Just when I thought I'd seen them all . . .

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:00 am

It looks like a Rickenbacker. Extremely so.
We here know it's not legit because we're fanatics about Ricks. But if my bandmates, or probably 98.674% of the musicians in L.A. saw it, with or without the TRC, I'm sure they'd assume it was the real deal.

It seems akin to if I were to write very Lennon sounding song, and I and claim, or let it be assumed, it was a Lennon song.

Bogus and misleading. And I shouldn't be able to profit if people purchase the song thinking it were a Lennon song.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:49 am

It seems odd to me that while I'm sure it's a very well-made instrument and aesthetically pleasing to the eye with a load of Rickenbacker styling points, why wouldn't Howie Epstein have simply asked RIC to make him something like this..after all, making music with Tom Petty and Mike Campbell couldn't have hurt his chances.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:04 pm

Maybe he did. JH is pretty particular about what he puts the TRC on. That bass appears to be beautifully executed but it is a little awkward aesthetically IMHO. It is not as well balanced and pleasing as Rickenbackers usually are. Then there is the sound. JH has said at least once that he does not think much of the 4005. This bass would have been just a variation in shape and would probably sound very much like one.

bassduke49 · Post by **bassduke49** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:10 pm

There's no way to tell for sure, but the guy with the estate says that Howie's brothers said (so this is at least four people from the real truth) that Howie asked RIC to build him a "John Lennon bass" but they declined. So Howie had somebody else do it. Only Howie would know, and he ain't sayin'.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:49 am

Good points Ted and Paul...pretty much sums up my thoughts about it.

myfretless · Post by **myfretless** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:34 pm

If Joey's interpretation is correct (and it probably is - I just don't know for certain) and copywrites protect the established shape of an instrument and does not distinguish between types of instruments then this baby cannot be legally sold. I'm not an IP attorney, so I'm out of my league, professionally, just remembering conversations with other attorneys. Now, if you need a divorce...

I have to imagine that RIC will continue to do everything reasonably possible to protect its trademarks and established intellectual property, even it the product in question is undeniably good work.

shakey_slim · Post by **shakey_slim** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:41 am

Sorry for bringing this thread back to life, but in the latest Vintage Guitar magazine this bass is advertized as a Rickenbacker prototype.

It's a nice, full page ad for the auction with a picture of the bass in question.

kernkamp · Post by **kernkamp** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:06 am

Well, if it wasn't a problem before (and I'm NOT saying it wasn't) then it's CERTAINLY a problem now.

Ugh. That's not good.

lucky · Post by **lucky** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:29 am

If any of us owned Ricenbacker and saw this,we would want to protect our designs,patents etc.While Ric never made a bass like this does'nt change the fact that the body etc is copied from THEIR DESIGNS.At the end of the day Mr.Hall will proberly have the final say on this basses future.

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:27 pm

I think a lot of people would like a 325/350 styled bass, but I just don't like the combo of rickisms here. It just seems clunky.

A bass like this could be done well, but should obviously be done by the people that own the design language. And we a;; know who that is.

It's the trc and the jack plate I find weird. That really pushes things.

I saw Willie Nelson setting up for a gig and there was some sort of 330 copy onstage. It had the body shape, but the wood was somewhat different from where I was looking and it had no trc.

Still, I wondered why the guitarist didn't just have a 330.

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:23 am

The jack plate follows the idea of the Ric design but that doesn't really pretend to be a Ric. Who EVER looks at the jack plate anyway?

The TRC certainly DOES. as I've said before, that needs to come off.

If I was to win the auction on it, it would be replaced with a plain one.

Calling it a 'Ric prototype' - or even calling it a Ric - is plainly ridiculous and needs sorting out now.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:37 am

It, the makers involved, and all involved with the sale of it will be dealt with- have no doubt.

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:48 am

That should settle the speculations here on the forum threads. Thanks for the info, John.

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:11 am

I understand exactly why Ric don't like the bass and have no counter argument at all.

It's just a shame that such a nice looking bass winds people up.

ilan · Post by **ilan** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

I still remember drooling over pics of George Harrison's Gretsch in the Ed Sullivan Show and wishing I had a bass just like it. Years later I bought my '64 Gretsch 6070 which is exactly that: a bass version of the double-cutaway Country Gentleman. So I can relate to someone wanting a "Lennon Ric bass". But having one actually built, given RIC's well known position in such matters, is a different thing.