👕 Get New Ernie Ball Merch Now!
  • Ernie Ball
  • Music Man
  • Sterling by Music Man
Ernie Ball Music Man Custom Design Experience

1976 Stingray Reissue

jimfair

jimfair

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
5
New member here, so please excuse me if this is an old topic. I presently own three Pre-EB Stingrays and one modern one that I am presently parting-out on eBay as it doesn't come close tone-wise to the Pre-EB's in my opinion. Over the last forty years, I've owned dozens of Stingrays and the Pre-EB, 2EQ, slab-bodied Stingrays are the best - again in my opinion.

Due to the current high cost of original Pre-EB's today, I'd like to convince Ernie Ball to make a 1976 Reissue Model. Several months ago, while speaking to Scott Ball about replacing a fried 1978 epoxy pre-amp for me, I mentioned the subject to him. He shared with me that the subject comes up often at the company, but no decision has been made to proceed with the concept.

So, what do all of you think? 1976 Reissue's in Natural Ash and Sunburst with the old triangular cases - pretty cool, huh?
 
While I haven't compared my '04 2 band against a plethora of pre-EBs, I feel it has compared quite favorably to the couple I have.

I'll stick pat with my current 'Ray, but I have no problem with a reissue in any event...
 
I'd like to convince Ernie Ball to make a 1976 Reissue Model
Click to expand...

It also comes up occasionally on this forum and a few other bass-related forums. While I wouldn't rule anything out as impossible, I do remember hearing Sterling say something like, "I have no desire to repeat the past. I'm interested in new ideas, new concepts and in the future."

I don't think we're likely to see any 'reissues' from Sterling.

Every ten years or so, we do see Anniversary Stingrays. But modern 'exact' replicas of now-vintage basses? I don't know where you'd find appropriate 30 year old wood!

Regarding your opinions on tone, you're not alone. I've had a number of pre-EB Stingrays - my first was in 1977, so we didn't even know we were supposed to be calling them pre-EBs! It was crazy.

I've had five or six since then. I'm from the other camp. Give me a modern EB bass over any 76-79 Stingray, every time. I respect the work that Tommy Walker and Leo and the gang did on those original Stingrays, but I find the modern basses more consistently killer - tone, looks, finishes, the little details like fretwork, you name it.

I wouldn't turn down a 76, mind you, but I'd leave it at home and play my Bongo.

Cheers!

Jack
 
Lord Bongo,

I agree that it is unlikey that Ernie Ball will make a Reissue model, but I still think it would be a successful marketing concept since the modern ones are now definitely different than the originals. That's the reason for the post.

No question on the modern's quality vs. the Pre-EB's - my favorite Stingray is a 1983 model that has a gap in the neck pocket that you can drive a car through. Maybe it's the weight - my favorite Fender's, Stingray's and G&L's are all late 70's - early 80's that weigh 10+ pounds. Notice my favorites are all Leo's basses!

I ordered a Natural Ash 2004 2EQ Stingray that took seven months to build and it weighed 8.9 pounds. Beautiful bass, but it sounded "thin" to me. I'm probably just "picky", but I definitely like the heavier, 2EQ models better.
 
Just from a cost standpoint, if there was ever a special re-issue bass the price would probably be very close to what the '77 & '78 basses are going for.

Have you seen the 30th Anniversary Stingray? It's not a reissue, but with the mahogany body it may be something you would be interested in.

I think if you really like the older Stingrays your best bet is to keep buying them up as you find them vs. waiting for EB to produce a reissue.
 
jimfair said:
I ordered a Natural Ash 2004 2EQ Stingray that took seven months to build and it weighed 8.9 pounds. Beautiful bass, but it sounded "thin" to me. I'm probably just "picky", but I definitely like the heavier, 2EQ models better.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% about the heft affecting (what I like to call) "punch", especially with ash as a body wood. I need to get a scale someday and weigh mine. I'm guessing it's well over 9 pounds...
 
Joshua,

Just a personal observation, but the heavier a bass is (regardless of brand), I've found the "beefier" (make sense?) the tone is. An 8-9 pound bass sounds "thin" to me. A 9-10 pound bass sounds better, but still lacks something although some of these sound pretty good. To me, once you get to the 10-11 pound range, you've got some real "meat and potatoes" that cuts through anything. After 11 pounds, it sounds even better, but you have to sit down to play it - ha!

