Author Topic: Heads Up - Exploiter/Spyder on Ebay (Read 785 times)

senmen · « **Reply #15 on:** April 21, 2004, 01:51:12 PM »

Mike,
I think he used Rotosounds back then, but don?t know precisely. In the early eighties he began using the Maxima Gold ones....

Oliver (Spyderman)

ox_junior · « **Reply #16 on:** April 21, 2004, 02:16:34 PM »

Oliver,

Yes I have the same information. The Smothers Brothers show was in '67, so it's certainly possible he was using Rotosounds. Those are certainly much easier to get than Maximas, and more affordable as well.

Thanks! Mike

senmen · « **Reply #17 on:** April 21, 2004, 02:42:48 PM »

Mike,
to my opinion Maximas are no longer produced.
I currently use DR strings which produce a real
good steel sound to get the John twang out of it.
As for the Exploiter, do you know the reserve?
If not, I asked, send me a mail and I will give you the info....

Oliver (Spyderman)

valvil · « **Reply #18 on:** April 21, 2004, 08:59:56 PM »

You can still buy Maxima strings, Juststrings.com for one, has them on their website for sale.
I am surprised that you do not have chapter and verse on John's strings, Oliver.

This is what I found out regarding John's string use:

Early ?60s:
Flatwound strings of various manufacturers, including Fender and La Bella.

1966??80s:
Rotosound Swing Bass roundwound strings (.045 - .105) , developed with John, and changed daily.

1989?2001:
Maxima Gold gold-plated handmade strings, changed daily.

This is what he said at the time he switched:

From the August 1989 Guitar Player

The big news is that Rotosounds will not be accompanying the Buzzards on their transcontinental flight. After pioneering the development of roundwound strings with that company in the ?60s and in the process becoming virtually synonymous with the name and the sound, Entwistle has switched to handmade Maxima gold-plated strings. ?They sent me a set to try out, and I really liked them. I found that with the proper action on my basses, I could tune the E string as low as an A and still achieve a true tone. I tried to get Rotosound to explore that direction a year ago and they ignored me, and then came out with a set specially gauged by Billy Sheehan that will tune down to a D! So I got fed up. Billy Sheehan and Mark King can sell Rotosounds; I?m very happy with Maximas.?

And finally, the switchback..
2001?2002:
Rotosound Swing Bass strings, changed daily.

Valentino

senmen · « **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2004, 11:59:38 PM »

Val,
great to hear from you.
As for the strings, the DR?s are really great
and produce a real good steel twang. As I mostly play like John in the typewriter style I get his
sound very good out of it.
Even if I am a big JE fan I think there are some products I can?t/won?t use. Another example is Ashdown. But this is a personal experience with Mark Gooday of Ashdown I had. If you want to know send me a mail.....

Take care mate
Oliver (Spyderman)

bsee · « **Reply #20 on:** April 24, 2004, 08:23:27 AM »

Alembic staffers-

Can someone take a look at this bass if you haven't already and confirm that it is a Series I and not a Series II? (the link is in the top post of this thread)

The seller claims to have the original receipt from when he custom-ordered the bass labelling it as a Series II exploiter with PF-6B electronics. If that's not accurate, then maybe you want to contact him and let him know? Sure, this isn't as bad as someone trying to pass a piece of plywood off as an Elan, but it's still bad, right?

valvil · « **Reply #21 on:** April 24, 2004, 11:32:42 AM »

Well, it's definitely a series I, his receipt may call it a Series II, but if so, the receipt is wrong. And it's quilted maple , rather than flame.

Valentino

ox_junior · « **Reply #22 on:** April 26, 2004, 03:57:42 PM »

Thanks Val for checking this out.

Mica also explained to me that this is a Series I, although the seller may think he has a Series II due to the fact that they share PF-6B electronics. The dealer may also have thought the same thing when writing up the receipt. It could be an honest mistake, but I don't want to be the one (since I wanna buy it)to run the risk of upsetting the seller by being the one to point out that his bass is not worth what he thinks it is. Then again, it may not be an honest mistake.

I e-mailed the seller, he would not reveal the serial number to me. I found this disappointing, as I was hoping that Val or Mica would be able to settle the Series I/II issue.

I still want this bass quite badly, I'm just holding back to see how high the bidding gets. The auction ends Friday so I have some time. If it gets close to the price of a Spyder, I'll drop out.

Wish me luck! Mike

hollis · « **Reply #23 on:** April 26, 2004, 04:31:14 PM »

Good luck Mike!

