A Bass VI for $200?

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:43 pm

Sorry about the neck confusion there!
I think you're being a little pessimistic - the headstock of the SX can be adapted using three straight cuts and two dowel joins, leaving a clean strip for drilling the new tuner holes. The bridge I found can be used as-is - it just might put the strings a little too far inside the fretboard edge, in which case I need to search for one with a slightly wider spacing. I'm sure they exist or could be made.
As long as there are no nasty surprises from the guy measuring his for me, I think I will go ahead and get the ball rolling.
By the way if anyone is interested in a better look "under the hood" there is a take-down at talkbass.com:
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=570831

barry.b · Post by **barry.b** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:55 pm

"I think you're being a little pessimistic"

perhaps, or it might be that line from Harry Callahan in Magnum Force: "A man's got to know his limitations" and balancing what parts I can do and what would have to be farmed out to experts to "do properly". For me, the headstock would certainly fall into that category. I'd have to take a wait-and-see approach for the body (additional routing for pickups, controls and wiring) and mounting the bridge. Woodworking is certainly not my area of expertise.

best of luck tho, and now that you've committed yourself to start, please be encouraged to record the process and keep us all informed. Apart from the work to be done, I'd also be interested in how long certain sections took to do (inc waiting for any 3rd parties to do their bit) and costs other than the initial SX purchase.

b

benecol · Post by **benecol** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:12 am

Have posted this in the Diary Thread, but it bears repeating here too: just order a set of Bass VI strings for my Dano - worked fine on my old Longhorn, will report back how my '63 takes to it.

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:57 am

just found this; blasphemy, i'm sure.

http://www.offsetguitars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=492

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:52 am

Sad to say, I am wondering if you were right Rod - the nut might be too skinny. A nice guy on TalkBass sent me a pic of the nut on his SX with a ruler laying on it, and it was about 38mm. My Jag's nut is about 42mm wide.
However - the SX site says 1.5" (38mm) and the specs I have seen on the VI also say 1.5". I know the Jazz has an A width nut, and the Jag has a B width nut. Is it possible that the VI had an A width nut as well??
A posting from bassvi.org says

I've got an MIJ Fender VI. IIRC all Fender VI's have a string spacing at the bridge which is the same as that of a Jaguar, Jazzmaster, Strat, and Tele etc.
This spacing LOOKS to be wider because the VI's nut width is only 1.5" (the same as a Jazz Bass) instead of the approx. 1.6" used on the aforementioned guitars.

tomin8r · Post by **tomin8r** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:22 pm

The nut spacing may be too skinny for your hands, but the only sure-fire way to tell if it is, is to get a set of Bass VI Strings(or your equivalent of choice) and try them on a 1.5" nut to see if it works for you.

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:30 pm

Wise words. Looks like it IS an A width nut after all - crazy! This image is from bassvi.net:

benecol · Post by **benecol** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:01 pm

So, I've put a set of VI strings on my Dano Baritone and they fit just fine; had a bit of a sticky moment with the E string, since the taper (so it fits through the tuner) is designed for the string length of a VI and the run on the Dano is a fair bit shorter, but while there's maybe half a wind more on there than I'd like, it sounds great. My only criticism would be that, when it's tuned B-B or A-A, chords sound lovely, they lose their definition when it's tuned right down. The rumble goes a long way to making up for this.

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:33 am

Sorry for the size of the image, but I'm uploading a (close-to) scale comparison of the SX, VI, JM and JB. SX image comes from Ed at TalkBass (thanks), VI from an online retailer, JM/JB from the tech manuals at fender.com.

Notes: the nut width on the VI is confirmed A (narrower than JM, same as SX and JB), and it looks like if I get the neck right, a JM body with the trem moved 10mm further from the pocket would give me the same setup as a VI (although the upper horn is wrong). Interesting.

I also have a possible lead on an even cheaper P bass with a 30" scale in Aust - tempting unless it's crap.

tomin8r · Post by **tomin8r** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:02 pm

Hmm, from the looks of those pics, Something just looks wrong about the SX jazz, the body looks too small. If it were me and I had the know how, I'd get the SX Jazz, chop the headstock to make it fenderish, then get a squier Jazz, and put the SX neck on the Squier. A lil bit of reshaping the lower horn on the Squier, and a Jag trem on it, and your good to go.

