Where Are john lennons Rickenbackers??

[Wurlitzer]

If John's Museum was anywhere else it would be a non stop 24 hour circus outside. 2 cents.

[kieran campbell]

with john's python strap witch 'Slit' or 'Hole' did he use on his right side?

[kieran campbell]

with john's python strap witch 'Slit' or 'Hole' did he use on his right side?

[deaconblues]

with john's python strap witch 'Slit' or 'Hole' did he use on his right side?

python_strap.jpg (3.29 KiB) Viewed 4024 times

Chrome end towards the front "horn" strap button.

[jingle_jangle]

Homonym Alert!

[2ricks]

Does any one know where John lennons Two rickenbackers are?

They are where they shouldn't be.

[route66guitars]

Old thread… Well, I’ll fix that.

The 1958 and two 1964 guitars (6 & 12) along with the rest of Lennon’s instruments belong to Sean, not Yoko. This according to Sean himself.

He introduced himself to us the first time by saying “My dad was the guitar player for the Beatles.” As if we didn’t know who he, or his father, was. At the time I honestly thought he was autistic. Now I think he said things like that to be seen as ‘artistic’ or avant-garde (thanks mom), before he matured as an individual.

I think it’s silly that there is a debate about the ’58. It is what it was when he died. Sure it would have been nice if it was hermetically sealed after the first Sullivan appearance, but it wasn’t. They’re your memories, but it was his *guitar*. End of story.

[wj350]

... They’re your memories, but it was his *guitar*. End of story.

Maybe, but he was wrong about that freaking white pick guard.

[jingle_jangle]

I think it’s silly that there is a debate about the ’58. It is what it was when he died. Sure it would have been nice if it was hermetically sealed after the first Sullivan appearance, but it wasn’t. They’re your memories, but it was his *guitar*. End of story.

There's no "debate" here, as far as I'm concerned, Scott. When you replace classic beauty and the patina of great history, with the ugliness of a Levitz bedroom set, the charm is gone and it becomes uncomfortable to look at it. It's a train wreck, with that ugly white guard and blotchy Honey Maple stain job. Give me fingerprinted nasty black coach enamel with chips everywhere. There's no question that John was conflicted about the Beatles right until his last days. It's too bad that V81 exhibits that conflict.

[route66guitars]

I think it’s silly that there is a debate about the ’58. It is what it was when he died. Sure it would have been nice if it was hermetically sealed after the first Sullivan appearance, but it wasn’t. They’re your memories, but it was his *guitar*. End of story.

There's no "debate" here, as far as I'm concerned, Scott. When you replace classic beauty and the patina of great history, with the ugliness of a Levitz bedroom set, the charm is gone and it becomes uncomfortable to look at it. It's a train wreck, with that ugly white guard and blotchy Honey Maple stain job. Give me fingerprinted nasty black coach enamel with chips everywhere. There's no question that John was conflicted about the Beatles right until his last days. It's too bad that V81 exhibits that conflict.

I deal in vintage and celebrity instruments, so I get what you’re saying. I guess I have an issue with ‘fan’ thinking, particularly when it comes to Lennon, as that’s what ended his life. You want it frozen in time when that guitar had the most significance to you, and at a time separate from the guitar as it was built by Rickenbacker. You have the images from that era to feed that need. He wanted his guitar, his property, redone, yet again. He wasn’t conflicted, he simply wasn’t sentimental about his own life. You’d take better care of his guitar than your own, because you are a fan. McCartney takes better care of his ‘Elvis’ bass than he does his legacy instruments, because he was a fan. We are fortunate that the guitar still exists at all, and that it’s current owners allow it to be displayed in public.

[wj350]

We are fortunate that the guitar still exists at all, and that it’s current owners allow it to be displayed in public.

Absolutely, +1.

Speaking for myself, I don't think I'm that swept up in the fan thing wrt the guitar (yeah, I'm a big Lennon fan, but I mean as far as the guitar is concerned). I'd guess most fans associate the guitar with its black finish anyway.

I'm just not really a fan of the white pickguards and TRCs in general--I don't think there's a single Ric color out there that isn't complemented by the gold plastic trim. Just a weird quirky style thing with me as opposed to a statement on Beatlemania.

Bill

[jingle_jangle]

I'd be a dyed-in-the-wool Lennon fan, if I had any wool to dye, but I don't believe that this is a "fan" issue, and, in fact, I decry the individual and collective cults of celebrity that have grown out of the Beatles, because in general, they keep people from self-realization by substituting idol-identification (and in extreme, but common, situations, idol "worship").

To me, this is an issue of cultural and historic record-keeping. It's an issue of preserving an icon.

This, of course, is going to raise the point of "doesn't it remain an icon as it exists today?", which question would receive a firm and unequivocal denial from me. In fact, that's exactly my point.

