Vintage Guitar and Bass forum

Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph

Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« on: February 26, 2009, 06:09:09 PM »
Hello, this is actually my first post after lurking for a little while!  It's a pleasure to be here..and I have come to seek your rich expertise.  

I am looking to purchase either a Les Paul Bass or a Triumph soon but I'm leaning towards the original.  Does anyone have both?  How do they sound comparatively, given both at low impedance?  

I saw that Les Paul bass go for $4000 on ebay last week..here's another one, a bit more damaged going for $2-3K.  

GIBSON-LES-PAUL-ELECTRIC-BASS-GUITAR

I'd most likely keep looking for something in better condition, but is this a reasonable price?  Historically, what have you seen them go for?

jules

  • *****
  • 3068
    • View Profile
Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2009, 09:54:21 PM »
Hi and welcome

Yeah, I have both. They are basically the same. Any sound difference is subtle. I don't have the same strings on mine, and that difference is far greater than any inherent difference in the two basses. Also i've only really used them at high impedance (using a converter on the LPB). I tried them at LI, and the tone changes a little - but I preferred th HI tone - YMMV

Did the Les Paul bass actually sell for 4k?

Theres been one (at least) relisted a lot of times for around that, and no one was buying it.
4k is way too much at the current time IMHO.

The Triumph also has the major advantage of being lighter (the first version is really heavy), and also has switch from low to high impedance, which is definately useful. I do feel the first version looks superb though... dark walnut with cream binding looks great. The only thing I don't like about my Triumph is that the natural mahaogany colour is a shade too orangey.

Let us know waht you do

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2009, 07:36:21 AM »
Hi, I've got a 1971 Les Paul Bass which I've used with high impedance live and low impedance for recording (which I guess is what it was originally designed for). It's a really versatile bass and has some great tones.

I borrowed the Triumph that Jules has and can honestly say I prefer the one I have. I might be looking to sell mine and as Jules will vouch, it's in good condition.

G

www.motherlodeonline.co.uk

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2009, 05:33:17 PM »
Thanks for the quick replies.

The LPB actually did sell for $4k, but it was a buy it now by a new member with no feedback..so I would be skeptical (and wouldn't be surprised if it showed up again on ebay in a couple weeks!)

Jules, do you use the Shure A95U on the LPB?  How does the LPB sound through an amp without the impedance converter?  Is it just a much lower volume? (I'm a low-impedance virgin)

RumbleKat, I'd love to see some pictures..how much do you want for it?

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2009, 06:06:10 PM »
I have a triumph,which I just got, and a triumph I got 5 years ago and set up with  Gibby HB's. It had no controls or pups so I took the east route. I love the  one I put the 2 hb's in . Its a real pleasant player.. That is why i bought the other triumph plus the new one  has a crack/repair on the top back of the neck.  i have some cosmetic work on that one  plus I paid $600. for it.Its solid and feels  like my other one.
-i have cleaned the pots and switches. It has a bad ass bridge so Im considering putting  a 2 point ,orig ,bridge on her.
I like the origional  triumph a lot . It is very versatile . Once I dialed in  a sound on it ,just by switching  the phase and tones in diff combinations you get a wide variety of  sound from dark and muddy to high tight  jazz bass tones . Im still kinda overwhelmed by the  controls but it really  is  much more  versatile than I thought it would be .
-I also have a  double cut Gibby LP bass, long scale same HB's as my older  triumph. Mice player and sound. Im leaning towards short scale bass's these days for some reason.
- I would watch for one like I got . This repair and clean up i have to do  does not justify the extra $$ especially when you get above 12 -1500bucks. But that is just me.
My vote is the Triumph because of all the various  sound you get in a small package. good Luck,M

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2009, 10:08:03 AM »
Quote
Clapsbury Cunningham wrote: RumbleKat, I'd love to see some pictures..how much do you want for it?

I'll have to sort out some pictures and get Jules to post them for me. In terms of a price I'm not 100% sure yet as I hadn't definately decided to sell. Where are you based, UK or outside?

With regards to the Impedance transformer I use a Sure one with mine which works well. I have plugged the bass straight in to an amp without the transformer and that works well too as it allows you to open up the amp more, which with a valve amp is very nice.

G

www.motherlodeonline.co.uk

jules

  • *****
  • 3068
    • View Profile
Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2009, 01:02:35 PM »
Yes, I can vouch for Graham, and his bass. I borrowed it for a while, to compare to mine...

I took a couple snaps when I had it - see below

barend

  • ***
  • 163
    • View Profile
Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2009, 03:30:37 PM »
Quote from: jules
The Triumph also has the major advantage of being lighter (the first version is really heavy),

how do recognize the first from the second version? and till what year was the first version made?

