A little Ric-like project

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:30 am

Paul, I agree with you in regard to photos, guitars and what have you where "re-sale" is concerned. The point where I'm concerned is "intent." It is not my intention to sell the guitars I make. I have however lusted after a Ric 360 for 30 years but just can't get comfortable with the neck. I called Rickenbacker and asked them if I could custom order one with a wider neck and pay a premium for it but was told "no, you cannot."

So, I finally bought a brand new Ric 360 and and tried to get along with it. I play it all the time and gig with it regularly. After several months of ownership, I love the sound of the guitar but just can't comfortable with the neck for anything but rythm playing. So, having the means to do so, I decided to build my own.

This experience has taught me something. I have no idea how Rickenbacker can make a 360 and sell it for the price they do! There is a tremendous amount of work that goes into one of these and any mis-step along the way can be disasterous! I have earned a new respect for their production methods and overall quality!

If it were my intention to build these guitars for re-sale, I certainly could understand the concerns of the people here. But that is not my intention. I simply want to own what I consider to be one of the coolest guitars out there and be able to play it comfortably.

My intention was to further share this project with other gear heads out there who build their own and enjoy this hobby as much as I do.

My Ric-like projects are in fact a tribute to one of the best guitars I've seen, the 360. Now I can own the real thing, and my two guitars and play them happily.

I'm sorry if Rickenbacker has suffered the effects of cheap knock-offs and such but, I am not one of those guys. I'm just someone out here who thought you guys might find this project interesting.

Since this thread started, we have had a couple "behind the scenes" communications and everything is cool. There is no argument.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:56 am

The intent may be good and honorable but from long experience I know these kind of instruments always "escape" and invariably end up with a Rickenbacker nameplate. Don Adamek "Rick12dr" is a good case in point; he built a clone "for his personal use" and years later it turned up on eBay with our logo plate and some baloney story how it was a special factory custom guitar or something like that.

There are a few people whose workmanship would do credit to the company but even more who would build an instrument that dilutes our trademark should it be perceived as genuine product.

will_nesbitt · Post by **will_nesbitt** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:00 am

It seems to me that if someone was hell bent on getting a picture of a ric for a card, 1)they would just go to google and copy it from there, 2) I'm sure that they would want the real thing so this wouldn't be the first place they would look.

So I personally don't have a problem with it. I'd love to know what you're doing with this project.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:05 am

hmmmmmm. In my experience, there are a lot of creative people involved in music who build their own instruments and share their work with others.

Hmmm. So where's the creative part? To me this is like taking Joe Rosenthal's iconic Iwo Jima flag-raising photo and PhotoShopping it a bit "to make it better".

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:48 am

I derive great enjoyment from the instruments that I build ...

http://www.3dentourage.com/425/fender-bird2.htm

http://www.3dentourage.com/425/c5pbass.htm

http://www.3dentourage.com/425/5%20string%20p%20bass.htm

And I enjoy 4-2-5ing a Ric bass as well ... I am not at the point of starting with a blank piece of wood and coming up with a completely new design ... and I may never get there ...

I think part of the problem is the way the trademark law is written ... it forces Ric to go after each and every copy ... sort of like the old copyright law before 1989 where each and every copy had to have the word copyright appearing on it ...

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:16 am

John, I am truly sorry you've missed the point.

When I contacted your company and was told they would not make me a custom order 360 I accepted that and spent the money on one of your guitars anyway thinking, "OK, I will try and learn to get along with this instrument. Many other people before me have and they have done just fine." I took the $1200 leap of faith.

Well, I tried it your way. I put up the cash and while it's a fine instrument it just doesn't work for me in all the areas I'd like it too. You make a great product. One that I will not claim to improve upon. I'm not that talented. But what I will do is make one that suits my playing style and I promise you, it will never bear the company name. Yes these are "Ric-like" guitars I'm building, but they sure ain't no Rickenbacker.

Quite frankly, I'm not going to defend my actions here. It was my intention to share something cool with a bunch of fellow guitar enthusiasts in hope that they would enjoy it and in turn share their projects with me. It's that pure and simple.

If you choose to view it differently than that, I certainly won't argue with you. From where I stand there's no point in it.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:22 am

Will, I was not talking about photos of Rickenbacker instruments.

That's a whole 'nuther issue.

I was speaking about photos taken by anyone who regularly accepts money for photographic services and/or images, making that person a "professional" in the eye of the law.

To John's point and Bob Feather's too, there's nothing wrong with building one's own designs. To build a knockoff with the intention of "never parting with it" is naive. Who's to say what circumstances might conspire to put the knockoff back into circulation, possibly to be acquired by someone with dishonesty in his heart?

Not to mention that few could match Rick's quality; the vast majority would soil Rick's reputation for quality. It makes sense to be aggressive in these days of fast dissemination of internet gossip and the resulting bad effect false gossip can have on a business' bottom line.

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:26 am

Wow Jeff! Real nice work! The mix of Fender and Firebird is a natural. Must be a great conversation piece at gigs! Thanks for sharing.

Here's another one of mine from a few years ago.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-7/774043/NCT1.jpg

There was nothing like this available when I built it. Two years a very similar model showed up in Fender's line-up.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:42 am

Bob, nothing personal here, but your designs look very well-built but are quite evocative (some would say "derivative") of popular makes, although with some interesting twists tossed in.

That's a Tele with PRS grain, shaping, and knob recesses.

With Gibson knobs.

That will get you in zero trouble, because the important features have passed into the public domain.

But it doesn't work with Ricks.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:47 am

thanks ... it is based on the fenderbirds that Entwistle played in the 70s ... http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/equipment/bass/equip-entwistlegear-71-74.html

red_rob · Post by **red_rob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:47 am

well it could have been in colour....

....or 3-D

(The Iwo Jima thing)

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:26 am

or it could have been Victoria Secret models ... YA!!!!

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:34 am

Hmmm,
So I built a "clone"?Well, by a very strict definition of that word, If that were the accurate story,for starters, a clone would mean dead nuts on, to every small detail, so No One could tell the difference.The thing is, it Wasn't.
The guy I traded it to got a bare carcass, and
years later,decided to try and sell it.He also at the time[probably still] had No Idea what Ebay was all about.Any hype about what it was, was his idea.Mind you, as well, that at the time I made this, and parted with it, I was Not on the internet, and was not aware of all the myriad patent things associated with Rick.This is like 10-15 years ago.And to those that may recall, in the late 80s-early 90s, you could buy literally Any part from Rick, Including nameplates, with No trade in policy.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:26 pm

My point is that this stuff always ends up out there no matter what the good intentions were at the time of construction. Your situation was just a very clear case in point, no matter what the instrument was.

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:26 pm

I love building guitars that take a well known theme and then put my own spin on them while trying to retain the things that made the guitar great in first place. I won't say I'm "improving" anything. I'm just building stuff for myself.

Here's my "Monocaster"
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-7/774043/Monocaster.jpg

It's a killer little swing guitar with a single neck pickup and a single volume. I made the neck to a longing 25 3/4" scale to try something different. I have big hands!

I have always loved the vibe of the old Musicmasters but the short 24" scale was hard to tune and my big hands found it tough to get around so I whipped up something a little different and I like it!