bovinehost
Administrator
It's on eBay, like everything else on earth.
Could Be A Prototype
Headstock looks like some ugly wood.........
Could Be A Prototype
Headstock looks like some ugly wood.........
- Thread starter bovinehost
- Start date
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
oldbluebassman
Well-known member
Where is the battery?
Big Poppa
Well-known member
I steered clear of this thread on the pit. Opinions......It may not even be a real one. I can't tell from the poor photos, but the bass doesnt look right on many levels. The neck looks to be made of oak the decal is poor the sunburst is more horrid than any I have seen. no battery..... japanese string retainer cheaper tuning keys.
Gav I think that you have it wrong on the X notation I think X signified a second.
Love to hear more on this but I really dont think it is a prototype.
Gav I think that you have it wrong on the X notation I think X signified a second.
Love to hear more on this but I really dont think it is a prototype.
Steve Dude Barr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,173
Well it's about time this bass started sucking up BP's bandwidth is all I can say.
Steve Dude Barr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,173
Hey, I resemble that remark!
Do the tuners look too close together, or is that an illusion because of the angle or more wide ferrule collars?
Also, the bridge looks more like the late-'78 to '83 style with the strings offset from being directly under the intonation screws. It's hard to tell from that pic, but is seems like the strings may not be going under the screws.
Also, the bridge looks more like the late-'78 to '83 style with the strings offset from being directly under the intonation screws. It's hard to tell from that pic, but is seems like the strings may not be going under the screws.
Last edited:
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
>>>Gav I think that you have it wrong on the X notation I think X signified a second
Thanks BP
>>>Sorry for not being Native English, but whats a "Second"?!? something with an error that cant be sold as a "genuine" version.?
Hi Palle. I was about to ask the same.
I assumed it to be a Bass sold with maybe a minor defect in the finish or else where. But then I thought...heck, why give it a new plate and serial?
So, I dunno
Thanks BP
>>>Sorry for not being Native English, but whats a "Second"?!? something with an error that cant be sold as a "genuine" version.?
Hi Palle. I was about to ask the same.
I assumed it to be a Bass sold with maybe a minor defect in the finish or else where. But then I thought...heck, why give it a new plate and serial?
So, I dunno
tommyindelaware
Well-known member
i'd bet money it's a copy......the wood is just too wrong.....
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
>>>>i'd bet money it's a copy......the wood is just too wrong.....
It's the neck plate that interests me. Music Man definitely had "X" plates. The Bass depicted in the 1976 Catalogue is an "X" plate
It's the neck plate that interests me. Music Man definitely had "X" plates. The Bass depicted in the 1976 Catalogue is an "X" plate
Last edited:
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
>>>>The "X" looks a little out of place to me, anyone.
I agree. a lot of space between the prefix and digits. But the whole serial is in the right place between the 2 bolts. The "B" serials dropped below the bolts a tad.
I'm starting to think I sould maybe get a life and practice my Dorian modes
I agree. a lot of space between the prefix and digits. But the whole serial is in the right place between the 2 bolts. The "B" serials dropped below the bolts a tad.
I'm starting to think I sould maybe get a life and practice my Dorian modes
teonigil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 109
The bad points:
Everything looks wrong about it!
1. Body and neck shapes are off
2. Body looks like plywood & neck is not maple (at best...)
3. Decal is "home made"
4. G Tuning key in too far back
5. Tuning keys are shaved fenders
6. truss rod is a big bullet without the black plastic insert
7. frets are medium (not small)
8. Neck plate is not in the right shape
9. Pickguard is off
10. pickup cover looks weird
11. Bridge shape is off
12. Mutes are same length
13. Bridge barrels are off
14. Control plate screw holes are off
15. Knobs are short and over rounded
16. Paint job is off
17. String spacing on nut is too close
18. Serial is too big and located too high
19. No battery cover (and probably no battery at all)
* Only a couple of basses later, proto X00205 is at 99% compared with the final production basses...
* If Leo wanted to serialize the proto's and ordered/made the X stamped back plates then they should have all be the same.
* I don't believe Leo was going cheap on wood material for proto's to save a few dollars... this is ridiculous.
* The wood and paint job look exactly like old cheap copies at that period.
The good points:
Assuming it is the real thing...
* The bridge, as is, can supply us with the reason for the "wrong" location of the through body holes since the later final intonation screws and springs were much thicker.
