Vintage Alembics vs Vintage Fender

[glocke]

Whats the thought on restoration as far as older alembics go?
Being the owner of both a 65 jazz and and 72 bass, I know that it would be a cardinal sin to do too much to these.  Even though my 72 jazz bass with a sunburst finish is beat to heck, Ive been told that I should just leave it alone, as it is worth more beat and worn in than it would be refinished.
 
Does the same hold true for older alembics?

[terryc]

I think Alembics look better as new as they are 'fine furniture ' basses/guitars, so refinish would be acceptable.
For your fenders, you could always get a replacement body if it is really beat up and if you ever sell them(god forbid) you can put the original body back on.

[adriaan]

Oh dear, CBS-era Fenders are getting collectible too? (I like to keep up with the times, but they keep changing.)

[glocke]

yep...CBS era fenders are collectable apparently...I bought the two fenders I have because at the time I liked the way they sounded, especially the '65 (probably the best sounding non-aembic bass Ive ever played), collectability was not important tome.  ten years ago I paid $1050.00 USD for the '72...I had someone offer me $2000.00 for it recently.  Someone once told me that as far as CBS era fenders go, there were some years that were particuarly good years, and 1972 was one of them...
 
(Message edited by glocke on February 09, 2009)

[white_cloud]

I agree with the advice about not refinishing the 72 - you would surely decrease the saleability! It seems that the more beat up they look the better.
 
I can understand why these old Fenders are so desirable - I think there is something hard to define about them that makes them so special. Even vintage Japanese Squires of certain age are becoming highly sought after, hell, even old Tokai P&J basses are sought after.  
 
It makes you wonder - Will Mex built models be in demand in 30-40 years?? Im serious!
 
For me the Fender bass is the definitive passive bass - Leo Fender got it right first time and set the industry standard even until this day. Plug them in and play them night after night after night, take them around the world 10 times - the sound is just there, they never let you down. Simplicity in design - uncomplicated in structure...wonderful.
 
Vintage Alembics are the same for me - the definitive active bass. I love the older models much better than the new ones too. Some of the 70's models were, to me, out of this world. I can never understand why folks would pay huge sums for a new Alembic when there are so many classic models on the market for a fraction of the price - but thats just me. I like a bass that has lived, wood matured and has been played for thousands of hours.  
 
With that in mind I would never carry out any unecessary restoration on an old Alembic OR an old Fender!
 
John.

[keith_h]

Wow and I only paid $225 when I bought my Jazz Bass brand new in 1976.  
 
Keith

[bsee]

I don't believe a refinish devalues an old-but-not-historic Alembic the same way it does for a Fender.  In fact, I would expect a neutral or slightly positive impact on value, though not as much as the cost of the refinish.

[David Houck]

Greg; I suppose it depends on the particular instrument.  Some of the older Alembics still look very nice even with some mild checking.  Others have really nice wood, the beauty of which a refinish fully reveals.  As an example, the refinish on Edwin's '78 looks very nice.
 
Comparing old Fenders and old Alembics in this regard is somewhat oranges and apples in that old Fenders don't have top woods of Birds Eye Maple, Flame Koa, or Schedua.

[oujeebass]

Wow and I only paid $225 when I bought my Jazz Bass brand new in 1976.
 
Thats was equivalent to $854 back in those days. I felt the same way when I bought a 72 Les Paul for $100 back in 83, and saw one going for $2500 not to long ago. I also got a 63 Fender Tremolux stack @ 1987 for $250. Saw one of those going for quite a bit as well. I understand on that one though , cause it did sound good. In the end Les Paul stolen, and Fender amp sold for new bass gear. I think I broke even.

[olieoliver]

WOW, I feel cheated. I paid $400 bucks even for my Jazz in Oct of 1976 and it didn't include a case!. Of course I put it on a revolving charge at McCord Music in Dallas (with no interest mind you).
 
OO

[slawie]

I paid AU$700 for my 1977 Jazz bass back in '77.
 
Since then I have made improvements by;
Stripped back the original paint, it started to  badly chip away.
Removed the scratch plate
Added Badass bridge
Added Hipshot D tuner
Added Alembic active PU's
This has devalued the bass for collectors - I really don't care!
 
I will no way touch my Series I, other than through the mothership or original parts.
 
That I guess is the difference between mass production and hand built.
 
slawie

[lbpesq]

I paid $125 for a '61 Strat with case and a Crybaby back in '75.  Now I see mid '70's 3-bolt neck Strats (the worst ever, IMHO) going for $4-5 K!  The apocalypse is upon us!!!!!
 
Bill, tgo

[dela217]

My 1972 Alembic still has it's original oil finish.  I have never done anything to it.  Sure there is wear marks in the wood on the top.  To sand those wear marks that I put there will never happen as long as the bass is in my hands.  I worked hard for that patina!
 
I thought paid a lot for that bass in the mid 80's.  I paid $1600 for it. That price was more than I paid for my new Alembic in 1978.  
 
Michael

[edwin]

I only paid $750 for that Schedua bass in 1995! I don't know what the refinish and carve has done to the value and I don't really care. It plays and looks just like I want.  
 
Edwin

[82daion]

If I had had the money while I owned it, I would have most certainly taken the time to restore my '75 SI. While it was in decent shape, it had a slight noise issue, the channel bridge was getting worn out, and it might have benefited from a refret at some point.  
 
It doesn't seem as though restoration, when performed by Alembic, diminishes the value of the bass.
 
(Message edited by 82Daion on February 23, 2009)