60's?? Vintage Starfire Bass

[vjramire]

Hello, I saw this at an auction and was intrigued. Gibson pickups and some frankenstein phase switch tone control. Oh and the paperclip between the bridge and lower pickup is interesting. Did this modification kill the Guild sound? Is this worth picking up? If so what would one pay at most? Appreciate any advice. Thank you!

 

[twocorgis]

Oh my. Why would somebody do that to an otherwise nice vintage SF bass? The short answer to your question is yes, definitely.

Welcome to LTG, BTW!

 

[vjramire]

Thanks for the warm welcome! So does that mean, yes it ruined the sound or yes, pick it up, it's still a vintage bass?

 

[Minnesota Flats]

Well, on the "up" side, it's certainly no "mod-virgin" if you want a vintage platform for experimentation.

I'm guessing that the paper clip was intended to be a bridge ground, but given its corroded condition, I doubt it's serving any useful purpose at this point, if it ever actually did.

 

[fronobulax]

The body, bridge, label, serial number and neck are consistent with a later 1967 Starfire bass. So are the finish and the case. I will go out on a limb and suggest it was originally a Starfire I bass because the holes for a toggle and master volume in an original Starfire II don't seem to be present. The pickups and associated controls are definitely not something Guild did.

For me much of the Starfire sound comes from a Bisonic pickup in a hollow body. So I would expect this to have the "woody" aspects of the hollow body but I would be pleasantly surprised if it sounded like a vintage Starfire. I would describe it as a highly modified vintage Starfire bass so yes, it is still a vintage bass at least until we start trying to define "vintage" in a way that includes "original" or "factory" condition.

It could be restored if someone wanted to put in the work. See https://letstalkguild.com/ltg/index.php?threads/seeking-help-lets-re-wire-a-starfire-bass.219088/ for a similar situation.

I don't tinker so the bass is worth $0 to me. If it were given to me as a gift I would probably turn around and give it to someone who wanted to partially restore it or someone who liked it as it is. My attitude is definitely influenced because I already have a '67 Starfire I in much, much closer to original condition.

If it is playable as it is now and you liked the tone it might be worth picking up at $1,000 USD or less. But you'd be buying a working bass or a project and not an original '67 Guild Starfire bass.

BA-1482 shown below for comparison.

 

[Happy Face]

Aren't those Gibson tone controls and pickups? Like from the Les Paul studio bass kind of thing?

Maybe it's an early go at a Jack Casady Les Paul bass? (Pre the Epiphone model.)

 

[vjramire]

Thanks for the thorough replies! This is all very helpful. Here's a shot at the headstock. Check out the truss rod cover!

Unfortunately I can only see the auction photos but would love to be able to play and hear what this sounds like!

 

[Prince of Darkness]

Mash up of a Guild and the original version of the Les Paul bass. Probably has a unique sound. Not one for the purists, but it could be a great player, assuming it works!

 

[fronobulax]

@Happy Face for the win.

Aren't those Gibson tone controls and pickups? Like from the Les Paul studio bass kind of thing?

Maybe it's an early go at a Jack Casady Les Paul bass? (Pre the Epiphone model.)

I think we know what the modifier was striving towards. We just need to know how well it succeeded.

 

[mellowgerman]

For what it's worth, I've owned both vintage Starfire basses and an early 70's Gibson Les Paul Triumph bass. The Triumph has these pickups, but these specific pickups and electronics in this Starfire bass came from a "Les Paul Recording bass". The important distinction between Triumph vs. Recording is that the Triumph has a built-in step-up transformer that converts the signal from these low impedance pickups to a high impedance signal. The Recording bass on the other hand was all low impedance and originally would have included a special cable with the transformer built in. That means, without that cable (assuming the person didn't source a step-up transformer separately to install inside the bass) you won't be able to simply plug this bass into an amp and play, the low impedance signal will be extremely weak without a preamp or step-up transformer.

All that said, if I saw this bass locally, I would be excited and would definitely want to check it out. These pickups do sound great when implemented correctly and are worth quite a bit in and of themselves. The only reason I got rid of my Triumph bass was because I find Les Paul body shapes to be super uncomfortable sitting down and also kinda uncomfortable standing up with a strap. Those ergonomics combined with the 11.5 lbs weight (if I recall correctly) made it not my cup of tea.

Regarding the paper-clip, Minnesota Flats might be right about it being a bridge ground, but my first thought was that it runs from the bridge to the pickup surround as a quick and dirty way to ground the metal pickup surround. That makes me think maybe they didn't wire it up quite right, resulting in shielding or grounding hum. Reason why I jumped to that likely conclusion is that there should be a ground wire already underneath the bridge fed into the control cavity via a small channel from the factory. However, looking closely, I'm seeing that there appear to be two plugged screw holes just behind the bridge, which raises additional questions... Either some doofus thought he could make it long scale by moving the bridge back farther and then moved it back to original placement when they realized that ruined the intonation... or there was a different bridge on this bass at some point... or this bridge was installed too far back from the factory -- which was the case with my 1970 Starfire; excellent condition in every regard, except that I had to plug the screw holes and move the bridge about .75" forward to properly intonate the bass.

