Page 2 of 3

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:10 pm
by basmansam
Excellent John!! Dale does fantastic work. Congrats!!

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:32 pm
by dlandau
Real nice John! Hope I can eliminate that figment at MARF. I'm planning and hope I can make it.

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:17 pm
by antipodean
Wow.... fantastic restoration of a great bass. :D The anticipation must be killing you!

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:49 pm
by sloop_john_b
Thanks guys. First, let me clarify - the Fireglo bass on the left is mine, not the MG! Poor choice of words ("flanked") in my first post.

Dale called me today just to tell me how great it's playing. In fact, he said all the ones shown are great players - no buzzes or dead spots of any sort. He chalked it up to the old truss rods on them.

Paul, they are indeed the same bass - didn't know you took shots of that one at MARF!

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:14 pm
by johnallg
John, I knew yours was FG, I was just also noting the MG was a WB also. Two in one photo/shop at once is rather unique. Kudos to Dale on the beauties.

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:15 pm
by sloop_john_b
johnallg wrote:Two in one photo/shop at once is rather unique.
It doesn't stop there - same year, same month (FD April '66).

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:46 pm
by johnallg
Wow, what are the odds! Considered buying a lotto ticket? :lol:

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:04 am
by rickenbrother
Very cool, JB!! I'm sure you can't wait to get it back. :D

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:19 am
by woodyng
beautiful burst/finish on that one,john,i prefer the "fade" to the "ring" effect of the finish on the other fg pictured,plus your bass looks like it has the nicest wood figuring of the 3.....wish i was coming to the marf.....

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:23 pm
by teeder
John,

If you get a chance, I would really appreciate close-ups of the coloring. That looks like the shading and color that I would want when I redo my '71.

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:24 pm
by sloop_john_b
teeder wrote:John,

If you get a chance, I would really appreciate close-ups of the coloring. That looks like the shading and color that I would want when I redo my '71.
Count on it, Kevin. As soon as I get it back.

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:19 pm
by BlueAngel
rickaddict wrote:I'd have him send the 4005 back now, and the 330 later. Two Ricks at once can be overwhelming!
So would I, for a much more serious reason - if they're together and something goes wrong in shipping, you could lose both. Even if they're not actually in the same box, shipping two items together is more risky since mis-routing or theft of both boxes is more likely to happen than to two unrelated items. You're safer with two completely separate shipments, even if it costs slightly more.

Very cool bass by the way!

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:21 pm
by shamustwin
Yeah!

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:33 am
by 8mileshigh
That looks spectacular JB!!

I'm intrigued by the 4005 on the right though, I wonder what the story is there?

Re: Simply a photo worth posting (4005 content)

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:09 am
by sloop_john_b
8mileshigh wrote:That looks spectacular JB!!

I'm intrigued by the 4005 on the right though, I wonder what the story is there?
Cheers Graham. :)

From Dale:
The 4005 on the right belongs to the original owner. It's a 1968 that had a complete restoration. A broken peghead, refret and refinish in original standard Fireglo, we didn't want this to look old before it's time.