That's better...

[bklynbass]

Before

After

 

[dapmdave]

Nice... really nice. Sounds good?

Dave

 

[bassmyf]

New Dark Star?

 

[twocorgis]

New Dark Star?

Looks like it. Very clean work, too. Beautiful bass!

 

[mellowgerman]

Dig. 2 Dark Stars or Dark Star and bisonic?

 

[krysh]

hollow?

 

[fronobulax]

hollow?

I guess hollow because it looks like it has binding, which the solid doesn't, and I seem to recall a previous discussion that placed this bass no later than 1971 which predates the solid.

Edit: See here and also note bklynbass's sig which places it as a 1970. Hollow it is.

 

[bklynbass]

New Dark Star?

Nope it's an original Hagstrom...got it a few years ago and finally got around to putting it in. I figure that even though it left the factory with one of each, now it's as nature intended.

Nice... really nice. Sounds good?

Sounds a lot better. I couldn't really hear the humbucker before in relationship to the bisonic because it had such a low output.

hollow?

Yep, from 1970.

 

[mellowgerman]

New Dark Star?

Nope it's an original Hagstrom...got it a few years ago and finally got around to putting it in. I figure that even though it left the factory with one of each, now it's as nature intended.

[quote:1fry2h6w]Nice... really nice. Sounds good?

Sounds a lot better. I couldn't really hear the humbucker before in relationship to the bisonic because it had such a low output.

hollow?

Yep, from 1970.[/quote:1fry2h6w]


Low output? Think something was wrong with it? In my experience they're really loud and beefy

 

[krysh]

...

hollow?

Yep, from 1970.

nice.

 

[bklynbass]

Low output? Think something was wrong with it? In my experience they're really loud and beefy

It's quite possible, but I really meant low output in comparison to the Hagstrom pickup when combining the two. And I forgot to mention that didn't like the sound of it by itself.

Also not to be superficial but I think it looks a lot better now.

 

[bassmyf]

New Dark Star?

Nope it's an original Hagstrom...got it a few years ago and finally got around to putting it in. I figure that even though it left the factory with one of each, now it's as nature intended.

Agree 100%, that bass is now what it was born to be, and it`s awesome you were able to score a Bi-Sonic to do it. I was kind of hoping however, to get some kind of comfirmation that someone actually received a new Dark Star from Fred......

 

[bklynbass]

No, but Fred did make me the rings.

 

[krysh]

so fred is alive and well right now?

 

[fronobulax]

so fred is alive and well right now?

fronobulax, in another thread[/url]]I've been told by a source I consider reliable that Fred Hammon is still in business so if that can be confirmed you may have a few more options.

 

[hieronymous]

Looks great! Bet it sounds great too.

I've got an early, factory-fretless solidbody M-85 II with Guild humbuckers (not Hagstrom - my bad!) - would love to replace with Dark Stars, but although I have also heard that Fred Hammon is back in action, I'm sure he has a backlog. Another option would be the Chi-Sonics that have been used in some Lakland basses like the Decade.

I guess hollow because it looks like it has binding, which the solid doesn't...

Are you sure about that Frono? Every M-85 that I have seen - mine included - has binding on the body. I hate to call you on this, but you know how rumors start...

 

[fronobulax]

Called. The bass in question is hollow based upon the date. However after consulting Hans' book, one difference between the hollow and the solid is that the solid has binding only on the top whereas the hollow has top and bottom binding. I was correct in that binding can be used to distinguish between the two versions but wrong in making the claim for this particular bass because the photos don't show enough of the side to determine whether there is bottom binding or not.

I was going to question you about "Hagstrom humbuckers". You could mean a pair of these but on p. 160 Hans says that the new solid body M-85 featured the "new" humbucking pickups (which are the Guild humbuckers we all love to hate, according to the picture). However, Guild being Guild....

Thanks for getting me to clarify.

 

[hieronymous]

Called. The bass in question is hollow based upon the date. However after consulting Hans' book, one difference between the hollow and the solid is that the solid has binding only on the top whereas the hollow has top and bottom binding. I was correct in that binding can be used to distinguish between the two versions but wrong in making the claim for this particular bass because the photos don't show enough of the side to determine whether there is bottom binding or not.

I was going to question you about "Hagstrom humbuckers". You could mean a pair of these but on p. 160 Hans says that the new solid body M-85 featured the "new" humbucking pickups (which are the Guild humbuckers we all love to hate, according to the picture). However, Guild being Guild....

Thanks for getting me to clarify.

Thank you for clarifying - wasn't aware of the binding on both top and bottom on the hollowbodies. And I screwed up on the pickups - mine are definitely Guild humbuckers - should have just referred to them as sludgebuckers!