Played a 1964 P Bass today...

[js]

I don't know what's up with this church, but the same guy who gave me the
Kramer came in with this baby to day. Said he got it from another
parishioner who didn't play anymore.

I'd put it at a VG+/EC- The neck had a little wear through in the "farmer's
row", but was otherwise good as new. It needs a fretjob - the E string side
(only) has huge divots in it.

But everything else is in great shape - including the plates, 3 ply mint
pickguard and original case. Even the remnants of the foam bridge mute are
still there.

The ONLY thing keeping this thing from being a $10-15,000 find is that it
had been refinished in the distant past. It was a decent home job (lots of
orange peel though), and the finish has already crazed. HOWEVER, the
original red finish is still underneath! Crazy...

So how does it sound?

Fortunately, I had my cheapshit $99 Mexi P bass with me to compare. And this
is my verdict:

In terms of feel, playability, overall quality, and basic tone, there is
little difference between the two. Swear to God.


In terms of head-to-head overall sound, the '64 is a LOT warmer and bassier
than the Mexi, and the output is a LOT hotter. The notes on the '64 almost
"mwah" when you play them, and it feels like the whole bass is one big
resonating chamber.

I guess I would put that down to better pickup construction to begin with,
"aging of the magnets", stable, aged woods of excellent quality (by today's
standards), and the lack of poly coating.


Was there any special mojo to it? not really. Like I said, the better tone
was probably due to both the aging process and the quality of the materials
( the neck looked like it was almost quartesawn). The quality of the
workmanship, consistency of design, and basic "P-bass sound" were about the
same.

would I pay $15K for one? Not even $5K. Id get a Celinder or Sadowsky first.

$2K? Yeah, probably.... But I'd like to drop a nice warm A-list PU in my
Mexi first and see what happens.



--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

[Ian Hayward]

Where is your church? It appears that the Lord is providing!

Ian

"js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463ad528$0$27113$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I don't know what's up with this church, but the same guy who gave me the
> Kramer came in with this baby to day. Said he got it from another
> parishioner who didn't play anymore.
>
> I'd put it at a VG+/EC- The neck had a little wear through in the
> "farmer's
> row", but was otherwise good as new. It needs a fretjob - the E string
> side
> (only) has huge divots in it.
>
> But everything else is in great shape - including the plates, 3 ply mint
> pickguard and original case. Even the remnants of the foam bridge mute are
> still there.
>
> The ONLY thing keeping this thing from being a $10-15,000 find is that it
> had been refinished in the distant past. It was a decent home job (lots of
> orange peel though), and the finish has already crazed. HOWEVER, the
> original red finish is still underneath! Crazy...
>
> So how does it sound?
>
> Fortunately, I had my cheapshit $99 Mexi P bass with me to compare. And
> this
> is my verdict:
>
> In terms of feel, playability, overall quality, and basic tone, there is
> little difference between the two. Swear to God.
>
>
> In terms of head-to-head overall sound, the '64 is a LOT warmer and
> bassier
> than the Mexi, and the output is a LOT hotter. The notes on the '64 almost
> "mwah" when you play them, and it feels like the whole bass is one big
> resonating chamber.
>
> I guess I would put that down to better pickup construction to begin with,
> "aging of the magnets", stable, aged woods of excellent quality (by
> today's
> standards), and the lack of poly coating.
>
>
> Was there any special mojo to it? not really. Like I said, the better tone
> was probably due to both the aging process and the quality of the
> materials
> ( the neck looked like it was almost quartesawn). The quality of the
> workmanship, consistency of design, and basic "P-bass sound" were about
> the
> same.
>
> would I pay $15K for one? Not even $5K. Id get a Celinder or Sadowsky
> first.
>
> $2K? Yeah, probably.... But I'd like to drop a nice warm A-list PU in my
> Mexi first and see what happens.
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat
>
> My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com
>
> "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
> comes out."
>
> - Bill Hicks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Angus]

>
> Where is your church? It appears that the Lord is providing!

Nah, this is old testament stuff. You're being tempted. The next bass up
will be something stunning, but you're going to have to choose between it
and the Lord thy God.

David

[dustoyevsky@mac.com]

On May 4, 1:38 am, "js" <NOS...@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

> The ONLY thing keeping this thing from being a $10-15,000 find is that it
> had been refinished in the distant past. It was a decent home job (lots of
> orange peel though), and the finish has already crazed. HOWEVER, the
> original red finish is still underneath! Crazy...

I'd bet there are any number of paint people who could take that back
to the much-scarred original finish.

> In terms of head-to-head overall sound, the '64 is a LOT warmer and bassier
> than the Mexi, and the output is a LOT hotter. The notes on the '64 almost
> "mwah" when you play them, and it feels like the whole bass is one big
> resonating chamber.
>
> I guess I would put that down to better pickup construction to begin with,
> "aging of the magnets", stable, aged woods of excellent quality (by today's
> standards), and the lack of poly coating.

What is the refin paint? Note, two layers (minus the usual Fender
acreage of missing finish).

On the two basses I've managed to buy new, the character seemed to
change at about a year or so. Might be entirely my wishful
imagination. Necks def. seemed to "settle down" within a couple of
years.

> would I pay $15K for one? Not even $5K. Id get a Celinder or Sadowsky first.

Collector market. Yup. They're gone, unless like with this bass, you
get lucky.

> But I'd like to drop a nice warm A-list PU in my
> Mexi first and see what happens.

