What Makes a Rickenbacker "Vintage?"

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 10:50 am

While Vintage probably gets its origin as a descriptor of particularly fine wine, when referring to Vintage Rickenbackers it is sometimes difficult to know the full scope of the definition. My sense is that vintage refers to that instrument that may be characterized by excellence, maturity, or having a particular appeal. In essence a "classic". I would be interested in what Vintage Rickenbacker means for you. Is this an instrument crafted before 1970 for example? A classic model no longer produced?Who decides?

terry · Post by **terry** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 3:41 pm

Peter wrote:

I would be interested in what Vintage Rickenbacker means for you.

Oh, I'd say a mid-1960s deluxe new-style 12-string with the works -- you know: crushed pearl inlays, checkered binding, three toaster pickups in the venerated 7.5K range, active electronics, lots of knobs and switches, classic "R" tailpiece, etc., etc., etc. And it would have to be Mapleglo, of course, cuz Roger McGuinn says that Rickenbacker told him "that the Mapleglo ones are made from the wood with the best grain structure, because there's no way to hide any blemishes or imperfections under stain or paint."

(And who are most of us to argue with His Supreme Rogness and Rickenbacker International Corporation?)

Is this an instrument crafted before 1970 for example?

Yes, "Handmade in America", lovingly crafted, delicately assembled, and tenderly caressed by skilled workers in time-honored fashion at the California factory well before 1970.

A classic model no longer produced?

Yes, preferably a painfully scarce and/or little-known custom version which had to be special-ordered from the factory.

Who decides?

I do.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 5:11 pm

A trivial sidenote to Terry; when Rogers 2nd
[and 1st and 3rd; heck, Allof them prior to his current RM 12]guitar was made, it was "Rickenbacker ,Inc.", Not RIC.

squirebass · Post by **squirebass** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 11:05 pm

My '73 Rick 4001 is probably not considered a "vintage" instrument by many collectors, and my '93 4001v63 certainly wouldn't be. But the thing that has always struck me about Ricks is the overall quality. I've owned quite a few, and I've definitely had my favorites, but unlike those Norlin era G*****'s or CBS F*****'s it has been my experience that most of them play pretty well, and I enjoy the hell outta playin' all of them!

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Sat Oct 14, 2000 12:54 am

Well my turn guys

I agree with "Squirebass" about the quality of Rickenbackers.Even with all of the funny little quirks.

Most of the instruments that were made in the 1972 to 1983 era of USA manufacturing are lame/****/junk ....what ever adjective you want to call them.The corporate mentality of the USA owned companies really put out a **** poor 'Tool' in that time frame.Poor Martin tried to keep up to keep from being bought out by some 'suit'.And there are a lot of lame Martins from that decade.

But ...for the most part ,the Rickenbackers are pretty darned good.

I'm not saying that they could not have been better...just that if you compare a 1969 360 and a 1974 360 ,they are not that far apart in quality.
However you can't say that about a Fender maple necked Strat ,or a Gibson LesPaul Standard.

Flame away guys

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Sat Oct 14, 2000 12:55 am

And by the way Tomcat ...I'm the real one that decides.

Next thing you know Don will claim this!

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:48 am

Squirebass: The 1973 4001 meets the standard for excellence and appeal although you raise an interesting question with regard to what may be referred to as the maturity factor. Maturity does not have to mean antique, of course, so it is a judgement call whether we refer to this instrument as "Vintage". If it meets the standard of excellence and appeal it certainly would be an instrument of "1970s vintage." So it would seem that its ultimate vintage status hangs, in the balance, on its age. So is it old enough? If it was a 1969 would that do it?

For these times, it seems to me that if it is a 1960s instrument or older then it is likely to be considered vintage. So as the years go by, then your 1970s Rickenbacker should eventually become vintage. The question is, does the simple passage of time for high quality instruments determine the concept of "Vintage" or is vintage defined as an important era designated by a particular generation or cohort?

So what do you think?