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:13 pm

the bodies on the sx shortscale jazzes are very small. i love it. it really is one of the nicer basses i've played. not that i've played a lot, but i've played pretty much all the normal kinds, and the sx ss jazz is the one that fits my stature the best.

but if played by mo rawka it would look like a 1/6 scale.

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:27 pm

tomin8r wrote:If it were me and I had the know how, I'd get the SX Jazz, chop the headstock to make it fenderish, then get a squier Jazz, and put the SX neck on the Squier. A lil bit of reshaping the lower horn on the Squier, and a Jag trem on it, and your good to go.

Yikes Tom, if I didn't know better I'd swear you were READING MY MIND!

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:08 pm

Hm, my mind is ticking away on this project now - I have a lead on a short scale neck for cheap locally, and I can buy an alder jazz bass body for $99. That means I'd need ...
- a set of tuners
- a Jag bridge / trem
- two more Jag pickups (Japanese would be fine I think)
- a Jag control plate
- the pickguard will be a problem to solve of course.

So it'd be a case of filling the control and pickup cavities (can't get an unrouted one sadly), routing new cavities for the trem, controls and pickups, reshape headstock, new nut, bolt it up, wire it up and go.

Starting to get pretty excited now.

Also a public shout-out to Rod for his generous offers of help, a wonderful example of the Shortscale spirit.

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:29 pm

MatthewK wrote:Also a public shout-out to Rod for his generous offers of help, a wonderful example of the Shortscale spirit.

ur a sweetheart.

tomin8r · Post by **tomin8r** » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:30 pm

Heh, I try, I'm just interested in this project reaching its potential, cheers man

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:08 am

OK - now I am starting to plan properly.

If I get a JB body the neck pocket will be quite deep, and the short scale neck may go "in" a long way. That would make it shorter overall than a VI. That means not as much room behind the bridge for a trem, so I am thinking I could use a Mustang trem instead.

I've drafted it up using an SX neck pic, a shot of the body I can buy, and some elements from the AVRI Jag PDF from Fender. This includes:
- Mustang trem
- JM bridge
- 3 x Jag pickups
- Jag switchplate (no strangle switch)
- Jag control plate, flipped to curve the other way
- curve to cut away the lower horn
- draft of a pickguard (top edge VI, bottom edge Jag, unlike VI/Jag/JM doesn't go around the bridge)

I'd have to fill the JB pickup routs, but it would be a solid colour anyway. The upper horn is a bit heavy - might wait and see what it's like when I see it for real.

Comments? Issues?

hotrodperlmutter · Post by **hotrodperlmutter** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:02 pm

the only issue i see with the mustang trem placement (dunno if that's concret or not, but...) is that the bridge is clearly in a different spot than on the VI.

i may have missed it, but what's the reason for using a mustang trem unit?

finboy · Post by **finboy** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:30 pm

the top horn looks really heavy, you may want to remove some wood

oolu · Post by **oolu** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:02 pm

hotrodperlmutter wrote:the only issue i see with the mustang trem placement (dunno if that's concret or not, but...) is that the bridge is clearly in a different spot than on the VI.

i may have missed it, but what's the reason for using a mustang trem unit?

MatthewK wrote:If I get a JB body the neck pocket will be quite deep, and the short scale neck may go "in" a long way. That would make it shorter overall than a VI. That means not as much room behind the bridge for a trem, so I am thinking I could use a Mustang trem instead. "

MattK · Post by **MattK** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:29 pm

hotrodperlmutter wrote:the only issue i see with the mustang trem placement (dunno if that's concret or not, but...) is that the bridge is clearly in a different spot than on the VI.

Appearances can be deceptive: here's the same pic with the bridge, 12th fret and nut indicated - the diagram is pretty much to scale:

hotrodperlmutter wrote:i may have missed it, but what's the reason for using a mustang trem unit?

When I saw that the neck-body fit meant the overall length may have to be shorter than the VI, I realised the bridge would be "further down" the body with less space between the bridge and the tail end of the body. A Jag trem needs 6-8 inches of space behind the bridge, but the Mustang trem needs only a couple of inches, since the bridge is sitting on the trem plate. I hope it won't be necessary - i.e. I hope there is enough room for a Jag trem - but that's my "plan B".