Rockbass Corvette

Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
911
Reaction score
6
So, I did the deal and got this Corvette. The sound and feel are not bad. Not in the same league as my other Warwicks, but quite usable. But have a look at these pics:

P1020453.jpg

P1020455.jpg

P1020456.jpg

P1020458.jpg


The spacing of the string on the neck first struck me as odd. Then I looked at the strings relative to the pickups. And then I looked at where the bridge was relative to the pickups! Also the seam in the middle of the body, which is slap in the middle of the pickups and the neck, is nearly half an inch from the middle of the bridge, so it's almost under the D string.
 
Now I'm not an expert on these thingzzz..but imho this really lookz strange...:confused:
 
Now I'm not an expert on these thingzzz..but imho this really lookz strange...:confused:

Thanks for confirming that there's something not quite right. It's playable as it is, but I'm thinking that moving the bridge to where it should be will improve the sound since it'll line the strings up with the pickups. But I can't decide whether or not it's worth the trouble. And I can't tell how bad it'll look afterwards - will the old screw holes be visible? Will the varnish show where the bridge used to be? I could try and find a larger one-piece bridge to fit, but I don't think it's worth any such investment. Any thoughts?
 
definitely looks weird... dunno about the bridge work, imho your best bet is to seek advice of a luthier..

also post number 500 :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
definitely looks weird... dunno about the bridge work, imho your best bet is to seek advice of a luthier..

also post number 500 :)

Hey, congratulations on reaching the 500 mark!

And thanks for the comment about my 'vette. I've looked at a lot of photos of other Rockbasses and can't find another where the bridge is so badly placed. Must be just my bad luck!
 
the bridge doesn't look to bad when you line it up with the fret board.i would worry more about that then where the pups fall under the strings the bass looks nice by the way.
 
I don't know.... if this was my bass I think I'd have to return it. My OCD would kick in every time I looked at how off the alignment is. Nice looking wood grain though.
 
The bridge seems to be in the right place, but the neck seems to be in a wrong position. The neck needs to be "pulled down"... This bass needs to be replaced.
 
The bridge seems to be in the right place, but the neck seems to be in a wrong position. The neck needs to be "pulled down"... This bass needs to be replaced.

I hate to disagree with you Flo, because you are so often right! but I really don't think the bridge is in the right place. I first thought the neck needed to be pulled down, like you say. But the neck is perfectly in line with the pickups, whereas the bridge is not. Looking at my other Warwicks, and many other photos of Rockbasses, the bridge needs to be placed centrally with respect to the pickups, whereas this bridge has one edge perfectly in line with one end of the pickups, and the other is way off. So I'm pretty sure it's just a case of moving the bridge. Of course, before I drill or screw anything I'll place the bridge where I believe it should go, and work out where the strings would lie etc. As James Brunning says, what matters most is where the strings lie on the neck.

If I'd bought this new, it would be going straight back. As it is, I'm wondering if I should drop Warwick a line just to point out how the quality control is failing in the Rockbass factory. But since I bought this bass very cheap, as part of another deal, I kind of have to keep it, and I'm actually happy to do so - even with this "feature" it still fits my role for it, which is as the cheapy back-up bass I don't have to care about.
 
Looking at the photos you posted; with the bridge you currently have, even a move as small as 1/8th inch is going to leave the old screw holes exposed. It might be worth it to look at a bridge with a larger footprint. But then again, you said this is your backup beater bass so that might not matter much. Keep us posted and show some pics of the final decision.
 
Looking at the photos you posted; with the bridge you currently have, even a move as small as 1/8th inch is going to leave the old screw holes exposed. It might be worth it to look at a bridge with a larger footprint. But then again, you said this is your backup beater bass so that might not matter much. Keep us posted and show some pics of the final decision.

Yep, I'm going to look the old screw-holes will look if I move the bridge. I'm hoping they'll be close enough to the bridge that most people won't notice. But if the lacquer has faded at all, so the exposed wood is coloured differently, then it'll be more of a problem. I'm hoping that during this week I'll get some time to take the old bridge off and have a good look.
 
Looking at the photos you posted; with the bridge you currently have, even a move as small as 1/8th inch is going to leave the old screw holes exposed. It might be worth it to look at a bridge with a larger footprint. But then again, you said this is your backup beater bass so that might not matter much. Keep us posted and show some pics of the final decision.

So, I took the bass apart last night. Oh boy. The good thing I found was that the lacquer was the exact same colour underneath the bridge - no fading at all - so if I moved the bridge then the colouring wouldn't look any different.

I put the bridge down on top of the bass in the correct position (without fixing it), and tried to assess how the bass would be if I fixed the bridge there. Firstly, yes, Alb was right, I would have the old screw holes visible. The bridge plate would cover almost half the hole, but still leave enough to be visible. But worse still, when I worked out where the strings would lie, I realized the G-string would end up very close to the edge of the neck. So then I checked the neck position again, and found that actually Flo was right (of course!!!) - the neck was not at the correct angle. But actually it needed to be pulled up (to keep the G-string on the fingerboard). I took the neck off but the neck socket was pretty well cut and there seemed no chance of moving the neck at all.

So I concluded that my options are:
1) I could put the bridge back on in the correct position, and have the strings perfectly aligned with the pickups, but have the G-string so close to the edge of the board that the bass might be unplayable.
2) I could put the bridge somewhere inbetween the current position and the correct position, making the strings align better with the pickups, but still be on the neck, and possibly have the bridge covering the old screw holes. But the new screw holes would then be very close to the old ones, so I'd need to fill the old holes very securely to make sure the new holes hold the screws. And I wasn't sure how much improvement this compromise position would give.
3) I could just put the bridge back where it was. I know the bass is playable, and sounds ok. Maybe it could sound better, but I don't know this, and I can see serious risks if I change anything.

So I'm gonna leave it as it is!

On the plus side, my son (9 years old), who has been learning fretted bass has started picking this one up. Despite switching from a 3/4 size fretted bass to a full 34" scale, his playing is stunning! A couple of times I've heard him playing and thought he was on the fretted bass, but found out that actually he was playing the fretless but so in tune that I couldn't tell! I'm so proud of him.
 
Back
Top