LeftyBassist.com
http://leftybassist.com./

72 Jazz on the bay
http://leftybassist.com./viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1799		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Bassaria [ July 23rd, 2010, 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  72 Jazz on the bay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 769wt_1139
this anybody's here?
anybody know anything about it?
its in Montclair NJ....
Author:  Stingray5 [ July 23rd, 2010, 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
what the heck with laying the neck face down on the asphalt?!
Author:  andrew [ July 23rd, 2010, 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Beautiful looking bass.
Author:  AzWhoFan [ July 24th, 2010, 12:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Stingray5 wrote:
what the heck with laying the neck face down on the asphalt?!


A cheap and easy way to relic the bass?

+1 to Andrew's comment, killer bass.
Author:  pjmuck [ July 24th, 2010, 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
What's that capacitor soldered to that one pot do? Definitely not original, but an easily removed.

Seller is 5 minutes from me. If I have time I'll try to check it out tomorrow and report back.
Author:  screambasses [ July 25th, 2010, 5:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Reminds me of the '72 natural Jazz bass I once had and then sold for $200.
I go beat my head against a wall now.

p
Author:  bajito [ July 26th, 2010, 12:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Can anyone post photos here ? My connection blocks ebay ;)
Author:  Addison [ July 26th, 2010, 8:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
pjmuck wrote:
Seller is 5 minutes from me. If I have time I'll try to check it out tomorrow and report back.

If you get a chance, let me know please... I've always wanted a '72 or '73.
Author:  slybass3000 [ July 26th, 2010, 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
There seems to be some odd things with this bass.
The bridge pick-up in 72 isn't supposed to be closer to the bridge?

The neck plate is not in a right angle (?) either.

I don't know about this. I'm curious too to find out if it is legit.
Author:  pjmuck [ July 26th, 2010, 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
slybass3000 wrote:
There seems to be some odd things with this bass.
The bridge pick-up in 72 isn't supposed to be closer to the bridge?

I don't know about this. I'm curious too to find out if it is legit.


The bridge PUP on this bass is consistent with the period and IS closer to the bridge. In '72 Fender moved the bridge pickup back by .4" from a 3.6" to 4.0" distance between both pickups. An easy way to eyeball this in a photo is to compare the top horizontal level of the bridge pickup cover to the top of the tone knob (smallest knob). Both should be roughly on an even plane. Now look at the earlier PUP positioning on this '65 J as well as any later RI models:

Attachment:
fender-jazz1965.jpg
fender-jazz1965.jpg [ 21.63 KiB | Viewed 11386 times ]


You'll note that the top of the bridge PUP cover is more in line with the bottom of the bridge PUP volume knob rather than the tone knob, putting the PUPs closer together.

"The neck plate is not in a right angle (?) either."

Not sure what you mean here. :?:

Guys, I didn't have time to check it out over the weekend nor today, but I'll try to get there tomorrow and report back what I find.
Author:  Addison [ July 27th, 2010, 7:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Here's what's bothering me about this bass... I whipped up this little picture to explain myself better:

Image

1st of all, the strings are WAY off center from the fingerboard... WAY off.

Now some of the more avid eBay detectives on this forum will understand that this illusion can sometimes happen when the photo is taken at a slight angle...

The only problem with that is that, as you can see in this photo, you can also see the heel block in this picture... so, if anything, the angle of the picture seems very much straight-on.

Now, the other possibility is that when these, um, upstanding eBay retailers put this bass back together, they did a HORRIBLE job aligning the neck properly...

However, even if that is the case, there must be a TON of room in that neck joint to allow the neck to be screwed back on THAT crooked to make the strings off center that much.

Hmmm.... this is bumming me out, because I almost had my wife talked into letting me bid on this thing.

Unfortunately, something just doesn't seem right about it.
Author:  pjmuck [ July 27th, 2010, 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Okay, folks, I'm back from the seller's after trying this bass out first-hand. The bass is located at Valley Road Guitars in Montclair, which I had never been to before. Sorry for the long-winded post, but I want to offer as much info as possible:

One of the owners, Neal, was friendly and accommodating enough, while another owner sat with his laptop and appeared to try his best to keep quiet through the whole proceedings. I had a laundry list of notes/questions, and I also brought my main '72 to visually compare. He set me up with the bass and as I started writing down my observations he appeared a little uneasy, so I explained that I was just making sure everything checked out.

The bass appears to be 95% original and all parts check out, (neck plate serial number 330118, which is earlier than either of my '72s), with the exception of the pots, which appear to have been replaced and have no CTS coding on top. Given that he advertised the bass as being all original and reiterated that the pots were not changed and solder untouched before I had him open it up to prove him wrong, that was strike 1. There's no stamping on the heel of the neck according to him, and since I didn't insist he remove the neck I took his word for it. Likewise, pickguard had nothing written on it (On both my '72 Js someone wrote, "LH" in magic marker, though I'm not sure if Fender always did that).

