G-3 Review

[TBird1958]

(I was going to comment on the visible tats beneath the fishnets but had been behaving myself, most unusually...)

Horny Englander! 

Not a tat tho, just a pattern in the stocking.   

[Highlander]

Horny Scot Eng lander from a sleeper-cell!  

[ilan]

Would you say it's better than 70's G3's? I liked the ones I tried.

Is there a sound sample anywhere on the web?

Too bad they are using single-ply guards. The 4-ply b/w/b/w laminated guards looked better.

[uwe]

"Would you say it's better than 70's G3's? I liked the ones I tried."

I'm not surprised with a Ricster like you, Ilan! The G-3 is as ricish in sound as any Gibson bass ever got. And you don't need a manual and nerves of steel to adjust the truss rod either!  

[TBird1958]

"Would you say it's better than 70's G3's? I liked the ones I tried."

I'm not surprised with a Ricster like you, Ilan! The G-3 is as ricish in sound as any Gibson bass ever got. And you don't need a manual and nerves of steel to adjust the truss rod either!  

Well.................

I'll always fondly recall and simultainiously kick myself in the ass about my '73 4001.
The new G-3 is far more the beast than a Ricky tho. Those new pups are the sex! And the switching is simple by comparison to some other company's 3 PU basses.

[copacetic]

Once again Mark's description/review makes you just want to gout out and get one. I'm on the verge of a Ripper II and now this at a 3rd of the cost. Any one can compare this G-3 w/a Ripper II. I was surprised at the light weight of the Ripper iI.
What's the weight of this one and nut width?

[TBird1958]

Check Gibson's website on the nut width, I know it's there, it looks like a heavy bass but it's not, I'll put it on the scale tonight, sure it's not even 9lbs. tho. Dave Dickerson (PWV) brought his RipperII over, if I were choosing between the two the G-3 would win every time.
   

[ilan]

Yes but how does the new G-3 compare to an old G-3?

Changing from bolt-on to set-neck construction must make a difference.

[Highlander]

I guess we'll have to wait until the beastie crosses the Pond and meets her new host for the answer to that...

[jumbodbassman]

Gorgeous finish...

stockings too

[uwe]

I guess we'll have to wait until the beastie crosses the Pond and meets her new host for the answer to that...

I guess the old bolt-ons should be a tad bit snappier still, that is just a trait of bolt-ons. And the old G-3 could get a bit boomy, unfocused in the front pups mode though that sound was fun to play (yet drummers would sometimes complain). Maybe that has been rectified too. Anyway, once Fräulein Rommel is done scattering her divine DNA all over that poor bass, I will test it alongside my two other G-3s, a 77 maple board one and a last run eighties ebony board one.

In Gibson's ouevre, I've always regarded the G-3 as the secret weapon. It came out as an afterthought when the Grabber's novelty aspect sliding pup had worn thin and like the Grabber it was essentially a budget bass and had none of the luthier appeal of a Ripper, but I always thought (and heard) that it sliced the other two to pieces. The meekish look of the three guitar size pups in the original did not instill any great faith in the buying public that these basses would sound bassy, but they did, yeat at the same time were snappy like no Gibson bass before or after.

And compared to iconic looks such a the TBird and the Les Paul shape, the Ripper/Grabber/G-3 shape is of course an acquired taste, but I like it for looking like pretty much no other bass. And the huge body size is actually ergonomic though I accept that there are sexier looking axes out there, inter alia, a Ric 4001/4003.

[Hörnisse]

I'm wondering if your new G-3 will be getting the same "treatment" as my Peavey Fury did!   

[TBird1958]

Naturlich, good Robert!  
It is a rite of "passage" at my humble Hofbrauhouse  

[clankenstein]

is that a 3 point or are you just pleased to see me?

[uwe]

Now the bass has two G-strings, that will take some getting used to.