A Starfire II (bass) hypothesis looking for evidence

Mavuser and I have been discussing this and in the process of writing The Ultimate Rebuttal, I realized he was not as wrong as I thought.

To set bounds and definitions, I am restricting this to factory SF I's and IIs with Bisonics which effectively means a BA prefixed serial number and a date of 1970 or earlier. I note that SF II's were introduced in 1967 although there are documented examples that appear to predate the official or catalog introduction. Of tangential interest is that 1967 is when the curved bridge and "suck switch" first appeared.

The Starfire I had a pickup in what is often called the "sweet spot" which is 26.5" from the bottom of the nut to the leading edge of the riser for the pup. (Measurement made on a NS bass so confirmation from a vintage bass would be useful). The corresponding measurement for one 1967 SF II is 27".

The hypothesis is that there are two different SF II configurations. One with the bridge PU at 26.5" and the other with it at 27".

I kept trying to insist, based upon photos, that there was only one configuration. But we know there were SF IIs in circulation before 1967 and if Guild did the obvious and made them by routing out a second PU on an existing SF I then it is possible that there are SF IIs with the neck PU added to the sweet spot.

So are there two different SF II configurations? If so, since the SF I sweet spot was "discontinued" in 1966, is 1967 a reasonable line to draw and say the sweet spot SF II is much more likely before 1967? (Opinions are solicited, but measurements and serial numbers are even more welcome).

We know that several prominent bassists had SF II's during or before 1967 and there is a case being made that Phil Lesh had a sweet spot SF II.

There is a 68 SF II that may be a sweet spot SF II (waiting for measurements). Assuming it is, one can imagine a sweet spot body from 66 or 67 getting misplaced and then used when it was discovered.

So this post is a request for measurements, a public apology to mavuser, and (assuming the expected evidence appears) a reminder to use "unlikely" rather than "never" when I am talking about what Guild did.

Apologies to the metric speaking readers as well ;-)

No apologies necessary and as I have stated from the start, whether the bridge pickup is in the sweet spot or not, there has to be some margin of variation from bass to bass, when talking about centimeters and millimeters, regarding several features such as pickup location, f hole location, knobs location, bridge location, the exact size of the fretboard, and anything else.

I measeured mine and it is very close or at the 27 inches from the nut Sandy reported, assuming we both measured to the same exact spot. But something is definitely offset. maybe the neck is longer, or the bridge is smaller, or the body is bigger, or the f holes or hardware is offset...or we just need to meauser them together in the same room. If there is a difference I think its closer to a 1/4 inch than 1/2 inch. I really don't know. To the eye they look different though and mine and Phil's are not the only ones like that.

one can imagine a sweet spot body from 66 or 67 getting misplaced and then used when it was discovered.

Click to expand...

Again that is not my theory, but rather when the sweet spot bass was discontinued in late 66, possibly a handful of cut bodies got shelved at that time (for the neck position SF1 introduced in late 66). Then when they started to build SF2's shortly after...those "not so old stock" discontinued sweet spot bodies had a use...they could simply be turned into a SF2 bass. Part of this hypothesis is that there weren't many of them, and they are not necessarily the first of the SF2s but rather just got thrown in the mix during the early years of the SF2. Another part of this hypothesis is that Phil Lesh had his prior to the design of the typical SF2 and his was made in the same fashion as those sweet spot leftovers, but not because it was a leftover. Probably around the time the SF1 changed from a sweet spot to a neck pickup location, my guess is at that time Phil was provided with one that had both. The SF2 still wasn't really available. Then later the SF2 has the bridge pickup further back and Phil gets a new SF bass?

Do we know that all Bisonic Pickups are the exact same size? there are so many variables and if you put them all together it could be a fraction of a millimeter associated with each feature. Also there may have been one piece of equipment in the factory, or one worker, that was doing things just a tad offset from the others. there are so many possibilities that I concede the sweet spot leftover theory is just one of many many possibilities. But there is definitely some variation. A while ago I looked at a bunch of pictures and concluded there is definitely variation, but not necessarily 2 fixed locations. some APPEAR very very very close to the sweet spot, while others appear more typical or standard like Sandy's green bass. but others looked to be floating somewhere in the middle. It is very likely just individual minimal variation due to human nature, and the fact that they are all hand built. When Sandy and I get our instruments together we will get to the bottom of it. Almost happened once or twice, and right now is a busy time of year, but we will commence a thorough investigation when the time comes.

Oh my god - get a room.