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2009, 05:35:33 PM »
Quote from: barend
Quote from: jules
The Triumph also has the major advantage of being lighter (the first version is really heavy),

how do recognize the first from the second version? and till what year was the first version made?
The easiest way to tell a Triumph (2nd version) from the Recording Bass (1st version), is that there is a very large black plastic control plate that covers all switches and knobs.

According to the Vintage Guitar Price Guide, 2009, a Les Paul Triumph is listed at between $1350 and $1650.  A white one dated in the late 70's tops at $1850.

That $4000 one was a joke.
Huh?

barend

  • ***
  • 163
    • View Profile
Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2009, 11:33:43 AM »
okay, I did know that. But I thought Jules meant there were two version (besides the two finishes of course) of the Triumph bass. So that's not the case?

I also thought Triumphs are also really heavy (?)

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2009, 11:50:02 AM »
I own both the Les Paul bass (aka Recording or Professional bass) and a Triumph (which wasn't named Triumph until they released it in white finish if my memory serves me right...)

I definitely prefer the Les Paul Bass. The one without the built in impedance transformer. The one with the small control plate.

The body of the Les Paul Bass is 5 mm thicker than the body of a Triumph.
The neck feels a bit thicker too.
Because of these differences the tone is better.

Both basses balance perfecty. The weight has never been a problem for me.
Which is quite remarkable because my back has neen giving serious problems last few years. The Les Paul Basses never feel as a burden.


By the way, I prefer to use the low impedance signal. The combination of a low impedance  low output signal plus a full tube amp works like magic.
The powertubes really have to work to deliver enough volume in a loud rockband (like mine). You get a beautiful saturated tube sound.
cheers!

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2009, 02:22:18 PM »
A Les Paul in respectable condition went on ebay last night for just over $1100- kind of cheap!  The only thing is someone had taken the impedance adapter and worked it into the actual electronics to make it permanently high-impedence..I personally would not like that as it forcefully bypasses the whole point of the instrument (low imp p/u's)..and messing with the electronics is sure to lower the value to some degree..

Another one with a little bit more wear is selling right now with no reserve.. should be interesting to see what this goes for..

Gibson Les Paul Bass

jules

  • *****
  • 3068
    • View Profile
Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2009, 08:56:48 PM »
Quote from: ClapsburyCunningham
A Les Paul in respectable condition went on ebay last night for just over $1100- kind of cheap!


Yeah, that is cheap. There are bargains to be had on ebay just now.

Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2009, 03:02:37 AM »
Historically, how much have they gone for?  I would've assumed almost double..Are Triumphs worth more than the original LPB?

barend

  • ***
  • 163
    • View Profile
Re: Les Paul Bass vs. Triumph
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2009, 09:23:15 AM »
Les Pauls are usually a bit more expensive on the market than Triumphs.
But some ask ridiculous prices, like this one for 3,999$. No one is going to pay that.

Vintage 1969 71-Gibson Les Paul bass

 

