NBD Part Two

This is the other one that came home with me this weekend. I was planning a gear trade for a BBE-era L-1000, but while I was waiting in line I noticed this behind the counter:



As I've mentioned in other posts, I've tried very hard to focus my collection on the basses Leo designed after leaving Fender. At first it was just Leo-era G&Ls, but a couple of years ago I stumbled across a very heavily worn '77 Stingray and opened the collection's focus to include CLF-era MusicMans (or MusicMen?). Given the price difference between the two brands, I assumed a 1979 Sabre Bass would be the missing piece in the collection. Then I stumbled on this one, with a stack of trade fodder in hand and a shop owner motivated to sell.

Instead of a bunch of random photos, I thought it might be interesting to see where this model fits in the evolution of G&L:



The body is maple. Somehow I didn't realize this until after I got it home. CLF-era MusicMan instruments aren't very well documented, at least in comparison to Leo-era G&Ls, but I have never seen any reference to maple being used for bodies. Most G&Ls built before 1982 had ash or mahogany bodies, although Greg Gagliano has documented several maple-body examples from 1981 and 1982 on his website. This Sabre shows that George and Leo had at least tested the water on this as early as 1979.



Here's where the beloved Saddle Lock bridge started out. The Sabre bridge has the horseshoe shape and is cast rather than stamped, unlike it's predecessor on the Stingray:



I should have taken the bridge off during the string change to see if it had was set into a body route like the Saddle Lock. I'll try to remember that during the next string change, or whenever I can source a replacement for the A saddle.

The CLF-era Sabre Basses had serial numbers stamped on the bridge, like 1980-82 G&Ls. Unlike the early G&Ls, though, the Sabre's serial number is beneath the saddle screws. Like G&L, the serial numbers did not start with #1 and were not sequential. They also used different prefixes, like G&L did when the Broadcaster came around. Stingrays had a "B" prefix, while Sabres started with "C". I believe both models began with #1000 or 1001, the same manner that G&L basses began with B000500. Unlike G&L, CLF began by stamping serial numbers on the neck plate, and then moved to the bridge:







I didn't break out the calipers, but aside from the stamping it doesn't look like the neck plates changed between 1977 and 1981.





The tuner configuration changed from 3+1 for MusicMan to a single row for G&L, but the same Schaller tuners were used. I forgot to check the '80 L-1000, but when my L-2000E was built in '81 the tuners were not stamped "G&L". I'd be very curious to know whether the necks being built for MusicMan after G&L began production had custom-stamped tuners.



The mushroom-type strap buttons were already being used by CLF in 1979. My '77 Stingray has mismatched buttons, one of which is the type eventually used for G&Ls:



The date and builder's stamps in the neck pocket are the same as during G&L production:





The birthmarks were the same as at the start of G&L production, i.e., there was one visible on the body but none visible on the headstock:





My '81 L-2000E is shown for comparison in the that shot. My '80 L-1000 does not have a headstock birthmark.



Here are the pickups. A bit larger than the L-series MFDs, without the adjustable pole pieces. They are definitely a step in the direction Leo would be heading, though.



Here's a last photo, comparing the pickup placement on the Sabre and the L-2000E. According to my tape measure, the Sabre's neck pickup is 1 3/4" closer to the nut than the L-2000E's. The L-1000's pickup is in the same location as the L-2000E's neck pickup. The Sabre has a reputation as one of the ultimate basses for slapping. That isn't my cup of tea, but I gave it a quick try before swapping the previous owner's rounds for flats. To my ears, it absolutely had great tone for that. With the forward pickup placement and a set of flats, though, it is an absolute monster for classic R&B, Blue-eyed Soul and Reggae. This bass will be getting played a lot...

Ken

That is hands down one of the prettiest basses I have ever seen. It seems to be in incredibly good shape too. Some nice comparisons with your L-2000E. One could argue that the first G&L's were indeed produced before 1980 ( not really but you know what I mean ). You sure have a nose for finding these great basses. It doesn't hurt to have an awesome music store nearby either. I am very happy for you and your most recent acquisitions. Well done !

Oh My!
Can I come over a stay for a week ??

Hey Ken,

BIG congrats on both NBD posts!

