Your advice on a Ric

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:50 am

It is nice to discuss all makes of guitars.

Might I ask however, that we put these discussions under The Others topic which was really made for this.

Particularly seeing as this thread is "Your advice on a Ric." It seems only fitting that we focus on Rickenbackers. It is easy to get off topic, especially when a few shots are sent over the bow.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:19 pm

Well Peter, to get back on topic. I have seven Rics, no other manufacturers & probably never will have. Why...because Rics talk the same language as me, they thrill me, amaze me & inspire me, always have done & always will.

My advice on a Ric is.....GET ONE!

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:26 pm

Agreed Tony. I have several Rickenbackers that span the period of 1966 to 2003 and the most recent is comparable in quality to the vintage model.

jps · Post by **jps** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:29 pm

All of mine from '67 to '04 are top quality!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:09 pm

Is there anyone on the Forum (pardon me if this is an obvious question) who owned a Rick when it was new back in the '60s, say, and also owns a new or newer model?

Do you see what I'm getting at? How did a new Rick feel, look, and play back then compared to how they feel look, and play now?

The other makes I've owned seem to have fared better over time--perhaps because of their relative simplicity compared to a Rick. Ricks, especially of the '50s vintage, seem to acquire a patina faster. Maybe this is where the (possibly apocryphal) reputation of Ricks being dainty or delicate comes from.

The new Rick I played in '65 or '66 looked different back then, but that was a long time ago. I believe it was largely tied to finishing technology then vs. now.

I'm making the assumption here that a guitar's finish is the first line of defense against wear and ageing. I have the gut feeling that the new Ricks are going to last a lot better than older ones did.

We've already had numerous discussions about old vs. new sound and playability. Now how about actual durability?

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:14 pm

Paul: I did not own a Rickenbacker new in the 1960s, however, the finish on my 1966 Model 450/12 is terrific overall. It seems thinner than my 1990s or 2000s models but the finish is in excellent shape after nearly 40 years!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:26 pm

Peter, this is exactly my memory of the new 360 I played back then for one evening. It was a religious experience, by the way.

Solid body finishes usually fare better, in my experience. Not so many pieces and joints to shrink and swell.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:32 pm

I only dreamt about Rickenbackers back then. The Canora was all I could afford (but it did have four pickups!). Maybe that explains why I was ridiculed by my peers of the day for not dreaming about girls.

In fact, maybe that explains a lot of things!!