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Sat Oct 14, 2000 5:48 pm

And by the way "Mark", I 'm the one who decides,
not you, not Terry, but Only because I was into Ricks before Either of you.And while I didn't
then or now own a Roger-owned 12, nonetheless, I
personally had the experience of Having it done on my very own 360-12[the factory-aftermarket
conversion to Byrd wiring].So am I implying "you are not Worthy"? Oh, please, give me a break.Time to kick over some "sacred cows"....

squirebass · Post by **squirebass** » Sat Oct 14, 2000 9:05 pm

The question is, does the simple passage of time for high quality instruments determine the concept of "Vintage" or is vintage defined as an important era designated by a particular generation or cohort?

So what do you think?

I'd say both...
But the point I was trying to make is that Ricks generally have a very high "playability". I've rarely seen a bad one. A few years ago I came very close to buying a '68 burgundyglo 4001, until it became clear that the instrument was very worn(nearly half the finish was gone) and the horseshoe was demagnitizing or deguassing(is that the word for it?).
After that I realized that my '73 answers my needs for a quality instrument that I enjoy playing every time I pick it up, even if it wouldn't be as valued by a collector as the '68 would. And the fact that the wise and talented Arnquist may have actually worked on my '73 when it was new, well, how can you put a $ value on that!!!

terry · Post by **terry** » Sat Oct 14, 2000 10:35 pm

Dr. wrote:

A trivial sidenote to Terry; when Roger's 2nd [and 1st and 3rd; heck, All of them prior to his current RM 12] guitar was made, it was "Rickenbacker, Inc.", Not RIC.

Agreed, Don, but perhaps you could show me where I stated otherwise.

Peter wrote:

I would be interested in what Vintage Rickenbacker means for you....Who decides?

I do.

Mark the MD wrote:

And by the way Tomcat ...I'm the real one that decides.

Next thing you know Don will claim this!

Thought he wouldn't? <g>

Dr. wrote:

And by the way "Mark", I'm the one who decides....

I have decided that each of the above-quoted answers is correct since, presumably, each one of us decides for himself what "Vintage Rickenbacker" means.

BTW, did I forget to specify full-width crushed pearl inlays? Oh, how careless of me. <g>

Peter wrote:

The question is, does the simple passage of time for high quality instruments determine the concept of "Vintage" or is vintage defined as an important era designated by a particular generation or cohort?

Vintage. Dictionary.com's definition. George Gruhn's definition.

Your mileage may vary (depending on what you decide, of course). <g>

squirebass wrote:

And the fact that the wise and talented Arnquist may have actually worked on my '73 when it was new, well, how can you put a $ value on that!!!

If the Sacred Lord Arnquist participated in the original manufacture of your Rickenbacker bass, how can it be anything less than an holy instrument? <g>

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 1:28 pm

Thanks for this Terry. Gruhn's definition is most interesting and complex. From his site, that you have referenced, he maintains "Age alone is not the determining factor in what makes an investment grade instrument. Guitars, mandolins and banjos are judged by maker, model, age, degree of originality, structural and cosmetic condition, historical importance, rarity, and sound and playability." This must be a difficult algorithm to compute sometimes but his point is well taken. As he says "Knowledge is Power" and so it must take a lot of detective work and years of experience to get it right. Although his definition is certainly multifactorial, if I am not taking too much liberty with his view, he relies on the "Classic" factor which is highly qualitative in nature.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 5:51 pm

Terry, I'm not saying you Did state otherwise;I'm
just reiterating[you've been known to do that on
occasion[???]And while we're on it, even More rare than a Rick bass Mark worked on , is one I worked on[any from June '72 to Oct.'72}My main job, BTW, was making the body halves;all the way from the raw boards in the lumber storing building,to putting binding on them.In the first week I was there, I got a Really dirty job; making
the truss rods from raw steel stock.I think I recall making enough for 800 instruments[thats
1600 of them!]And All for basses Only!

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 6:00 pm

Terry,
And ,Yes, that's correct that"we are All right" as far as who decides what is vintage.
Example; You can find[and I did back in '92 or so]
a Rick 12, roundtop, crushed pearl, 21 frets,
checked binding, toaster PUs; in short, a "classic
60s Rick 360-12".Except for one thing; this was
one of the tail end of "60s features" instruments
made in the 70s.This 12 I had was a '73 by the jackplate.An unscrupulous dealer could easily have switched plates with, say, a broken actual 60s model and this '73, and No one would have known.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 6:26 pm

Don: Thanks for this great comment about finding the 1970s Rickenbacker which was at "the tail end of 60s feature instruments." This is illustrative of the "Classic" concept to which Gruhn refers and is not linked to a particular time period per se.

terry · Post by **terry** » Wed Oct 18, 2000 6:05 am

Peter wrote:

Thanks for this Terry.