Aren't the Fender "original" replacement PUPs, as installed in Custom
Shop basses, available minus wood and frets? Or a Seymore? I've seen
CTS pots and Switchcraft jacks for sale on ebay and elsewhere, too.
Touted as "original style"; I don't have to expertise to be able to
tell for sure. Anyhow, "be all you can be!" <g> But cheaper! --D-y

[Kloka-mo']

Wow, if you were Catholic (I sense you're not), you just broke about 6 of
the 10 Commandments right inside of Church. Coveting, lusting, sneezy and
dopey (IIRC).

--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^
"js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:463ad528$0$27113$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>I don't know what's up with this church, but the same guy who gave me the
> Kramer came in with this baby to day. Said he got it from another
> parishioner who didn't play anymore.
>
> I'd put it at a VG+/EC- The neck had a little wear through in the
> "farmer's
> row", but was otherwise good as new. It needs a fretjob - the E string
> side
> (only) has huge divots in it.
>
> But everything else is in great shape - including the plates, 3 ply mint
> pickguard and original case. Even the remnants of the foam bridge mute are
> still there.
>
> The ONLY thing keeping this thing from being a $10-15,000 find is that it
> had been refinished in the distant past. It was a decent home job (lots of
> orange peel though), and the finish has already crazed. HOWEVER, the
> original red finish is still underneath! Crazy...
>
> So how does it sound?
>
> Fortunately, I had my cheapshit $99 Mexi P bass with me to compare. And
> this
> is my verdict:
>
> In terms of feel, playability, overall quality, and basic tone, there is
> little difference between the two. Swear to God.
>
>
> In terms of head-to-head overall sound, the '64 is a LOT warmer and
> bassier
> than the Mexi, and the output is a LOT hotter. The notes on the '64 almost
> "mwah" when you play them, and it feels like the whole bass is one big
> resonating chamber.
>
> I guess I would put that down to better pickup construction to begin with,
> "aging of the magnets", stable, aged woods of excellent quality (by
> today's
> standards), and the lack of poly coating.
>
>
> Was there any special mojo to it? not really. Like I said, the better tone
> was probably due to both the aging process and the quality of the
> materials
> ( the neck looked like it was almost quartesawn). The quality of the
> workmanship, consistency of design, and basic "P-bass sound" were about
> the
> same.
>
> would I pay $15K for one? Not even $5K. Id get a Celinder or Sadowsky
> first.
>
> $2K? Yeah, probably.... But I'd like to drop a nice warm A-list PU in my
> Mexi first and see what happens.
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat
>
> My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com
>
> "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
> comes out."
>
> - Bill Hicks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[js]

I think playing any instrument besides the organ in church violates several
Papal Encyclicals. Fortunately, I'm playing for the other team.

Catholic School boy all the way.

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks









"Kloka-mo'" <RobZon5XXX@XXXyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kaednQHyLeo3MqHbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Wow, if you were Catholic (I sense you're not), you just broke about 6 of
> the 10 Commandments right inside of Church. Coveting, lusting, sneezy and
> dopey (IIRC).
>
> --
> -rob Bartlett, TN
> O>
> /(\)
> ^^
> "js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:463ad528$0$27113$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >I don't know what's up with this church, but the same guy who gave me the
> > Kramer came in with this baby to day. Said he got it from another
> > parishioner who didn't play anymore.
> >
> > I'd put it at a VG+/EC- The neck had a little wear through in the
> > "farmer's
> > row", but was otherwise good as new. It needs a fretjob - the E string
> > side
> > (only) has huge divots in it.
> >
> > But everything else is in great shape - including the plates, 3 ply mint
> > pickguard and original case. Even the remnants of the foam bridge mute
are
> > still there.
> >
> > The ONLY thing keeping this thing from being a $10-15,000 find is that
it
> > had been refinished in the distant past. It was a decent home job (lots
of
> > orange peel though), and the finish has already crazed. HOWEVER, the
> > original red finish is still underneath! Crazy...
> >
> > So how does it sound?
> >
> > Fortunately, I had my cheapshit $99 Mexi P bass with me to compare. And
> > this
> > is my verdict:
> >
> > In terms of feel, playability, overall quality, and basic tone, there is
> > little difference between the two. Swear to God.
> >
> >
> > In terms of head-to-head overall sound, the '64 is a LOT warmer and
> > bassier
> > than the Mexi, and the output is a LOT hotter. The notes on the '64
almost
> > "mwah" when you play them, and it feels like the whole bass is one big
> > resonating chamber.
> >
> > I guess I would put that down to better pickup construction to begin
with,
> > "aging of the magnets", stable, aged woods of excellent quality (by
> > today's
> > standards), and the lack of poly coating.
> >
> >
> > Was there any special mojo to it? not really. Like I said, the better
tone
> > was probably due to both the aging process and the quality of the
> > materials
> > ( the neck looked like it was almost quartesawn). The quality of the
> > workmanship, consistency of design, and basic "P-bass sound" were about
> > the
> > same.
> >
> > would I pay $15K for one? Not even $5K. Id get a Celinder or Sadowsky
> > first.
> >
> > $2K? Yeah, probably.... But I'd like to drop a nice warm A-list PU in my
> > Mexi first and see what happens.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat
> >
> > My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com
> >
> > "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how
it
> > comes out."
> >
> > - Bill Hicks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[handgunner@webtv.net]

(js) wrote;
I think playing any instrument besides the organ in church violates
several Papal Encyclicals. Fortunately, I'm playing for the other team.
Catholic School boy all the way.

The Catholic Church up the road from me got a new young Priest a couple
years ago and he put in a modern P&W band complete with Latin Percussion
section at the Sunday am Mass. One of the old timers I know who goes
there now refers to the place as "St. Bongos".