Maybe a question for JH

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:18 am

why do the channels for the truss rods extend to the treble pickup on my 67 4001,but on Andrews 67 4001 they don't go past the toaster routing.

wints · Post by **wints** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:28 am

Ken, I think Ted explained a while back in a thread ( while showing his 63 which is the same as yours ) that the way they routed for the rods back then meant they sometimes extended the channels into the body. This is probably just down to the guy on the day and you put it down to another of those quirky 60's practices.

When I get time I'll post pics of my 64 deluxe cavity which is another story again....

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:33 am

laziness?

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:34 am

union rules

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:37 am

Hey wints ,what color is the 67 going to be?you could even do an oil finish that would look cool!

wints · Post by **wints** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:54 am

I'm going to keep it natural Ken. The pictures don't show it but there is some real nice figure to that wood. It probably looked great fireglo but a natural finish will be very cool too.

You can see the circular holes punched out all around the toaster cavity in the routing. These nearly go through the body. I've measured the depth and there can't be more than a couple of mm's difference. With so much wood gone the bass is as light as a feather.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:13 pm

They all used to be routed this way. (Actually, they were cut with a shaper, but whatever.) At some point they decided not to do it anymore, apparently in 1967 from what we see. Why? I sure don't know now but would guess it was either some slight labor saving or even a little extra strength gained back.

I see no advantage to the extra rout so both of the above points make sense to me as good reasons to stop doing it.

mortivan · Post by **mortivan** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:58 pm

John, were those routes ever cut with a table saw?

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:01 pm

I'd cut some maple dowls and fill all of the extra holes. In fact, I'd shape some maple blocks, keeping the grain direction consistant, and fill all of the extra routing before I'd refinish it.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:24 pm

Ken, are you refinishing your '67 also?

wints · Post by **wints** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:55 am

Thought about that Dane, but I am actually thinking about keeping it a real lightweight to see how it affects the overall sound.
Given how delicate the 60's basses are normally, this feels positively fragile like at around 6lbs or so...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:52 pm

no joey,im keeping it fireglo the above picture was when i was having the routes filled in,somebody at one time thought it would make a good p-bass.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:32 am

It probably did!

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:32 am

Ken, I was was wondering why it had the routes. I'm glad you saved that baby.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:42 am

Yes,Jeff, it probably did also- lefty at that there is a strap button hole in the bottom horn. I cant take credit for saving it but i can say i tried to restore her to her former glory.