Body weight about average and consistent with mine (about 9.5lbs). Overall condition pretty decent, cosmetically better than either of mine. Plugged in, pots were a little scratchy, but may clean up with a bit of contact spray. It sounded like a J, albeit thumpier and fatter due to the ancient flats he had on it, but it was difficult to play. The action was VERY high. That immediately raised the question as to whether or not the truss rod was working properly. He assured me it did, since he claimed he had adjusted it "many times" when photographing it, which begs the question why would he set it up so high when he put it back together. Looking at the end of the truss rod, it was jutting further out slightly beyond the neck heel than normal, so perhaps the knucklehead put no tension on the neck at all. At any rate, it was very difficult to get it up to pitch, as the tuning heads felt very tight with a lot of tension on them. Perhaps with a good setup and a working truss rod it would be fine, but I don't know.

Addison, you were correct on both counts. The neck pocket does jut out beyond the edge of the neck. My Js also have this slightly, but this bass definitely had it more. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it sticks out about 3mm or so. Furthermore, the strings are indeed not centered straight down the neck, though it wasn't as bad as it appears in the photos. Still, it's definitely not a shining moment of Fender's sketchy 70's assembly.

What else? I had noticed what appeared to be an additional screw hole to the right of the bridge in the photos and brought it up to him. He claimed he didn't notice it, but sure enough when removing the bridge cover there's a filled in screw hole. Perhaps Fender did it, perhaps not. Regardless, I find it surprising that he "didn't notice it".

Despite removing most components for me to double check for markings, originality, etc., I really got the sense that they weren't going to offer any insightful info beyond what I specifically questioned, and perhaps were guarding certain aspects or playing dumb when questioned. Perhaps they are dumb and don't know the specifics of what they've got or how to check for originality (The guy grappled with trying to tune it up for me with a tuner for a few minutes before I finally said, "Just give me the bass, I'll tune it up by ear." :roll:), but I have a real problem with people who sell stuff and deliberately keep certain bits of info unmentioned in hopes they'll go unnoticed. :x

They mention in their auction that they do offer a 7 day return policy, so perhaps it's worth a shot, but I'd be VERY cautious.
Author:  Addison [ July 27th, 2010, 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Hmmm... that's all I needed to know to help me make my decision... bums me out, but I'm less bummed than I'd be if I blew $2,200 on a piece of crap.

Anyway... thank you SO MUCH for being so thorough and providing that info for all of us.

I totally appreciate it.

:)
Author:  andrew [ July 27th, 2010, 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Good review/comments Peter. Thanks!
Author:  slybass3000 [ July 27th, 2010, 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
Wow PJ. Thank you for your informative report. I didn't know exactly how to see the difference between the PUP placements. This was useful.

I'm gonna read again your report to make sure i get everything.

What I mean by the angle of the back plate is that it isn't parallel to the top of the body which I find really weird. It should be perfectly parallel. This means that the holes for the neck plate are not at the right place IMO.
Author:  andrew [ July 27th, 2010, 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
slybass3000 wrote:
What I mean by the angle of the back plate is that it isn't parallel to the top of the body which I find really weird. It should be perfectly parallel. This means that the holes for the neck plate are not at the right place IMO.


Could explain the string angle issue Addison pointed out.
Author:  slybass3000 [ July 27th, 2010, 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
The string angle has to do with the way they put the neck back on. But I never saw the neck plate going that off from the end of the upper body though.

This bass has some history but not in the right way I think.
Author:  Psycho Ward [ July 27th, 2010, 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
As much as I'd love to have that rosewood/blocks neck I'm passing on this one.
Author:  pjmuck [ July 27th, 2010, 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
slybass3000 wrote:
The string angle has to do with the way they put the neck back on. But I never saw the neck plate going that off from the end of the upper body though.

This bass has some history but not in the right way I think.


Look at the screw holes in both the exposed body cavity and the back of the neck photos:

http://img69.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=hpim3979.jpg

I know that when reattaching a neck that there is some slight play in the positioning of the neck plate around the screws such that it can hang crooked (And especially if you reattach the screws at a crooked angle, for example). But looking at the photos I indicated, I don't see any glaring issue with the positioning of the screw holes in the body cavity, however, regarding the back of the neck screw holes it appears that the holes closest to the E string side (left top/bottom in the picture) are further away from the heel's edge than the G string side. If that's true, then that would definitely put the E string closer to the edge of the neck.
Author:  AzWhoFan [ July 28th, 2010, 7:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 72 Jazz on the bay
PJ, thanks so much for taking the time to go and check out this bass and provide us with such a great report.

Judging from your comments I have to agree that the store employees are being covert and are witholding info from you. One of my pet peeves with any seller is when they are being cagey and not totally upfront, wether or not it stems from indifference or ignorance. Playing dumb certainly does not build up creditworthyness in my eyes. But perhaps they were thrown off when you showed up with a camera, a briefcase full of tools and a notepad. Maybe you should have told them you represented a buyer from Japan. :lol:

Gotta agree those pots are not original, and the cap doesn't look original either.

And in my experience, I've not seen a Fender from that era or earlier that would sport the extra screw hole you pointed out. If it did make it out of Fender that way, it would have qualified as a factory 2nd IMHO.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/