Prototype?

dale_fortune · Post by **dale_fortune** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:23 am

No I really didn't need pictures, yours were great...

8mileshigh · Post by **8mileshigh** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:18 am

I still maintain that these are great basses. I was playing a 4005 the other night, then switched to the '59 4000. A much more comfortable bass to play. The width of the nut suits me as I'm more used to playing guitar than bass.

Great description by the way Dale!

8mileshigh · Post by **8mileshigh** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:19 am

Sorry ..........I forgot to mention $26k? Whoa - I'd think about selling for that

dale_fortune · Post by **dale_fortune** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:16 am

This is a speculation that I think caused the Bass to get an odd serial#/letter: Numbers were all hand stamped with Alpha/Numeric punch sets. They were done on the jack plates and bridge base plates with these punch sets and a small hammer. What I think may of happened is this: the P and the B look close to each other and whoever punched that number may have picked out the P not looking closely thinking it was the B. The number/letter was set into the jack plate and off it went. This was always the last stage of final assembly at the Electro Factory then on to the stringing and testing of the Bass before it went to the sales office over at Main and Stevens. I know the 1st 4000 Bass models had a string anchor plate much like the BD slide guitars where the strings came thru the lower back of the body thru this chrome plated anchor plate that was fastened with screws. The 1st serial#'s were stamped into the bridge base plate, then the later ones were on the jack plate. This seems like the only logical explanation. I had seen proto-types of various instruments in Ward Deatons office and none that I know had any serial#'s on them.

wints · Post by **wints** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:17 pm

I think that's a good call Dale.

A case of B mistaken...

gshadoan · Post by **gshadoan** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:53 pm

LOL, I needed my glasses on even to see the thing. I guess a P for a B would be a easy mistake to make. And with the numbers being so close to Grahams, I think that it is probably the most reasonalble explanation. If prototypes didn't get serial numbers, that would certainly rule this unit out as such.