At least they offer versions of most models they've ever made, not "sort-of like" versions with different bodies, pickups, bridges and finishes.

[Hornisse]

Maybe they should make a Gene Simmons signature bass and base it on his Lobue?   

[TBird1958]

Just my opinion but I think basses have always been a secondary priority for Gibson (weather we all want to hear it or not, there are far more guitars being sold than basses regardless of maker) but they have over the years been far more adventurous than the big F a glance at Uwe's roster even discounting the one off's bears me out.
Gibson's best selling bass has always been the T Bird, in production continuously since 1988, with well known gaps before then..........but if I wanted one I never had to look too hard, even here in Seattle  (not a Gibson town).
I took a moment and browsed the PRS website, again a company primarily noted for guitars, I found but one model bass available as a 4 or 5 string with no $$$ even mentioned - yet we don't slag them for not making a bass.

I find it hard to belive 7ender can ask this much for a run of the mill U.S. made J bass, much cheaper to produce than a T Bird......
http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0190209800


   

[dadagoboi]

That's not a run of the mill Jazz.  Fender can ask that because it is very close to the original '62 Jazz in most aspects including bridge and pickups...if Gibson made a '63 spec ThunderBird I'd wager they could ask $3k and sell quite a few.

[TBird1958]

Parts bass, so it differs slightly in some small aspects, it's still CNC'd and uses the same wood as any other production model, and technology they already possess. If Gibson was reissuing a spec '63 @ 3k, I'd be there.....What a nice thought too   

[Chaser001]

I'll have to admit that that those Fender Jazz basses from the 60s, whether vintage or reissue, actually are appealing to me.  But other than that, there aren't any Fender basses I'd care very much for. 

[nofi]

where can i get one of these 7enders i've heard so much about. although i prefer fenders it's only wood and wire to me in the end. but i have never and will never spend 1k or more on a bass. beyond that how much better is a 2 or 3k bass in comparrison? not enough to justify the added expense. 

[dadagoboi]

Parts bass, so it differs slightly in some small aspects, it's still CNC'd and uses the same wood as any other production model, and technology they already possess. If Gibson was reissuing a spec '63 @ 3k, I'd be there.....What a nice thought too    

IMO Lull builds parts basses.  A very good bass but a parts bass nonetheless.  He has outside suppliers for his pickups, hardware and finishing and, for all I know, his bodies and necks.  His main business as far as I can tell has been building Fender clones for many years.  I'd dare to say as much actual Fender labor goes into building one of their American basses as Lull uses people in his own shop for one of his.  If I'm wrong on any of this, I apologize.

[Pilgrim]

Parts bass, so it differs slightly in some small aspects, it's still CNC'd and uses the same wood as any other production model, and technology they already possess. If Gibson was reissuing a spec '63 @ 3k, I'd be there.....What a nice thought too   

I understand where Mark's heart is on this one - but you could consider every instrument with a bolt-on neck as being a "parts bass", and for that matter, what's so special about set-necks?  Every instrument coming off an assembly line is made from parts which are fed into the system.  Some of them have more handwork in fit and finish, and some have different quality parts or parts made to different specs.

I honestly can't see how that Jazz bass can be overpriced at $2K and the Gibson would be reasonably priced at $3K.  Doesn't follow to me.

[dadagoboi]

I understand where Mark's heart is on this one - but you could consider every instrument with a bolt-on neck as being a "parts bass", and for that matter, what's so special about set-necks?  Every instrument coming off an assembly line is made from parts which are fed into the system.  Some of them have more handwork in fit and finish, and some have different quality parts or parts made to different specs.

I honestly can't see how that Jazz bass can be overpriced at $2K and the Gibson would be reasonably priced at $3K.  Doesn't follow to me.

A through neck is a little more difficult to manufacture and finish, the original Gibby hardware would cost more to replicate then Fender and genuine mahogany costs a lot more than alder.  Throw in the unique factor and I think 3K would be right.  Of course Gibson would have to call it a Firebird bass in keeping with renaming their reissues after GUITARDS.  Have I told you how much THAT pisses me off?

edit  and oh yeah, the pickups would cost more.  But they'd be worth it!

