Question on my 'faker.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:06 pm

I used to sell Mercedes parts too. One of the cool things about them is that if they don't still stock a part you need, they will actually build any part you need for any year/model Mercedes to spec since they keep all of their blueprints on file. Business models aside, I realize that RIC is the Mercedes of guitar manufacturers(I guess that would make Fender the Ford of guitars)but while I dislike a number of things about GM at times, parts availability is not one. Like GM, Mercedes also builds cars in Mexico, but the quality is so bad they are considering closing the plant while the quality of GM trucks built in Mexico remains high. Now I know RIC will mever build guitars in Mexico so what does that say about Mercedes business model? I like just about everything about RIC except the parts availability issue. One of the 3000 basses I got was a shell with nothing but the wood. I was fortunately able to restore the instrument and then modify it to my taste because I was able to get parts for it through RIC or it's dealer network. Now if I'm restoring a vintage RIC instrument and I can't get the parts through RIC I'm either supposed to pay way too much for a part in the secondary market or buy a new bass because RIC won't sell me the parts they actually have on their shelf? I don't know what parts availability has to do with a business model anyway.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:55 pm

This discussion has been bobbing up all over the place for a long time, guys.

JH wants to protect the brand and his company, so he sets the rules.

If he were to change the system, how do you suggest he change it?

For instance, how would you prove your bona fides? There is no product registration and I'm sure photographic evidence of the instrument or damaged/missing part(s) (how can you photgraph a missing part??) would not suffice. Restoration projects are another thing again.

While we all may be outwardly true to RIC and will do the right thing, how does JH know that?

As I see it, he can't win no matter which way he goes, so he's sticking to the current system, even though it has percieved shortcomings.

Any suggestions on how to make it better for all? Please be assured that I'm not having a go at you over this - I read a lot of criticism and complaints on this subject but few (if any) constructive suggestions.

BTW, there seems to be no shortage of buyers of fake Ricks!! Some people just don't care.........

dean712 · Post by **dean712** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:19 pm

I'm glad that Rickenbacker is protecting their brand and quality reputation.

I think the current 4003's are the best ever produced. Flame me if you will, but I will stand by that statement. The current ones are the best ever - based on pickups, neck design, and other design elements.

I'm glad that the Rickenbacker name had not been watered down or twisted by any 3rd parties. I'm glad that Rickenbacker has not mass-produced replacement parts for general consumption, or allowed the parts they have to be used in instruments that are not Rickenbackers, but may at some point claim a Rickenbacker connection.

When I see a Rickenbacker name on a guitar, I have a good appreciation of its build quality and history. Kudos to JH and all others on the team involved. This is a wonderful American craft being built. I am grateful for it and appreciate it as it is and don't wish any changes.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:22 pm

only wish they still made QUILTED 4004CIIs...

edski · Post by **edski** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:21 pm

A couple of thoughts on this issue: first, directed to John Hall-at this point the "fakers" haven't been actively made for a long time. If a faker gets fitted with some real Rick parts, is that a bastardization of the Ric name? In one piont of view I see that as a vindication of Rick in as much as sayign the faker wasn't as good.

Plus the fakers themselves are developing some sort of colectibility. Putting a Rick pu-guard IMO sort of reduces the guitars "originality quotient"...spending $ to make the bass worth less perhaps.

The other question towards Dane - good analogies with the Auto manufacturers parts business, but do all parts on all of a makers cars interchange? ome creative things have been dones with Rics, but shouldn't some parts NOT swap between models? Otherwise the product line will get known as a "mongrel" of sorts.

Just randon thoughts at 5:25 AM

rickengrowl · Post by **rickengrowl** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:36 pm

Being the owner of a Mercedes, I agree with JH, since Mercedes won't let you get their onboard computer, i.e., for you to mount it on a Nissan (though you should be VERY skilled to do it).

But in another hand, and there I have to disagree, as long as you are registered at Mercedes as being the owner of a specific car (with S/N), you can get ANY spare part you want for it, either original or able to improve it.

As about the fakers, I'd probably act as JH and not let anyone mount specific RIC parts on any copy.

Cheers
JL

haw · Post by **haw** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:57 pm

I seem to have unintentionally aroused a few emotions here.
Yeah, my bolt-on Dickenbacker (for that is what I've written on the TRC in my bestest black pen) will most likely be a piece of poo compared to the real thing. But anyone further down the line would have serious problems passing her off as the real thing (ie, the neck).
I got her out of a pawn shop for £120-a new 4003 BB in the window of the local music store in Glasgow costs £1500 (good old Labour government taxes).
At the moment, until I get a real job that earns real amounts of money where I can keep the wife happy enough to let me make the dream purchase of a c64, a CS, or a v63 (2 of which aren't made anymore so wouldn't be making the Corp any profit anyway), my little Ibanez'll keep my hunger for the real deal ticking over. So in that respect, its not about "not caring" at all.
As for parts, I like pickup covers and bought em for my definitely not fake P-bass, I would source the original Ibanez one if I could, but they're probably rarer than rocking horse poo, hence the reason I'm wondering about a Ric one. For those replies, cheers.
As for the wider philosophical issue of fakery, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who'll think I'm satan for buying a fake but to me it's a stop-gap. Should Ric address this hole in the market ala Musicman? That's JH's decision and his only, and we should respect it either way. I personally see both sides of the argument.
Are fake Ric basses still made by the way? I thought the bulk are leftover from the 70's.
At the end of the day, I'd like to get a Ric before I'm old, fat and bald. I'm almost 30 and the hair is thinning and the belly is growing, but I'm confident it'll happen.

