Mike Lull NRT

[drbassman]

I think my Club is the best bass ever made.  Partly because I paid an arm and a leg for it.   

[TBird1958]

Lull makes a great bass I'm sure but I can't get down with the truss rod rout at the neck heel. Makes the bass look like it has a belly button. Lull's NR is bolt on too right? Isn't set neck construction a big part of what makes an NR sound like an NR? Same with the T bass, why should bolt on be better than 9 ply neck through?

If you're comparing a 7ender bolt on neck to an original Gibson NR I's agree with your conclusion, but a modern multi bolt neck with the ferrules (or what ever you call them) like Mike's or Carlo's is virtually the same. My case in point would my BaCH NR's vs the Lull, both single pup bass using those two different methods of construction and sounded identical.

[4stringer77]

I guess the sound diff is probably negligible. It just seems so antithetical to the spirit of the original design, like if someone made Les Paul guitar copys with bolt on necks, I have a feeling guitarists would not be impressed. Graphite bars also seem unnecessary, if not an outright sham, and add extra synthetic material where wood could be.

[godofthunder]

 Sorry Mark I will never buy  Lull.

[TBird1958]

Sorry Mark I will never buy  Lull.

No need to apologize Bro, there's plenty of things I won't buy too!

[godofthunder]

 To be clear I have never criticized his product. The whole Lull /Hipshot thing has put me off.

[TBird1958]

To be clear I have never criticized his product. The whole Hipshot /Lull thing has put me off.

I'll PM you what I know about it a bit later today 

[drbassman]

I've seen a Lull and it was very nice, but nothing I would lust after and pay a premium for. 

[patman]

I would love to play one, but as far as ownership is concerned, these things are well out of the league of a working stiff in Cincinnnati. And I generally gig a lot.

[uwe]

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.

[drbassman]

I have to say that Uwe has a point.  How many versions of a P bass or TB can there be out there?  The implication from bass builders is their boutique version is somehow superior to a Fender or Gibson mass produced instrument.  I've played a couple Lull and other boutique basses (traded in at the HOG for something else) and I didn't see or hear that they were that special, especially in light of their price.  Something mass produced is not inherently inferior to something made by hand and vice versa.  A bolt on is a bolt on and while the material quality is key, a P bass has only so many ways to improve on the original design and execution.

[Denis]

The BaCH is a no-regrets purchase especially since original NRs are way out of my price range and scarce as hell at that. Besides, Scott buys them all!  

I'm certainly not knocking Lull's basses, or anyone else's for that matter (other than hideous looks-like-every-other-boutique-bass-out-there basses).

[TBird1958]

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.

There have of course been many Thunderbird clones.........Greco, Epi, Orville etc. Boutique issuses as well including Lull and Hotwire, of which you have one Fenderbird IIRC. Some of us may indeed be purist about it, I'm not. There are many very good Thunderbirds out there that don't happen to have the Gibson name on the headstock, some are more expensive, some less.   

[Highlander]

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 mojo hobo]

a P bass has only so many ways to improve on the original design and execution.

There is this Lull creation"



It should have a truss rod cover though.