I once owned a thirteen pound 70's Precision that sounded awesome, but I couldn't afford the chiropractor's bills!
 
Just to weigh in because my opinion is free :

Heavier bass = more mass = lower resonance. Don't know if a few pounds of wood would matter but there is observed differences although perception makes it tricky. Would be an interesting thesis. Anyone?

Also, while I see the marketing appeal of a reissue (Fiender does it all the time and seems to be making money) I just can't see EBMM doing it. BP doesn't seem one to be driven by window dressing and the current basses his company produces are top notch.

What exactly do you mean by "reissue". An exact replica? If so, I don't see the sense in it. I don't have to worry about the neck alignment and the capstan wheel is the bomb. If you mean to make a '76 lookalike with a preamp copy but with the modern amenities, maybe.
 
Hmmm, so then, you fans of Big Sticks.....what, if anything, do you think weight has to do with the tone of an active bass versus a passive bass?
 
Frankly, even if I had 10 times the money needed to buy a re-issue or replica or whatever, I' use it to buy, in this order, a new SR5, a new Bongo and a fretted original from the first 5 years ... but there again .. I don't need a vintage just now ... I already have the one I want, know and love.

I never could understand any established company making new "old" guitars, unless they had a lost name to attempt to recover by trading on past glory (not something EB needs to dfo with MM). There are plenty of real pre-EBs out there, and the list price of a brand new Stingray is about what you'd expect to pay for an old one if that's what you want ...

A reincarnation, to be faithful to the original, would, by its nature, be a limited run, and it would cost considerably more to make/buy than it's production line stablemates. I'm pretty certain that BP or his team would confirm that you couldn't buy a brand-new replica for less than you'd pay for a very good original.

On top of that, why would Ernie Ball be interested in resurrecting a "Fender" ??? They've taken the Musicman name and product to a different, and in most cases much better and more modern place .. and congrats to them for it.

Lets move forward, and cherish the past.

2c
 
The only thing taht is better on a 30 year old bass is the wood. It has been a bass for a long time, and that does imho make a difference.
There are SR4's that are seriously heavy, so you could just shop around until you found one heavy enough.
But having a bass with the neck-plate from hell, complete with microtilt stupidity, a bullet truss and no body comfort zones just seems lie a very odd idea to me...
But those are just my opinions...
 
bovinehost said:
Hmmm, so then, you fans of Big Sticks.....what, if anything, do you think weight has to do with the tone of an active bass versus a passive bass?
Click to expand...


Good question. To me, all ingredients are important to the tone recipe. Electronics (whether passive or not) should complement the rest of the variables.

I also believe that there are some classic recipes that just work (once again, imo). A 60s J tone, to my ears, is best attained with an middle weight alder body and passive single coil pickups (in 60s J position of course). The Stingray? Best served with a stout ash body and beefy active eq (and of course pickup position is crucial).

Then there are a million variations. There, wasn't that a simple non-answer?

:D
 
robots_fender_sm.jpg
 
jimfair said:
Joshua,

Just a personal observation, but the heavier a bass is (regardless of brand), I've found the "beefier" (make sense?) the tone is. An 8-9 pound bass sounds "thin" to me. A 9-10 pound bass sounds better, but still lacks something although some of these sound pretty good. To me, once you get to the 10-11 pound range, you've got some real "meat and potatoes" that cuts through anything. After 11 pounds, it sounds even better, but you have to sit down to play it - ha!

I once owned a thirteen pound 70's Precision that sounded awesome, but I couldn't afford the chiropractor's bills!
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with you on this. My Stingray is heavier than my Bongo HH, yet the Bongo really has superior low end.
 
A SUB is probably the best you get to a Reissue because of the Slad body and I think the 2 EQ.

Also what I notice with the re-issues is that they copy the instrument exactly and any problems that did occur in the original design are copied on the re-issue.
 
Not a fan of re-issues - never have been.

And with respect to EBMM, I've only seen real innovation and improvement in design - nothing detrimental to the product tone or playability. In this case the phrase "They don't make 'em like they used to" is a positive statement.

Don't see a reason to "go backwards"...

Just my 2¢. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Flex Capo
Back
Top