edski · Post by **edski** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:30 am

Rory-yes you touched a nerve; no you're not Satan for having a "dickenbacker"... LOL

And I think wanting a Rick is enough to be part of this forum. As I stated earlier, your "faker" might be worth more in the long run unmolested. Any idea how old it is? I do think most of those guitars are getting to be pretty old specemins in their own right.

And the money issue is a significant one. Can understand completely.

haw · Post by **haw** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:03 am

Thanks for that.
I'm unsure as to its age. But it IS old. In fact, Im not even 100% sure its an Ibanez. The TRC has no logo but looks to be a home-made replacement.
The neck-plate is stamped made in Japan.
The quality seems a little too high to be a dirt cheap copy. its a fairly good looking mapleglo. But outside of the TRC I don't know how to fully ascertain its origin.
I do remember the double-take as I walked past the pawn shop. It had been through the wars electrically but that was sortable and the "Stereo-sound(!)" jack has been since replaced. Apart from that she's an all original fake!
And though the wife would love me to sell her if I got the real thing, I have a bit of a reluctance to do so actually.

rickengrowl · Post by **rickengrowl** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:09 am

Good point, Ed. Wanting a RIC is enough to be part of this forum. Otherwise, I wouldn't be allowed here

Rory, I also fully understand the money issue. And there are at least two things I have no doubt about : 1/ your intention is good, not to try to sell your faker as being a genuine RIC, and not even try to make anyone believe it is, 2/ your dream of owning RICs. Don't get me wrong, I do share this dream with you :;

But in another hand, I understand JH's policies. They are general, and were probably established due to too many frauds and counterfeits.

Cheers
JL

haw · Post by **haw** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:25 am

I don't have a problem with his way of doing things. At the end of the day he has to look after Ric in the best way he can.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:36 am

Ed, as far as an interchange goes, what I was thinking of was not whether a part would happen to fit different RIC instruments but whether it was actually the same or a supersession of a part that has since been redesigned. Examples of this would be the tailpiece and bridge assemblies on 3000,3001,4000,4001,4002,4003 basses. The original Kluson tuners on my 3000's have been replaced with the Rickenbacker stamped Schaller tuners which look about the same yet are of a superior design and are chrome plated. Things of this nature is what I'm referring to not whether or not an "R" tailpiece will fit a 430 guitar. On the subject of restricted parts...there's a procedure we go through at the dealer when someone wants a key cut when there is no duplicate present. The actual registered owner must be here with their drivers licence and registration. When the key codes are sent via the internet to us, a record of the transaction is made that links the request,sales person and registered owner together. Second hand owners of RIC instruments could register their instruments too in order to be part of such a program. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with the existing program would change their mind if they had to pay $200.00 for a truss rod cover or $500.00 for a V63 Horseshoe pickup. The fact that I have four of RIC's insruments in my living room should count for something.

thinneckrick · Post by **thinneckrick** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:46 am

understanding that it is a very important job to look after ones legacy , It is also important to keep it going !There has to be a happy medium here !To my knowledge no faker has the 4001 removable truss rods in them . That being the case why is John not offereing replacements for rick owners that desperatly need them ? I know JH is proud of his accomplishments and his company , so that being the case why would he want to keep people from fixing and enjoying there vintage Ricks ? I understand about logo's and such , but bad truss rods are a commonplace . As well as cracked pickguards e.t.c. Sure you could get someone to possibly make you a replacement part ,But isnt that really copy right infringment as well ? I believe that some of the reason is that it keeps you buying new product but some cant afford new product and others such as my self dislike playing new product because the necks are like ball bats .I love my Ricks ! All five of them !No disrespect intended JH, But shouldnt we be able to get factory parts if we need too ?

isaac42 · Post by **isaac42** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:05 am

I think the potential problem is that, if a fake were to be passed off as the real thing (and this does happen), someone might think, "Oh, yeah, I tried a Ric once, and it was a real piece of junk." Not selling genuine Ric parts without some verification that it's going on a real Ric will minimize this sort of thing.

thinneckrick · Post by **thinneckrick** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:20 am

A rick is a rick ! anyone can figure that out a soon as you put it in your hands. Fakes from the 70's have no behring anymore on the rick market . Just another excuse why we cant get factory parts ?? Bull %%#%&+)(_