The Thumb design switch.

[thndrstk6]

A few Thumb questions:

1.) What year did the design of the Thumb bass go from wenge fretboard to ebony?

2.) When did the neck wood change as well?

3.)Didn't the Thumb come with regular bubinga? If so when did it switch to pommele?

 

[Grgzilla]

Most of these changes happened around 1998.

 

[trujo777]

so the pommele and ebony board is now standard after 1998?

 

[Grgzilla]

The switch to ebony boards happened around 98 to 2000.I think?

**edit last year the tigerstripe ebony became the standard.

 

[ThirdthumB]

Switch to Ebony board was around 2002 or 2003 I think. At the same time, the Ovangkol/Bubinga necks for the Thumb NT were replaced by full Ovangkol necks.

 

[thndrstk6]

I just remember that when I ordered my Thumb NT 5 I had to order an ebony fretboard special. I think. When I ordered it I specifically asked for an ebony fretboard, bubinga pommele body wood, and recessed strap locks. It came with the ovangkol neck without me asking. But on the bass tag that came with it it said ebony fretboard, recessed locks, and bubinga pommele as if it was customized like that. Then when I saw the new Warwick catalog a few months later the things I ordered special (except the recessed locks) came standard.

 

[ThirdthumB]

I just remember that when I ordered my Thumb NT 5 I had to order an ebony fretboard special. I think. When I ordered it I specifically asked for an ebony fretboard, bubinga pommele body wood, and recessed strap locks. It came with the ovangkol neck without me asking. But on the bass tag that came with it it said ebony fretboard, recessed locks, and bubinga pommele as if it was customized like that. Then when I saw the new Warwick catalog a few months later the things I ordered special (except the recessed locks) came standard.

It says the same thing on my 2004 Thumb NT tag as well. The 2003 Thumb NT has the same specs, except (some have) the strap button, which was introduced in 2004.

 

[flipper_gv]

let's wait for mr Rabble.....

 

[thndrstk6]

Mr. Rabble?

 

[maddrakkett]

My 2000 Thumb NT has a 7-piece Ovangkol/Bubinga laminate neck with a Wenge fingerboard and Pommele body. Other year 2000 and 2001 Thumb NTs that I've seen also have the same.

It was 1998 that the neck switched from Wenge to Ovangkol/Bubinga, and I would guess it was 2002 that the neck again changed and Ebony was used for the standard fingerboard. Don't know when Pommele became standard, but it was there in 2000...

 

[Mr Rabble]

In 1998 the old 7 pieces Wengé/Bubinga neck was replaced with the Ovangkol/Bubinga.
Fingerboard remained Wengé.

As Thirdthumb says, around 2002 neck become all Ovangkol, and Ebony became standard for the fingerboard

 

[Lewis]

so bottom line, its not the same bass it was 20 years ago?

 

[Mr Rabble]

so bottom line, its not the same bass it was 20 years ago?

No, it is a different, yet similar, bass.
Different woods, hardware, pickups/electronics...

 

[maddrakkett]

so bottom line, its not the same bass it was 20 years ago?

No, it is a different, yet similar, bass.
Different woods, hardware, pickups/electronics...

"Different" would be the correct word. Better? No. Worse? No. Just "different." Many people swear by the vintage Thumb of the past. I love my 2000 Thumb NT, and what I see coming out today is very exciting!

I don't believe Hans Peter has taken any "short cuts" but has simply improved operations to give us a more consistent instrument from bass to bass.

 

[wasaabe8797]

'improved operations to give us a more consistent instrument from bass to bass.'

I don't know if operations were 'improved' as much as the change being a necessity for Warwick to compete in the market against companies like Fender, Gibson, Music Man, Ibanez, etc. I'm not knocking these companies(I love Music Man basses), but they mass produce instruments to meet demand. If Warwick wanted to be more then just a boutique brand and run with the big dogs so to speak, they had to switch production methods, and in some cases materials used, to keep up and keep their instruments/prices competitive. You don't see J basses or Sting Rays varying slightly from bass to bass, so things had to become more mechanical to do away with the slight differences and to speed up production, or modernize it.

And while they do produce 'a more consistent instrument from bass to bass', I think this has replaced the charm of the vintage Warwicks. Warwick, as a company, was only about 6 - 7 years old when I first fell in love with their basses(Thanks Jack Bruce :wink: ). I own two 'vintage' Thumbs as a result, both 1990 models, and they have slight, but noticeable, differences in shape, finish, etc. and I love that about them.

To me, that makes them feel more like custom basses even thought neither one is. It gives them a more 'boutique brand' type of feel. Which back then I think that is how many people thought of Warwick. Like Ken Smith, Fodera, Pre-Gibson Tobias, etc.

I'm not knocking newer Warwicks per se, I just think they seem a little 'sterile' compared to the vintage ones. Plus I don't like the thicker necks and some of the materials that are used now as opposed to the old ones

 

[thndrstk6]

I own 2 new thumb NTs and they look and sound completely different from each other. I don't think that warwick has sacrificed its integrity for a chance to compete with the "big dogs" at all. I like the newer warwicks over the old ones because the body designs are smoother and more refined. I think that warwick has a unique place in the market because they are not a huge company like fender or musicman but they are growing faster than any other bass company out there. At the same time they still keep the boutique look and sound that they always have. The CS options that warwick offers are unmatched by any company. They will do almost anything you ask. I have always said that warwick is the best of both worlds (boutique and mainstream bass companies) in their sound, look and options. And so you know I do own a high end fender and musicman so I know what they sound and feel like in comparison to my wicks. Here's some pics. of my 2 thumb NTs.

 

[ThirdthumB]

I haven't tested vintage Wenge Thumbs, but I definitely prefer the new Thumb shape and thicker neck......... 8)

 

[thndrstk6]

+1

 

[wasaabe8797]

Well I guess it's just a matter of opinion and ours differ. I have never seen a newer 'Wick that has a body design that is 'smoother' or more 'refined' then my vintage ones. If anything it has been the oppisite. And those baseball bat necks on the post-98 four string bases, not nearly as playable as the thin necks on the older basses in my opinion. But one thing they are nowadays is consistent in shape from bass to bass, especially in regards to the Thumb Bass which is where I notice most of the variations in the vintage instruments.

Also, I would hope that your 6 string w/ soapbars would sound different then the 5 string w/ jazz pups. And by looks or diferences from bass to bass I was not referring to wood grains or coloration, as are the only differences I see in yours, but actual slight variations in shape.

I do agree that Warwick does have a unique place amongst instrument makers, being somewhere between a boutique and mainstream company. They are just not as 'boutique' as they where say 20 years ago and definetly more mainstream then they where. And it's the boutigue part that draws me to the older bases and that I miss.

I guess as long as we all enjoy our 'Wicks that's all that matters

 

[james brunnning]

I like that Warwick has the CS so you can get the same wood combonations as on the older models,and now you can get the thinner neck as an option.Not to many companys are as big as Warwick and offer such choices.