Mike Lull NRT

[Denis]

That Lull needs a Cowpoke pickguard!

[OldManC]

That's a beautiful bass.

[Dave W]

To my simple mind, it's all about the tone and feel. I don't care if a premium priced bass doesn't have Gibson or Fender on the headstock even though it was originally one of their designs. Does it offer me what I want at a price I think is reasonable? That's what it's all about.

My older son bought a used Lull 5 maybe 8-9 years ago. I didn't think it was anything special and he didn't keep it long so he must not have, either. If I played another one, I might love it. You never know. The fact that the headstock on an expensive bass said Lull instead of Fender meant nothing to me.

[drbassman]

That's beautiful but hardly unique.  I am not a fan of truss rods at the heel on any bass.

[dadagoboi]

...I don't care if a premium priced bass doesn't have Gibson or Fender on the headstock even though it was originally one of their designs.

This one says "Squier"

[the mojo hobo]

I like that, is it for sale?

[dadagoboi]

I like that, is it for sale?

That one's sold, but others are available.  Also in black or silver metallic.  Black p/g standard. 

[uwe]

If the product were as good as the original, but cheaper, then I'd see the point for the budget buyer...

I'd been after a Jazz for some time and was considering a copy but a Squier came up for silly money and I went for it - the fretless licensed neck cost more than the whole instrument...

I can understand the Gibson/Epi - Fender/Squier market, perfectly, and my wallet can appreciate it too...

The Bach idea is a great concept; Carlo's option is also bang-for-the-buck from what everyone has said so far... if I ever find myself in the market for another instrument, even if it were just a body to go with my spare Jazz neck, Carlo would be the one getting my greens...

The Hotwire is a Fenderbird which by nature you can get neither from Gibson or Fender!!!   I would have never ordered a maho neck-thru TBird clone with Hotwire. Again, there is nothing wrong playing a boutique ho   (or should I say boutique escort to denote the upmarket aspect a bit more?), I just don't think it's terribly original from the producer's point of view (but the market demands it, I know). A Rothko look picture painted by Picasso might be even more valuable, but I prefer a Picasso to look like a Picasso and a Rothko like a Rothko. And I do like a company trying new shapes - that is why I have a Parker Fly, a Kubicki, an EBMM Bongo and a Lace Helix in my collection. But Sandberg doing P Bass knock-offs and calling them "California Basses" makes me shudder a little.

[Highlander]

That latter comment I can understand...

Surrealism is my prefered artform, but I suppose that would not be a surprise... Jackie likes Rothko style works, which both Roshina and I have created for her over the years...

[Barklessdog]

I don't doubt it's an excellent bass for a minute, but I despise the "boutique bass looking like a classic"-concept. If I play a Precision I want it to be from Fender, and a Ric shape has to be from Ric and a TBird shape from Gibson. I'm old-fashioned that way. And if I'd buy a Lull, I'd want it to look like a Lull, just like my Parker Fly looks like no other bass made by anyone else.

But of course there is a market for boutique classics, but it eludes me why. I'd feel more comfortable on stage playing a MIM Fender P than a boutique jewel aping that shape/look. But that's just me. 

At the same time I'm not a "'design captured in amber for posterity"-nerd (no, we don't have any of these here!), if Gibson brought out, say, an active TBird with a neck heel truss rod cavity today and called it 21th Century Thunderboy, I'd be perfectly fine with that.

But the Funderbird was OK?