Recent posts on vintage guitar and bass

1970 Rosetti Epiphone guitar catalogScan of 1970 Epiphone guitar catalogue produced by Rosetti for the UK market. Undated but most likely from mid-late 1970, this was the first UK catalogue to show the new range of Japanese (Matsumoku) Epiphone guitars. Interestingly, these pages show the Epiphone solid bodies with a single-sided Fender-style headstock layout - a feature quickly replaced with a typical two-sided Epiphone headstock almost immediately. Epiphone electric guitars: 9520, 9525; bass guitars: 9521, 9526; acoustic guitars: 6730, 6830, 6834
1971 A World of Guitars by Rosetti catalogueScan of 1971 Rosetti catalogue (UK) featuring guitars from from numerous manufacturers worldwide: guitars by Epiphone, Hagstrom, Levin, Hoyer, Egmond, Eros, Moridaira, Kiso-Suzuki, Schaller, and Tatra.
1971 Selmer guitar catalogueScan of 1971 Selmer guitar catalogue showing the range of electric and acoustic guitars distributed by the company: guitars by Gibson, Yamaha, Selmer, Hofner and Suzuki. 1960s Selmer had always placed Hofner at the front end of their catalogues, no doubt these were the better sellers - but into the 1970s Hofner were slipping somewhat and only appear at the tail end of this publication, pride of place going to Gibson, and to a lesser extent Yamaha. In fact this is the last Selmer catalogue to include the many Hofner hollow bodies (Committee, President, Senator etc) that had defined the companies output for so many years - to be replaced in the 1972 catalogue by generic solid body 'copies' of Gibson and Fender models. A number of new Gibson models are included for the first time: the SG-100 and SG-200 six string guitars and the SB-300 and SB-400 basses.
1968 Selmer guitar catalogueScan of 1968/1969 Selmer guitar catalogue (printed July 1968), showing the entire range of electric and acoustic guitars distributed by the company: guitars by Hofner, Gibson, Selmer and Giannini. Selmer were the exclusive United Kingdom distributors of Hofner and Gibson at the time, and this catalogue contains a total of 18 electric guitars, 7 bass guitars, 37 acoustics, and 2 Hawaiian guitars - all produced outside the UK and imported by Selmer, with UK prices included in guineas. This catalogue saw the (re-)introduction of the late sixties Gibson Les Paul Custom and Les Paul Standard (see page 69) and the short-lived Hofner Club 70. Other electric models include: HOFNER ELECTRICS: Committee, Verithin 66, Ambassador, President, Senator, Galaxie, HOFNER BASSES: Violin bass, Verithin bass, Senator bass, Professional bass GIBSON ELECTRICS: Barney Kessel, ES-330TD, ES-335TD, ES-345TD, ES-175D, ES-125CD, SG Standard, SG Junior, SG Special GIBSON BASSES: EB-0, EB-2, EB-3 - plus a LOT of acoustics branded Gibson, Hofner, Selmer and Giannini
1961 Hofner Colorama IHofner Colorama was the name UK distributor Selmer gave to a series of solid and semi-solid guitars built by Hofner for distribution in the UK. The construction and specifications of the guitars varied over the period of production, but by 1961 it was a totally solid, double cutaway instrument, with a set neck, translucent cherry finish, six-in-a-row headstock, and Hofner Diamond logo pickups. Available as a single or dual pickup guitar, this sngle pickup version would have been sold in mainland Europe as the Hofner 161.
1971 Commodore N25 (Matsumoku)Commodore was a brand applied to a series of guitars produced in Japan at the well-respected Matsumoku plant from the late 1960s to the mid 1970s - and sold primarily (perhaps exclusively?) in the United Kingdom. The models bearing the Commodore name were all guitars available from different distributors with different branding. Although there may have been some minor changes in appointments (specifically headstock branding) most had the same basic bodies, hardware and construction. Equivalent models to the Commodore N25 (and this is by no means an exhaustive list) include the Aria 5102T, Conrad 5102T(?), Electra 2221, Lyle 5102T, Ventura V-1001, Univox Coily - and most famously the Epiphone 5102T / Epiphone EA-250.
1960 Hofner Colorama IIThe Hofner Colorama was the name given by Selmer to a series of solid (and semi-solid) body Hofner guitars distributed in the United Kingdom between 1958 and 1965. The Colorama name actually applied to some quite different guitars over the period, but in 1960 it was a very light, semi-solid, set necked guitar with one (Colorama I) or two (Colorama II, as seen here) Toaster pickups. Although an entry-level guitar, it was very well-built, and a fine playing guitar; certainly a step up (at least in terms of craftsmanship) from many of the Colorama guitars that would follow, and a good deal of the guitars available in Britain circa 1960.
1971 Epiphone 1820 (ET-280) bassBy the end of the 1960s, a decision had been made to move Epiphone guitar production from the USA (at the Kalamazoo plant where Gibson guitars were made), to Matsumoto in Japan, creating a line of guitars and basses significantly less expensive than the USA-built models (actually less than half the price). The Matsumoku factory had been producing guitars for export for some time, but the 1820 bass (alongside a number of guitar models and the 5120 electric acoustic bass) were the first Epiphone models to be made there. These new Epiphones were based on existing Matsumoku guitars, sharing body shapes, and hardware, but the Epiphone line was somewhat upgraded, with inlaid logos and a 2x2 peghead configuration. Over the course of the 70s, the Japanese output improved dramatically, and in many ways these early 70s models are a low point for the brand. Having said this, there are a lot worse guitars out there, and as well as being historically important, the 1820 bass can certainly provide the goods when required.
1981 Gibson MarauderProduction of Bill Lawrence's Gibson Marauder began in 1974, with production peaking in 1978. But by 1980 the model was officially discontinued, though very small numbers slipped out as late as spring 1981. Over 7000 examples shipped between 1974 and 1979, and although no totals are available for 1980 and 1981, it is unlikely production reached three figures in either of these years. These final Marauders were all assembled at the Gibson Nashville plant, and had some nice features not available through the later years of production, such as a rosewood fretboard, and in this case, an opaque 'Devil Red' finish. It's a great looking and fine playing guitar!