A little Ric-like project

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:29 pm

John, I asked that the links to the guitars you find offensive be taken down as soon as it became obvious that it was causing an issue. As soon as everyone lets it go, it will be gone and I won't bring it up here again.

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:34 pm

Bob, that Monocaster looks like the ultimate in versatility!

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:47 pm

LOL! Gives new meaning to "tone is in the fingers"!

It actually covers a lot of ground. Swing, blues, jazz and pop are all well within it's range. I typically bring three guitars to a gig and it's always good to have some distinctly different sounds in your arsenal.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:04 pm

I love the Monocaster. Great idea, Bob.

A Musicmaster with a 24" scale would be a '70s Musicmaster II, I believe...Originally it had a 22 1/2" scale, like my early Duo Sonic. I have big hands, but very slim fingers. I love the toylike feeling of a short-scale guitar. Once I got used to them, impossible became merely somewhat difficult...

Short scale Ricks are another matter entirely (20 3/4"). I've got a 325 and an Electro ES-16. Both kick butt in sound, especially considering their seemingly innocuous appearance and diminutive proportions!

I play several 24" scale guitars in my surf band (2 different Jags with different versions of the Jag pickups, and a bone stock new Japanese Fender Mustang that I got from Japan.)

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:03 pm

Bob, I think John was talking to Don, regarding a reference to an incident 10-15 years ago, not about your links. Great job on the Tele and the Monocaster!

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:25 pm

Thanks guys. I like weird stuff.

Paul, that 24" scale must have a great surf tone! Nothing like a little less tension to get that surf sound!

I'm a long scale guy myself and feel most comfortable when I have a little space to move around.

Steve, I believe John was addressing both Don and I in his post about clones and brand dilution. The first sentence in that post indicated that to me.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:52 pm

the fact that I can build my own Fender bass builds product loyalty for me with Fender ... and with the sellers of officially licensed Fender parts ...

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:19 pm

Uh-huh. One of many reasons that people are loyal to a brand.

And your basses are gorgeous, Jeff.

I've driven SAABs since 1979...losing my loyalty, because GM has ruined the SAAB experience.

I play Rickenbackers because of the sound, the look, the quality, and because of something that's indefinable, too. I'd call it "mystique", for lack of any better term.

I've bought many guitars and basses in my life, and formed a loyalty to Fender, too. But nothing has possessed me like my Rickenbacker madness. It's way beyond mere "product loyalty" or "brand loyalty"; it's an appreciation for the whole philosophy, I think.

Rickenbacker sells all it can make, and then some, which keeps resale very high. It doesn't need to license others to do anything. But I think that it does need to be agressive in protecting itself against dilution of its brand.

telebob · Post by **telebob** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:02 am

Everyone takes their own approach to basically the same set of circumstances. Rickenbacker has taken their stand in the marketplace to sell not only their products, but also their perceived value and image in the music world. Their shapes and quirky features are what defines them when compared to other marques. In a weird sort of way, it seems that the modified versions I've seen of their products, have all been in an effort to make them more "mainstream" in the way they play and function. While that may be great for people (like me) who love the look of Rics, actual production of a more mainstream guitar line-up would indeed blur the line between Rics and other brands.

In the motorcycle world, BMWs are the same as Rics. They're very high quality bikes that are a bit quirky in the way they go about their business yet, they fill a niche and have a fiercely loyal following. BMW folks dress different, ride different, and in general approach motorcycling from a slightly different perspective. As sheer numbers go, they will never lead the world market, but that's not their intention either. They just want to be the best in the world market, (as they see it) and volume is not always the best indicator of success.

mfb · Post by **mfb** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:48 am

I've driven SAABs since 1979...losing my loyalty, because GM has ruined the SAAB experience.

That's interesting. I stopped buying new SAAB's before 1994, and I'm holding onto the two pre-GM SAAB 900's that I purchased prior to 1994 for similar reasons.

As regards the guitar "clones" subject of this topic - there is a big difference between a designer and builder. In my experience, excellent builders have often been poor designers, but many have been so appreciative of a design, that in their excitement they reproduce it many times over, without giving due credit to the designer.

It has happened to me. And I certainly didn't appreciate or condone it.

Had they approached me first, I am sure we could have come to some mutual agreement.

firstbassman · Post by **firstbassman** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:01 am

RE: well it could have been in colour...or 3-D
(The Iwo Jima thing)

Actually it has been done in 3-D.
There is an "Iwo Jima" statue in Arlington, VA.
Its proper name is the Marine Corps War Memorial:
http://www.nps.gov/gwmp/usmc.htm

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:15 am

I still like the idea of swimsuit models raising the american flag ...

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:43 am

Bob, I'd equate Rickenbackers with MV Agustas in terms of quality and rarity, but of course they're closer to BMW in philosophy, being more Teutonic than Latin.

Manuel, if I could find a 900-series 3-door SAAB Turbo ('80-'90) in mint condition with less than 30K miles, I'd jump on it...I've owned several from new and they were terrific cars.

The only post-GM SAAB I've owned is the 2001 Convertible. Not a bad car, just doesn't have the SAAB experience as I remember it. I looked at the first GM saabs back in '94 and chose to keep my '90 for a few more years, but after 210,000 miles it had to go...

Regarding design/craft; my training and career is as a designer, but I also practiced precision fabrication, because in my geographic area, there was a good deal of money to be made in that related field, as well.

I am fortunately capable in being able to build virtually anything I can design, in terms of products and vehicles. I've given a good deal of thought to exactly what an "updated" Rickenbacker could look like, without losing the identity of the brand.

So far, I haven't had much luck in fulfilling that fantasy. It's a tough row to hoe; Rick themselves missed the boat, IMO, in the 200 and 400 series and fortunately stick to the traditional these days.

But wouldn't it be nice?

clearblue · Post by **clearblue** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:13 am

Sounds interesting. I wonder if Rickenbacker has any distant plans for an updated model or a new body style.

mfb · Post by **mfb** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:38 pm

... if I could find a 900-series 3-door SAAB Turbo ('80-'90) in mint condition with less than 30K miles, I'd jump on it...

Can't help you there, but one of mine is a pristine 900 metallic slate blue sedan that I purchased new in 1985. It has about 71K miles now.

I think the engine has just about run in, so I think it has probably another 20 years of life in it - that is if the oil doesn't dry up by then or a meteor hits it.