 

[Happy Face]

Thanks for the background info, Mellow One.

I'd been attracted to the Recording Bass a couple of times because I thought it looked really cool. But passed for other good reasons. Until I read this I had to clue that you'd need a line transformer. Would that apply to this fella?

Is that like the early Alembics?

Thanks Dr. M!

 

[mellowgerman]

Unless they installed some kind of step-up transformer or hidden active preamp inside the bass, yes, you would need a line transformer or preamp of some kind.

For anyone interested in one of these Gibsons, I would recommend the Triumph bass over the Recording bass. The Triumph is sometimes misidentified as a Recording bass, but they're easily differentiated by their control plates. The Recording bass has a few knobs mounted right through the wood along with the smaller Tylenol shaped plate that we see on this Starfire. The Triumph has a big plate with all controls mounted directly on it. Since the Triumph is plug-and-play without requiring any special cable, it's just far more practical. Also, even if you had a functional original cable to go with the Recording bass, cables are flexible and won't protect those delicate electronics in there nearly as well as the wood control cavity of the Triumph bass. Once the Recording bass cable inevitably breaks/fails, as all cables seem to do eventually with use, good luck finding a replacement! More likely you'll have to find an electronics repair service that's willing to take on the repair job nbd then cross your fingers that they know what they're doing! I'm also unsure just how unique the specs of the necessary transformers are. I suppose it's possible there's an aftermarket tranny available that might work as a replacement, even if they're not spot-on exact specs, but who knows.

In comparison, you could say these electronics are similar to some of the earliest pre-Alembic modifications done for Jack and Phil, in the sense that once the pickups were re-wound to low impedance, they were paired with tiny step-up transformers, affectionately referred to by Phil as "spider sex" transformers (if I recall correctly) because apparently they resembled little spiders. Those just result in a useable output signal volume that doesn't require an active power supply, assuming my understanding and the accounts I've read are accurate. I'm pretty sure any and all actual Alembic instruments were required active power, though there's certainly the possibility I'm unaware of a rare passive exception.

 

[Happy Face]

I've had a regular Alembic, an Alembric and my current Guilembic. All needed a single 9 volt battery. But recall that the early Alembics I've seen for sale often refer to a separate required transformer. Until today's lecture by Prof H, I had no clue why.

Thanks Prof!

 

[mavuser]

this should be parted out and Alembicized

 

[mellowgerman]

But recall that the early Alembics I've seen for sale often refer to a separate required transformer.

That's probably referring to the power supply box that implements those neat 5-pin jack cables.

Alembic Alembic DS-5 Power Supply for Series I & II guitar bass 1 2 Mint Condition DS 5 2018 Blue | Reverb

Mint condition Alembic DS-5 Power Supply This is the latest model with switchable voltage and a mono/stereo switch. Purchased in 2018. It is Unused. Purchased as a backup. Never needed it. Time to pass it along to someone that will use it. These are $600 new from Alembic. Save yourself some ...

reverb.com

just in case that reverb link stops working at some point, here's a reference photo:

 

[Happy Face]

Yeah, I think you are right. A power supply, not a transformer. Makes sense.

 

[vjramire]

The bass sold for $1,224. Alas I was not the winner.

 

[mellowgerman]

The bass sold for $1,224. Alas I was not the winner.

Hmm, yeah... as sloppy as those modifications were done, I wouldn't have paid that much for it. Wise to back away from this one.
That said, if they had been more thoughtful on doing the modifications cleanly and with regard to the preexisting aesthetics of the bass, this may have been worthy of a $2k price tag. The electronics themselves are nice, though not necessarily "better" than an original solo neck bisonic would have been. Very much depends on taste.
As it is, without the ability to play it first, I would have bowed out at $800.

 

[RVBASS]

That Alembic DS-5 box provides power to an Alembic Series instrument, along with individual stereo or combined mono pickup outputs. The five pin has pos, neg, ground, pickup 1 output and pickup 2 output.

 

[baddecisions]

I got this exact bass in trade last weekend from a guy who had clearly bitten off more than he bargained for. I'm pretty sure nothing has changed but the strings from that auction.
Thankfully the neck is nice and straight, the frets are fine, the truss rod works and the action is more than acceptable for me with room to move down.
Unfortunately the wiring is a total mess. The pots don't really work at all and the big switch seems to be wired backwards between the pickups since one gets hotter as the other gets thinner, regardless of where the phase switch is set. The better news is the pickups sound great when the signal is actually coming through. The original transformer is wired internally to that mini toggle but its just wrapped up in a plastic bag bouncing around.
Since it's clearly never going back to stock, I'm thinking a walnut control plate on top will hide some of the more creative drilling that was done. I have no idea what to do about the strange placement of that pickup switch though.