* The deep neck insert puts the bridge too far back for the later final neck insert, resulting with an update to the production line in late 1976.
* The serial number makes sense. What are the chances that a copy production line will result with this number?!
* If it was a production line copy, where are it's brothers? I never saw any other like it.
* If it was a production line copy, how come some of the parts look like they were made (or changed) by hand. Check the tuners...
* If it was a single copy project, assuming it was made in the 70's to mid 80's (seller stated that his father got it in mid 80's while he was drunk...) why would someone go through the extremely complicated process of press-stamping the metal parts with a MM logo ??!!! Who cared about an SR proto back then??? how much would it worth??
Bottom line
I will buy it and take it apart just for fun or try to contact Leo on the other side.
Everything looks wrong about it!
1. Body and neck shapes are off
2. Body looks like plywood & neck is not maple (at best...)
3. Decal is "home made"
4. G Tuning key in too far back
5. Tuning keys are shaved fenders
6. truss rod is a big bullet without the black plastic insert
7. frets are medium (not small)
8. Neck plate is not in the right shape
9. Pickguard is off
10. pickup cover looks weird
11. Bridge shape is off
12. Mutes are same length
13. Bridge barrels are off
14. Control plate screw holes are off
15. Knobs are short and over rounded
16. Paint job is off
17. String spacing on nut is too close
18. Serial is too big and located too high
19. No battery cover (and probably no battery at all)
* Only a couple of basses later, proto X00205 is at 99% compared with the final production basses...
* If Leo wanted to serialize the proto's and ordered/made the X stamped back plates then they should have all be the same.
* I don't believe Leo was going cheap on wood material for proto's to save a few dollars... this is ridiculous.
* The wood and paint job look exactly like old cheap copies at that period.
The good points:
Assuming it is the real thing...
* The bridge, as is, can supply us with the reason for the "wrong" location of the through body holes since the later final intonation screws and springs were much thicker.
* The deep neck insert puts the bridge too far back for the later final neck insert, resulting with an update to the production line in late 1976.
* The serial number makes sense. What are the chances that a copy production line will result with this number?!
* If it was a production line copy, where are it's brothers? I never saw any other like it.
* If it was a production line copy, how come some of the parts look like they were made (or changed) by hand. Check the tuners...
* If it was a single copy project, assuming it was made in the 70's to mid 80's (seller stated that his father got it in mid 80's while he was drunk...) why would someone go through the extremely complicated process of press-stamping the metal parts with a MM logo ??!!! Who cared about an SR proto back then??? how much would it worth??
Bottom line
I will buy it and take it apart just for fun or try to contact Leo on the other side.
bovinehost
Administrator
dlloyd said:
My understanding is yes.
This is not to say that a passive Stingray never came off the line....it happens occasionally even now.
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
>>>Was the intention always for the Stingray to be active?
The 1976 Catalogue says
"OPTIONAL STATE OF THE ART INTERNAL PREAMPLIFIER OFFERS FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES:"
My reading of it is that the Ray was intended to be passive but, as an option, you could have a preamp.
But I've never seen a passive 'Ray though.
The 1976 Catalogue says
"OPTIONAL STATE OF THE ART INTERNAL PREAMPLIFIER OFFERS FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES:"
My reading of it is that the Ray was intended to be passive but, as an option, you could have a preamp.
But I've never seen a passive 'Ray though.
My feelings on it (assuming it's real) are that there's nothing about it that's screams "inherently wrong".
If "X" does denote a prototype (and this is real), we're probably looking at the third prototype made. The neck wood looks a bit weird, true... but there are elements of it that are right. The dots look good, the headstock shape looks good. The logo is black, but if that was due to it being home-made, I'd expect the trademarks and copyrite to be intact.
The finish is horrible, but if it is what it says it is, it was never intended for public consumption.
I don't know... the slopiness is too obvious. Perhaps I'm drunk.
If "X" does denote a prototype (and this is real), we're probably looking at the third prototype made. The neck wood looks a bit weird, true... but there are elements of it that are right. The dots look good, the headstock shape looks good. The logo is black, but if that was due to it being home-made, I'd expect the trademarks and copyrite to be intact.
The finish is horrible, but if it is what it says it is, it was never intended for public consumption.
I don't know... the slopiness is too obvious. Perhaps I'm drunk.
