This is a Kingston bass that I bought for $69.99 at my local Music Go Round. Over the last few years I've really begun appreciating the low budget basses that were sold under various names such as Tiesco, Kawai, Harmony, Tokai and such during the 60's and 70's but I never seemed to be lucky enough to find any decent ones at a reasonable price. However I finally got lucky and snatched this one up. It's pretty difficult finding any information about these instruments but from what I could piece together and by the more conventional looks of this bass, it seems to be a PB-1 model made by Kawai during the mid 70's. I initially wrote a piece about my impressions of this bass and it's ilk and posted it in a blog but I feel it's probably more appropriate and useful here which is what I did further down. When I got this one home I decided to restring her with D'Addario Chrome EBC80s and do a set up. She is a shorter scale than I originally thought, probably about 33" which I'll have to double-check with my fret scale, and her frets are pretty worn so I'll probably refret her in the near future, but as is she is playable and just sounds so cool. The neck really surprised me. I'm a guy who prefers thick necks, or at least necks with a substantial girth and round profile, so I thought this neck would feel more like playing a J bass. In a way it does yet it has enough girth to feel good and solid in the hand. But the surprising part about it is that the neck feels consistent from headstock to body... it doesn't taper much. But then I mentioned that also in my diatribe below so read on if you're interested.
Well, I better stop gushing about this bass... it may pique an interest in vintage budget basses for some of you and then the already slim pickins will get even slimmer.

      I just recently aquired a bass that most bassists probably wouldn't have ever considered adding to their collection of usable (as opposed to wall art) basses. It's a Kingston P bass copy that I suspect was made sometime around the mid 70's when I was wearing platforms and Dashikis and listening to Parliament/Funkadelic and WAR. There isn't much information available about Kingston basses but from what little there is, I was able to discern that this one was essentially made by Kawai, which by 1967 had already bought the Tiesco instrument company. Some of you may recall that Tiesco was a Japanese company making guitars and basses that were imported into the USA, sometimes rebadged and sold under various names as entry/beginner level instruments mostly during the 60's. It appears that the majority of these instruments were never actually played seriously and not soon after having been received as birthday or Christmas gifts were stuffed into the back of a closet by the quickly disinterested 'aspiring' musician.

      Nowadays most of the bassists I've spoken to or interacted with on various bass forums who remember having a Tiesco, Harmony or Kingston as their first bass way back when they were still new, recall them as poorly constructed, awful sounding and mostly unplayable toys that not even an amateur musician should ever consider owning. However I honestly like my newly aquired Kingston and although far from perfect, it actually has the potential of being a great bass and I look forward to playing it at gigs in the near future. Something else that I'm beginning to realize is that although my Kingston has features or attributes that differ from the norm or more appropriately, are not found on more popular basses, they are pretty unique and just make a lot of practical sense.

So here's my list of what I like about the Kingston that most people seem to scoff at.

  1. The tuners. My Kingston has open back tuners that are larger than guitar tuners like the ones used on vintage Danelectros or Hofners, yet smaller than the typical elephant ear Fender style. In fact these tuners are about the same size as the modern day Gotoh Compact bass tuner. They seem to have a good tuning ratio and are very light so they don't add any substantial weight to the head/neck and therefore the bass remains well balanced despite having a very light weight body.

  2. Multi-laminate neck. Yea, with each laminate measuring approxiamately 1/8" thick, quite a few have to be layered in order to span the width of a bass neck much less the entire width of a Fender style headstock so depending on where on the neck you're counting, about 21 pieces of wood have been used in it's construction. I have no idea what the wood is, although it looks like a maple of some kind, nor do I know what was used to bond the laminates. Many people instantly scoff at the idea that the neck was not carved from a single piece of wood and may claim that as a result the neck's strength and stiffness are questionable and also it's sonic properties would adversly affect the bass' tone. What I can tell you is that this neck is in fine shape, feels great and doesn't seem to have a negative effect on tone... but then I can also appreciate multi-laminate boutique bass necks as well as carbon/graphite composite necks.

    Another interesting thing about this neck is it's dimensions. It has a very round profile and the taper from heel to nut isn't anywhere near as dramatic as say, a J bass neck. This neck's sides don't taper inward as much and coupled with the narrow bridge, the string spacing is a lot more consistent from bridge to nut. Is this a good or bad thing? I think it's a matter of personal preference or the willingnes of the individual to be open to something different. This Kingston's string spacing is wider than that of many modern 5 string basses I've played so that's really not an issue for me. As for a more consistent spacing... I'm all for it. Playing up near the 17th fret feels very much like playing at the 5th fret unlike my J or P bass which fills the fretting hand with noticably more wood the closer you get to the body. In fact this Kingston neck is very similar to, although beefier and rounder, a Hofner 500/1. IMHO, the neck is a neat design that stood the test of time.

  3. Truss rod. It's exposed at the body end of the neck, sticks into a small cavity routed into the body and is easily adjustable using anything that will fit into its holes... which seems typical of these vintage budget import basses of the 60's. This is an interesting feature because it just makes so much sense yet wasn't widely used by other manufacturers of far more expensive basses during the same era. To be able to adjust a neck while under string tension is a feature that sure would have been welcome on some vintage era Fenders.

  4. Zero fret. From a sonic standpoint this has to be advantageous (if this is of a concern to you, which it isn't to me). Many bassists debate the topic of nut material and how it affects tone yet here on a budget bass, an open note will have the same tone as a fretted note because the same material is anchoring the string. 'Problem' solved by way of simplicity.

    However I appreciate the zero fret from a practical standpoint because when a fretlevel is done, extra time doesn't have to be spent on reslotting the nut and getting the slots at the perfect height.

  5. Bridge. I like the bridge for one reason... it's basically a top-loader so string changes are quick... no need to thread strings through a hole. However the saddles aren't the most adjustable design. I'm actually debating on whether to either modify the stock saddles or machine new ones that pivot so that individual string intonation can be set and height can be lowered more than at present now that the neck shim has been removed.

  6. I have no idea what species of wood this is but it's a very light wood to be sure although it appears to anchor screws quite well. My only complaint, which is more of a personal preference sorta thing, is that I wish the body were slightly thicker. A thicker body would allow the neck to be sunk deeper so that the height between strings and body surface would be slightly reduced from what it is now. Again it's a personal preference because of my playing style but it's a reason I like the feel of Strats and Teles more than Les Pauls... or why I've never really felt perfectly comfortable playing a Hofner style violin bass as opposed to a P, J, Longhorn or other bass with a flat top and strings low to the surface of the body.

    7. In summation I'm really impressed with this bass and feel that most of the negative bias towards these types of budget basses are based on bad memories as a result of improper setups (if any were set up at all) or just because of idiosyncrasies that are viewed as 'bad', 'negative' or 'wrong' when in actuality they are just 'different'. For instance, who's to say that a neck needs to taper at all? Why isn't string spacing consistent from bridge to nut as a rule? I cannot think of any reason against doing this... or any reason in favor of having the string spacing narrower at the nut than at the bridge. There may have been structural considerations for doing this hundreds of years ago when acoustic stringed instruments were first made, but with todays shorter scale lengths (for electric basses vs the uprights), low tension string options and better construction options and methods, I don't see why necks really need to taper at all except to conform to our ingrained ideas as to what is deemed 'proper' for a bass neck.

Back to My Gear Page