The visuals of the Beatles are deeply etched in the memories of those of us who were fortunate enough to experience their phenomenon first-hand, and who were at "that age"--I was 15 at the time of the Sullivan Show appearances, and I would put "that age" at a very narrow range of roughly an "older 13" to a "younger" 17 in February, 1964. This in itself would take a book chapter to fully qualify, but suffice to say that the qualities of innocence at discovery of life, and energy and enthusiasm at what life could give them (and us!) that they projected, was honest and represented exactly the flavor and balance of those of us in that magic age group (which represented a certain touchstone in our experience and growth process). Now, for younger readers (few are actually much older--63 or 64 would be the top end of this group now...) who might take issue with this, I'm not trying to establish superiority, but the exclusivity of such an age group can't be denied--though we filled stadia at the time.

V81 was Alderglo because that's what the factory shipped over to Germany to fill that pesky order. This color was OK for a bar guitar, but once larger venues began to be booked, the visuals of such appearances were something Brian Epstein was very cued into, and dark colors worked best for him. I wonder if this was a "feel" thing, or whether it was actually verbalized--dark colors provide emphasis and unity, while calling attention to the faces and hands of the performers. So, V81 was transformed just before the world took notice, and it is this indelible image that is the strongest memory of John's guitar that we have from that time. The "Miami" guitar carried on this theme.

The (simply awful) "restoration" of V81 that was done in mid-'70, represents exactly nothing except John's and Ron DiMarino's state of mind at the time, and their own motives. One would assume that John's motive in asking for it to be stripped, was to get a bit of that early feel back into his complex life in New York and America, and possibly by extension into his creative experience. DiMarino seems to have either been ignorant of the guitar's iconography, or to have been nursing another agenda to remake John Lennon's guitar into what DiMarino thought it should be. Ron Di Marino/De Marino/Dimarino/Demarino (depending upon who you ask, it seems) has apparently made conflicting statements over the years concerning this "restoration" and the condition of the guitar when he received it, as well as John's instructions to him.

Suppose John got it back, not even resembling the V81 of its "Cavern" days, and (being the non-tech artist) said, fine, fine, now can you put this Christian pickup on my Les Paul Junior? and then put V81 back into the storeroom in the Dakota feeling (as we do!) a bit let down? I suppose it's also possible that John enthused over it, telling DiMarino that it was exactly what he was looking for, though this outcome doesn't feel right to me. Who was restoring Rickenbackers back in 1970? Nobody! So, Ron Di Marino, for whatever reasons, was permitted to have his way with an icon...

Now, if, for some odd reason, John Lennon's career had started in 1969 and he was a megastar by '70, the DiMarino rendition of V81 would be the one for the history books. But in 1970, John and Yoko were quite a pressworthy oddity, past the Beatles' peak, but still in the public consciousness in a strange way, with their numerous legal battles making headlines, John in denial about the Beatles and both John and Yoko wrapped more in each other than in musical pursuits.

I'm thankful that the Alderglo C58s were produced, and that we've seen many "Lennonized" JG C58s, too, because it brings the iconic visual of that single guitar during those brief months, back into focus. This is very satisfying, whereas V81 in its current sad state is a promise broken and an experience--and a history--interrupted.

V81, we hardly knew ye...

[route66guitars]

I just finished reading the 5 year old thread on the restoration of Lennons V81. What caused you to change your stance on the guitar, Paul? Back then you seemed to agree with me that it’s current condition is as it should be.

You also mentioned McGuinn’s lightshow as an example of the lack of interest in vintage instruments at the time. I’m not sure where you got the information that it was for sale in 1981 for $1,500, but that was inaccurate. We restored that guitar in 1990, and offered it for sale for $10,000, on behalf of John Hall, who had traded Roger one of his 6 string lightshows for it. Prior to that date it sat in a box in Rickenbacker’s factory, broken into 3 pieces.

[jingle_jangle]

I just finished reading the 5 year old thread on the restoration of Lennons V81. What caused you to change your stance on the guitar, Paul? Back then you seemed to agree with me that it’s current condition is as it should be.

I guess I had a good think, Scott...

You also mentioned McGuinn’s lightshow as an example of the lack of interest in vintage instruments at the time. I’m not sure where you got the information that it was for sale in 1981 for $1,500, but that was inaccurate. We restored that guitar in 1990, and offered it for sale for $10,000, on behalf of John Hall, who had traded Roger one of his 6 string lightshows for it. Prior to that date it sat in a box in Rickenbacker’s factory, broken into 3 pieces.

At the time I simply was not "into" Ricks, Scott. In fact, I knew nearly zero about them. I even thought the company had gone out of business sometime in the '60s.

The information on the LS was from a monthly vintage guitar newsletter that came from a dealer somewhere in the Midwest (Ohio, perhaps?). He had it for $1500.00, at the top of his list. Most unusual piece on the list. I thought, "who'd pay that for such a weird device?" (So, you see, I've changed my mind on that issue, too... ) It didn't sell, and the next month, he wrote that he was going to drop the price by $100.00 every month until it sold. It went for $900.00, six months later.

Maybe, Scott, if you save stuff like this, you might even have a copy of this newsletter; I kept all of mine for awhile and finally tossed them in a move a decade or so ago. It would have been something like late '80 through early '81. I know what I read, and you know what you know. Based on that, I'd say that what I read was erroneous.

[jps]

Ricks, Scott.

Hey, that's my brother's name!