[TBird1958]

 You're right about the parts Carlo, but the construction and finishing is basically Mike , so hand built on an indivdual basis, some paint work does leave the shop, some not. Nothing leaves there without his touch, quite a bit more personal. When my bass was built I had many choices (and paid more for them too). Mike's primary business is actually repair tho.
The Fender I randomly choose appears to be a "standard" tho vintage spec bass, and while I'm sure there's hands on aspects to it's production, the website makes no note of that and it's not a CS piece either.  Try as I might I don't see the 2k plus price, or why it should cost more than other "standard" Jazz basses like this: http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0190660700




 

[dadagoboi]

You're right about the parts Carlo, but the construction and finishing is basically Mike , so hand built on an indivdual basis, some paint work does leave the shop, some not. Nothing leaves there without his touch, quite a bit more personal. When my bass was built I had many choices (and paid more for them too). Mike's primary business is actually repair tho.
The Fender I randomly choose appears to be a "standard" tho vintage spec bass, and while I'm sure there's hands on aspects to it's production, the website makes no note of that and it's not a CS piece either.  Try as I might I don't see the 2k plus price, or why it should cost more than other "standard" Jazz basses like this: http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0190660700

Some people are willing to pay that few hundred dollars more for the original spec neck radius, stack pot layout, pickups, bridge and tuners, pickguard, ashtrays and finger rest, etc.  I'm getting a sense of that the more basses I build and sell.  I'm really not familiar with what Fender is doing today but I think they've had a pretty good strategy of 'covering all bases (basses?)' from Squier to Custom Shop.  I personally wouldn't buy anything BUT a Squier or Custom Shop if I was in the market for a new Fender,  I think that's where the value lies...and I'm not so sure about the CS. "Don't mess with Mr. Inbetween" is my motto these days.




 

[uwe]

I'm happy both Gibson AND Fender exist. And I find nothing wrong with Fender's alleged marketing of bribing and forcing people into playing their product. Gibson has done the same and only recently tried it with Metallica who told them to f*** off for being difficult and thus stuck with ESP. Not that I believe anything with Metallica to be undifficult.

Gibson sells basses 1 to 10 at the very most and treats bassists accordingly or worse. And that has tradition. In comparison to Leo Fender's brilliant from-the-scratch-up 1951 invention of a new instrument set to change the face of pop and rock forever, the EB-1 was an awkward little fellow, too safe, an afterthought, a little self-conscious and nothing you would call a "große Wurf" by any stretch of the imagination. Fender is together with Warwick the large brand that caters most to bassists so their commercial lead is deserved. And the product is overall good - some trussrods they only export to Germany excepted! That they produce two models in endless variations is not so much their as the market's choice. Past efforts of Fender to come up with something new were left commercially unrewarded, so you can't blame them.

Still, three new basses this season (five if the rumored Flying V bass and Explorer really show up) is exceptional considering that 12 months ago Gibson was rumored to be approaching Chapter 11. With their Firebird X experiment and three new basses for that laughably small minority of people who give a rat's mahogany ass about Gibson basses the company can't certainly be in the claws of its creditors anymore. Henry J. had the nerve to see it through (whether the company was just overleveraged and fell into the post-Lehman rut of many "innocent manufacturers" that any credit just dried up or whether some or most of the Gibson money had indeed gone into the wrong financial instruments I don't know). You might not like Henry J. and he has his share of daft decisions, but he now has a track record of running and expanding a company for 25 years - that attests considerable more business acumen than Leo F. who was a great engineer and inventor, but a lousy business man (perhaps not entirely fair as Henry studied business and Leo didn't).

After Gibson's last 2006 offensive of basses (SG, Studio TBs, Mon(k)ey basses and Continental V) only yielded one consistent seller with the SG, another bass offensive just 5 years later and fresh out of an economic downturn that had the company teetering on the brink of insolvency - plus a nasty flood and that wood investigation - ain't too bad in my book.

[TBird1958]

Well I have no problem with their efforts, I buy what pleases me, maybe a new Les Paul bass, brand F ain't gettin' that adventurous this year