I wonder what the seller's reasoning is for not giving out the serial #?

Whatever it is, it sure is a pretty beast!

dfung60 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 26, 2004, 10:33:00 PM »

Hard to see how you could make a claim that this is Series II. The difference in electronics is just the CVQ knobs and master volume, both of which are not present on this bass. The more expensive differences are more laminates in the body and neck, which this bass also don't have. The single most expensive addition to the Series II are the side marker LEDs... again, not present on this bass.

So, every indicator is Series I. This doesn't make it any less awesome in absolute terms, but it seems like it ought to at least have *one* Series II feature before there's any discussion!

My Series I Exploiter looks to pretty much be the brother of this one. Mine is rosewood instead of quilted maple and cone headstock instead of Vee, but the proportions of the neck laminates, back plates, and control positions all look the same. Mine is probably much older - 1983 serial number, and I have the shiny black flattop pickups. This one has the pickups with Alembic embossed into the corner of the pickup top, but no foil logo there so I'd guess that it's late 80's. I think some of the specs are cribbed from the current site and probably not reflective of this bass. If it were really from the 80's I think it would have polyurethane finish instead of polyester. And it would be interesting to see a closeup of the headstock - an 80's bass would probably have the engraved sterling silver Alembic logo which I personally find to be nicer then the newer 90's style ones.

Best of luck to those in who are looking at this one. There's nothing like a Series Alembic and, if you're not afraid of being identified as an Ox-poser, the Exploiter body style is incredibly comfortable to play. You wouldn't expect that to look at it, but it's even better than you could imagine.

mica · « **Reply #25 on:** April 26, 2004, 11:00:46 PM »

David is correct about the differences between Series I and II. Over the years the distinction between the models was at least the electronics, and as time has moved on, the feature lists have grown farther apart. Recent additions to the Series II roster include goldpalted hardware and continuous wood backplates.

Couple of corretions too. Been using the same polyester paint since at least 1980, so expect this paint to be typical, though was probably originally a satin rubout. The polyurethane formula was changed without notice in 1978 and a few times after that - we don't take too kindly to such changes.

The same jeweler has been making our logos since forever, well, at least since we figured we had more interesting things to do other than handmake logos. I'll confirm with my mom in the morning the year we started using the cast logos, but I know Tim was making logos for us when I was in grade school. Only Tim and ourselves have ever made our logos.

The only thing different recently is the addition of the Alembic script, which isn't included on all models and of course can be optionally omitted on any custom order since it's an entirely separate casting.

ox_junior · « **Reply #26 on:** April 27, 2004, 06:59:41 AM »

I don't think I could be any more grateful to Dave and Mica for their incredibly detailed assessment of this instrument. Thank you both so much! I feel I can copy and paste both your posts on an e-mail to the seller to help him understand what he owns.

David - I AM an Ox-poser, I get paid to do it, and am dang proud of it - but I wouldn't feel as if I were doing the role justice unless I owned an Alembic like this!!!

Mike Bisch

senmen · « **Reply #27 on:** April 27, 2004, 07:15:43 AM »

Mike,
I hope it will turn out well with the Exploiter for you. And I learned a new word today - Ox-Poser. Great. I just had my Spyder reset to a more than low string adjustment; very similar to Johns one as I could see from old pictures.
And I can tell you, the Spyder sounds like hell now and I can?t stop doing the typewriting thing.
So much highs with such great overtones.. WOW

Oliver (Spyderman)

effclef · « **Reply #28 on:** April 27, 2004, 07:57:44 AM »

Oliver...I have heard you mention the typewriter style a few times: what is it? A downward stroke with the fingers, to cause the strings to hit the frets? In other words, not like thumb slapping, but more like an agressive fingerstyle in the Z direction, so to speak?

EffClef

senmen · « **Reply #29 on:** April 27, 2004, 08:20:06 AM »

Andy,
the typewriter technique was one of Johns main playing styles. With this you are able to do fast runs by getting a real steely sound with much treble and fantastic harmonics. You hit the strings SLIGHTLY with the tips of your fingers (1,2,3 or all when you are experienced) at a right angle to the fingerboard or an angle of about 45 degrees to the fingerboard. With this you can also tap chords as well tap out the harmonics of a chord as well as beeing able to play Johns speed-up triplets. It is hard to explain even if you have it in your blood and you do it automatically now. I have a very low setup now (0,9 - 1,0mms at the 24th fret) and you can really build up speed but you also have to take care only to tape slighlty. Just as John did - without that much force on the strings...

Oliver (Spyderman)