No problem, Peter. It's an old article. Thanks for correcting the error in my previous posting.

Gruhn's definition is most interesting and complex.

I've always liked this introductory part:

Quote:Fine American-made vintage guitars . . . are the ultimate forms of collectible art. Whereas a painting can be experienced only visually, and a piece of sculpture may be seen and touched, a fine musical instrument can be appreciated visually in much the same manner as a painting, can be handled or touched as a sculpture, but also produces sound. . . . A good instrument comes alive when played and has a distinct personality and soul of its own. Collectible instruments may be appreciated as beautiful visual art, important pieces of history, technological marvels, acoustical wonders, and great investments. I can think of no other form of art which can be appreciated on so many different levels.

Collecting Vintage Musical Instruments by George Gruhn And this part, too:

Quote:Vintage instruments made during the so-called "golden era" for guitars . . . are the items most sought by collectors and which have appreciated the most in recent years. . . . The golden era for collectible electric instruments is the 1950s through mid 1960s.

Collecting Vintage Musical Instruments by George Gruhn Here are some additional quotes from Mr. Gruhn concerning Rickenbackers in particular:

Quote:Rickenbacker was the first company to successfully market electric guitars . . . . The most sought after hollowbody models are those from the 1950s and 1960s, particularly those with old-style pickups and fancier ornamentation (checkered binding, sparkle inlay).

Ironically, Rickenbacker was a late entry into the postwar electric guitar market, but its designs for solidbody and hollowbody models were (and still are) unique and distinctive from those of all other makers. The Rickenbacker sound, too, is unique. . . . Rickenbackers from the 1970s are not highly sought after by collectors but are considered fine utility instruments by those players who prefer the Rickenbacker sound. . . . Considering Rickenbacker's history and reputation, it has remained a very small company compared to Fender or Gibson. . . . Before 1966, which was a boom year for Rickenbacker, almost all models could be called rare in comparison to many Fender and Gibson models.

Gruhn's Guide To Vintage Guitars [1st edition, 1991], George Gruhn & Walter Carter, pages 310-11 & 315-16
Dr. wrote:

Terry, I'm not saying you Did state otherwise; I'm just reiterating [you've been known to do that on occasion???]

No, Don, you must have me confused with some other "Tomcat". <g>

And while we're on it, even More rare than a Rick bass Mark worked on, is one I worked on [any from June '72 to Oct. '72].

Just how rare and holy can a Rick bass get? <g>

Terry, And, Yes, that's correct that "we are All right" as far as who decides what is vintage.

Thought it wasn't? "One man's trash is another man's treasure." (Now there's something I've probably "reiterated on occasion.") <g>

Example; You can find [and I did back in '92 or so] a Rick 12, roundtop, crushed pearl, 21 frets, checked binding, toaster PUs; in short, a "classic 60s Rick 360-12". Except for one thing; this was one of the tail end of "60s features" instruments made in the 70s. This 12 I had was a '73 by the jackplate.

Peter responded:

This is illustrative of the "Classic" concept to which Gruhn refers and is not linked to a particular time period per se.

So Don Andrews' 1972 Mapleglo Model 370/12Byrd might be considered a "Vintage Rickenbacker" in the "Classic" sense, while Andy Brauer's 1973+[?] Mapleglo Model 370/12Byrd would not??

Questions for the Dr. and/or Lord Arnquist ("nobody was really sure if he was from the House of Lords"):

What year would you date Andy Brauer's Rickenbacker 370/12Byrd? (It certainly doesn't appear to be a "65 Rickenbacker 12 String".) What was the first year of the less than full-width poured resin fretmarker inlays, as seen on the Andy Brauer Rick? Also, what about the thin narrow neckstripe on the Andy Brauer Rick as compared to the thick neckstripe on Don Andrews' Rick? Was there some sort of changeover in neck design or construction, too?