mavuser
Enlightened Member
I recently discovered that the 1967 SF1 bass currently in my house is 1/4 inch deeper in the body than the 1998-99 SF2 bass currently in my house. When I first played the 67, it felt a little bigger but I just attributed it to the chunky finger rest and chunky Bisonic pup. Turns out it is a slightly bigger instrument altogether.
I measured with a ruler. the 1967 is 1/4 inch deeper than the 1998. Also, the 1967 OHSC is 1/2 inch deeper than the 1998 OHSC. ( I think my 90s bass is a 98 or maybe 99, but not positive)
Now I am curious how big the body is for the Newark Street SF bass. It should be very close to the 1965 it was designed after...Curious about Frono's pair when you a have a moment to look at them.
Also curious about Gilded's thoughts on the matter, as it appears he owns, or has owned, both a 1966 and 1990s SF bass.
The headstock on a SF Bass also got bigger at some point. That is more widely acknowledged at this point than the size difference of the body. Not sure when that happened, may have been 70s.
Other than that there have been various pups, configurations, bridges, and electronics used over the course of the vintage years. there is a small chance there could be some other slight size variations in the body. Although anything measurable seems unlikely for those years, I am far from an expert on the issue.
As for my 90s bass definitely being a little smaller than a 67, I couldnt say all 90s basses are like that, but my guess is that many or most are.
I dont think this changes the value or desirability of the instrument at all, if anything it just means that technically there are that many less of them out there in the standard 60's size...and sets the 90s model (of which there are very few of in the first place) apart that much further from the originals.
From the beginning I have thought my 90s bass had a sound of its own, somewhere between the 70s humbucker sound and the 60s/Newark St. Bisonic sound. it is a "tight" warm, and punchy resonant tone. it doesn't seem have the mega "boom" of a 70s SF or JS humbcker bass, at least not without that Deep/Hard switch. more of a "thump." I love the way it sounds and the way it feels. hard to explain but to me it is just perfect. It is obviously not the quintessential Bisonic or DS tone. but in my opinion, it honestly somehow flirts with it. Hard to explain. I have not heard much of the 70s SF/humbucker bass, but what I have heard, to me sounds a little closer to a 70s JS or even a 70s Gibson (thats what I thought I was getting when I bought the 98). I am really over analyzing here and think they all sound beyond fantastic. but the 90s one I own is a monster all of its own.
I measured with a ruler. the 1967 is 1/4 inch deeper than the 1998. Also, the 1967 OHSC is 1/2 inch deeper than the 1998 OHSC. ( I think my 90s bass is a 98 or maybe 99, but not positive)
Now I am curious how big the body is for the Newark Street SF bass. It should be very close to the 1965 it was designed after...Curious about Frono's pair when you a have a moment to look at them.
Also curious about Gilded's thoughts on the matter, as it appears he owns, or has owned, both a 1966 and 1990s SF bass.
The headstock on a SF Bass also got bigger at some point. That is more widely acknowledged at this point than the size difference of the body. Not sure when that happened, may have been 70s.
Other than that there have been various pups, configurations, bridges, and electronics used over the course of the vintage years. there is a small chance there could be some other slight size variations in the body. Although anything measurable seems unlikely for those years, I am far from an expert on the issue.
As for my 90s bass definitely being a little smaller than a 67, I couldnt say all 90s basses are like that, but my guess is that many or most are.
I dont think this changes the value or desirability of the instrument at all, if anything it just means that technically there are that many less of them out there in the standard 60's size...and sets the 90s model (of which there are very few of in the first place) apart that much further from the originals.
From the beginning I have thought my 90s bass had a sound of its own, somewhere between the 70s humbucker sound and the 60s/Newark St. Bisonic sound. it is a "tight" warm, and punchy resonant tone. it doesn't seem have the mega "boom" of a 70s SF or JS humbcker bass, at least not without that Deep/Hard switch. more of a "thump." I love the way it sounds and the way it feels. hard to explain but to me it is just perfect. It is obviously not the quintessential Bisonic or DS tone. but in my opinion, it honestly somehow flirts with it. Hard to explain. I have not heard much of the 70s SF/humbucker bass, but what I have heard, to me sounds a little closer to a 70s JS or even a 70s Gibson (thats what I thought I was getting when I bought the 98). I am really over analyzing here and think they all sound beyond fantastic. but the 90s one I own is a monster all of its own.
Last edited:
