McCartney’s Missing Hofner Found…

Funkfingers

Three threads and counting.

TDubs

Anyone know where, the people who had it in their loft, would stand legally on it in terms of ownership? Given the length of time they've had it. The BBC article mentions it could be worth millions if sold. 

Musical_Mystery_Tour

TDubs said:

Anyone know where, the people who had it in their loft, would stand legally on it in terms of ownership? Given the length of time they've had it. The BBC article mentions it could be worth millions if sold. 

Depends on if it was put up there while the occupants already had the house, or whether it was in there when they bought the house. If they put it up there themselves, they have no claim to it, if someone else put it there, whilst they don't own it, they do have an option which could gain them remuneration.

Depending on their knowledge, or not, of its provenance, they could in theory be criminally liable (receiving/abetting that sort of thing) if the legal owner decided to pursue that. If however, it was up there when they bought the house, things the seller leaves typically become the new owner's possession if they made no effort to remove it when the exchange took place. However, in this case they couldn't own it; it was stolen. Legally it should never have been there and never legitimately belonged to the seller of the house. But...

Regardless of this, the owners of the house were nevertheless storing the bass and ensuring its safety for many years, and for that service they coud actually charge whatever they liked; as long as the fee wasn't ridiculously unreasonable (for that length of time, a quite large fee would not be unreasonable). If they decided to do that, it'd almost certainly be a case of 'tough shit' for the owner of the bass, they'd have to pay that storage fee. I doubt Paul McCartney would struggle to pay a reasonable storage fee.

Fingers657

I thought Paul got it back years ago?

DavidR

Good to know that having looked here, there and everywhere, and after a long and winding road, Paul and his beloved Hofner are all together now. 

Paul said on Thursday, “Do you want to know a secret? I’ve been looking for this bloody thing eight days a week, but happiness is a warm gun, so I suppose I’ll just have to get it back in my life. I’ve got a feeling it won’t be long until the taxman  takes me on some sort of magical mystery tour. 

Good night, good night.”

:-)

rze99

They were worried about telling him his bass had been nicked. "Don't worry I've got other basses". Top geeza.

rze99

loads of detail here from the Hofner man.

https://www.debassist.nl/muzieknieuws/artikel/2-29077/paul-mccartneys-first-hfner-is-back?fbclid=IwAR0_JMzRqUPf0AHdh97kawJsyMxGGGg4hQW9rnzRZLLJKNVpcNBFDZ5QLEw_aem_AeQKTbgxH2gLY3EvUOX9j1K-EIeDax5UCwUP_YSUE686K9sj36gXQfT5R_XjwBqRaSU

JezWynd

Musical_Mystery_Tour said:

TDubs said:

Anyone know where, the people who had it in their loft, would stand legally on it in terms of ownership? Given the length of time they've had it. The BBC article mentions it could be worth millions if sold. 

Depends on if it was put up there while the occupants already had the house, or whether it was in there when they bought the house. If they put it up there themselves, they have no claim to it, if someone else put it there, whilst they don't own it, they do have an option which could gain them remuneration.

Depending on their knowledge, or not, of its provenance, they could in theory be criminally liable (receiving/abetting that sort of thing) if the legal owner decided to pursue that. If however, it was up there when they bought the house, things the seller leaves typically become the new owner's possession if they made no effort to remove it when the exchange took place. However, in this case they couldn't own it; it was stolen. Legally it should never have been there and never legitimately belonged to the seller of the house. But...

Regardless of this, the owners of the house were nevertheless storing the bass and ensuring its safety for many years, and for that service they coud actually charge whatever they liked; as long as the fee wasn't ridiculously unreasonable (for that length of time, a quite large fee would not be unreasonable). If they decided to do that, it'd almost certainly be a case of 'tough shit' for the owner of the bass, they'd have to pay that storage fee. I doubt Paul McCartney would struggle to pay a reasonable storage fee.

Stashing a Hofner Violin Bass in a loft doesn't come under the heading of 'ensuring its safety'.

DavidR

I dunno. It worked for the Elgin Marbles!

Musical_Mystery_Tour

JezWynd said:
Stashing a Hofner Violin Bass in a loft doesn't come under the heading of 'ensuring its safety'.

I never said that this was the case in the example I gave, I said it being there unknown (instead of being bandied about all over the place) would have ensured its safety, whether intended or not.

bluecat

Who really cares? I for one couldn't care less.
I would care more about a regular unknown gigging guitarist having his main gigging guitar stolen.

Musical_Mystery_Tour

bluecat said:

Who really cares? I for one couldn't care less.
I would care more about a regular unknown gigging guitarist having his main gigging guitar stolen.

In the grand scheme of things I tend to agree, but given that Paul has given so much to the world of music over the years, I'm glad he and his errant Bass have finally 'come together' again. I'd rather that than some thieving twat have it hidden away somewhere, given how iconic it actually is.

Like him or not, he's been a massive influence. I'm not even a bass player, but I still have a couple of the basses he favoured stashed in my own loft:

https://i.imgur.com/MauMJ8R.jpeg

BobHillman

I find it interesting that people are speculating about how much the bass is worth, when, having only just got it back, Paul is unlikely to want to sell it.

bluecat

Well he doesn't need the money does he.

impmann

He spends a lot of time at the farm in Peasmarsh… (my wife went to school with his son, James).

Roland

Threads merged

ElectricXII

rze99 said:

loads of detail here from the Hofner man.

https://www.debassist.nl/muzieknieuws/artikel/2-29077/paul-mccartneys-first-hfner-is-back?fbclid=IwAR0_JMzRqUPf0AHdh97kawJsyMxGGGg4hQW9rnzRZLLJKNVpcNBFDZ5QLEw_aem_AeQKTbgxH2gLY3EvUOX9j1K-EIeDax5UCwUP_YSUE686K9sj36gXQfT5R_XjwBqRaSU

Careful with that link guys. I just got this from Avast:

springhead

bluecat said:

Well he doesn't need the money does he.

It’s got nothing to do with money FFS. 

guitarjack66

springhead said:

bluecat said:

Well he doesn't need the money does he.

It’s got nothing to do with money FFS. 

Au contraire. Not for McCartney of course but the 'keepers' of it will certainly want or want to receive something in return I'm sure. Also the media always like to emphasise the price of something,it's their whole framing of most stories. I doubt this will be much different.

ICBM

guitarjack66 said:

Au contraire. Not for McCartney of course but the 'keepers' of it will certainly want or want to receive something in return I'm sure. Also the media always like to emphasise the price of something,it's their whole framing of most stories. I doubt this will be much different.

If they were after the maximum monetary return they would have waited until after he's no longer with us and then 'found' it, so I doubt that's their main motivation.

I'm guessing honest intent. It must be very surreal to discover that you've got an old bass that isn't just Paul McCartney's, but the one that was used on some of the most iconic recordings ever made.

I'm sure Paul will make sure they're decently rewarded for returning it now, and not then...