Author Topic: Enthusiastic Series I bass review by Johnny Long  (Read 592 times)

edwardofhuncote

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Enthusiastic Series I bass review by Johnny Long
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2021, 08:52:34 PM »
Hmmm. What a puzzle. 643 is a 1977 number. That bass shares a few similar features with Tiran Porter's Alembic, which has NO NUMBER. Supposedly it was a '73. Bonus detail, note the black plastic battery cover hidden under the ramp.


Eiji's posts here are full of hints and clues. Anybody see the logo? https://club.alembic.com/index.php?topic=8341.0


I've got a crazy guess... but it assumes waaay too much. And it's really late.  :P   Maybe someone else will CSI this one.

cntrabssn

  • club
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Enthusiastic Series I bass review by Johnny Long
« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2021, 09:36:21 PM »
Well it doesn’t solve the S/N mystery, but might help confirm ownership:
https://www.jimcammack.com/

Note the album cover photo.

-nate.

room037

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 563
Re: Enthusiastic Series I bass review by Johnny Long
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2021, 07:34:38 PM »
Hi, I am back !

It's very interested !

I was wrote about 73' to 74' S/N.
The bass has mustache shaped tail, PF-5 pre. and gripped A logo.
So the bass S/N will fit late 73' (around 40) to early 74' (but 74'-48 has PF-6 !).
The Movie said 74'-643, but 643 is 77' range.
I think about S/N 643, it was miss stamped 64 or 63 or 43 (We know another 73'-43 on Showcase).
Another case, I only know S/N 78'-2001 by request. If the first owner wanted the No. 643 ?
And more, He may wanted PF-5 spec at 1974.

I can only said the bass is good looking, nice sound, great example bass !

Eiji

edwardofhuncote

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8017
Re: Enthusiastic Series I bass review by Johnny Long
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2021, 08:24:04 PM »
Welcome back, Eiji-san!


I have read so many of your posts, looking for clues and details trying to figure out this bass. Do you suppose it's possible this instrument could have simply remained unfinished for some reason until 1977, then received the number 74-643? Its construction and appointments seem to suggest it would not be newer than late-1973.


(I have #77-621, which was completed 2/8/1977.)