It is always great to be at the right place at the right time. Glad you found a missing link to your collection. Educate me on the switches, and give a tone report when ya can.

Thanks guys!

Educate me on the switches, and give a tone report when ya can.

As I mentioned above, my first brief test run was with the previous owner's brand new round wounds. That tone was extremely crisp and bright, but the E string still had a full bottom end. Slapping has never appealed to me, but I doubt you could get a better slap tone from any other vintage bass. With a fresh set of Chromes (105-50, like CLF installed at the factory), the low end is amazingly full and I can go from very mellow, full notes up the neck to quite a bit of growl by turning up the volume knob. I haven't done a serious A/B against the L-1000 or L-2000E yet, but my first impression is that the Sabre will have a fuller bottom and the G&Ls will have more clarity in the mids and higher. I guess that stands to reason with the Sabre's pickups being so much farther from the bridge.

I haven't been able to find a copy of the original Sabre manual online, but I've read where somebody named the switches (from neck to bridge) as pickup selector, phase, and bright. I see no reason to disagree with that. I have read some very bad things on TalkBass and the EBMM boards about the phase switch, a/k/a/ the "suck switch". It seems to make the tone a bit thinner when both pickups are selected, but not to have an effect when either pickup is soloed. It doesn't sound particularly bad to my ears, but I can't think of a situation where it would be useful. See tangents below. My impression of the bright switch is that it's almost the polar opposite of the L-1000's "OMG switch" (actually an overall boost with a treble cut). Without having done an A/B yet, they both seem to get the same end result. It's just that the Sabre gets it by turning the bright switch off, while the L-1000 gets it by turning the treble cut on. Unlike any of Leo's G&L designs, the Sabre's preamp is always on; there is no way to play the Sabre as a passive instrument.

One other interesting feature with both CLF-era basses (Sabre and Stingray) is that Leo had moved away from his Fender-era designs of having the controls bleed or attenuate. Instead of the norm being to have the controls set at ten, and dialing back to lose some volume or treble, the original Stingray owner's manual suggests starting with each control at its midpoint and adjusting from there. The manual points out that the midway starting point for the volume control was to let players push it higher to overdrive their amplifiers. Also, Leo's patent appliction for the control circuit states that the treble control is a cut/boost, while the bass control is boost only. See yet another tangent below.

Tangent #1: I think the phase switch might have been useful in some instances where the Sabre was just too hot for an amp's input, and the player wanted to avoid overdriving the amp. Keep in mind that bass amp options in 1979 were much more limited than we have today, and there were no padded inputs for active instruments. I remember seeing phase switches on other basses I lusted after when I started playing in 1981. The Peavey T-40 comes to mind, but I know there were others. If I have time I will hunt for old owners' manuals to see how those switches are described.

Tangent #2: Regarding the phase switch, the closest analogy I have experienced is an '86 ASAT that suffers from the volume drop some owners have reported in the middle position. Both cases have a slight but noticeable drop in volume, and a loss of middle frequencies. It makes me wonder if the ASAT volume drop could be a matter of phase.

Tangent #3: As a G&L collector, I have heard more than enough comments about G&Ls' unbearable shrillness and how Leo's sudden onset of hearing loss in 1980 was the cause of G&Ls having too much treble and being generally inferior in every way to his pre-G&L designs. From what I've read in the Stingray owner's manual and heard from my two CLF-era basses, it seems very clear that Leo's design concept had shifted in the years between FEIC and CLF. By all accounts he spoke with professional musicians about their experienceswith his instruments, and based design changes on their feedback. Think about the popular guitar effects from the second half of the 1970s - lots of ways to boost bass or treble beyond what typical guitars were capable of. Why not just incorporate that into the design of the instrument's circuit, and do away with the pedals?

Ken

Good stuff Ken! And thanks for the expose. It is nice to learn about these things.

- Jos

Thanks for the info Ken. I love switches and knobs (see mods on many of mine),
wonder why the G&L boys don't try some knobbies and switches on an ASAT?

What a great eye you have Ken .
Just the most beautiful things . Those 2 basses make me want to put my guitars away and warm up my thumb and my Wunkay and get slappin '