what is the most expensive ric bass? rarest ric bass?

[jingle_jangle]

Agreed wholeheartedly, if nothing else, than as a methodology for minimization (or possibly--dare we dream--of elimination!) of catechreses, amd possibly in the foreseeable future!

[wints]

Agreed wholeheartedly, if nothing else, than as a methodology for minimization (or possibly--dare we dream--of elimination!) of catechreses, amd possibly in the foreseeable future!

Of course! But I digress...

Pete, I often wonder too where they all are. There are around 20 examples out there that we know of. Have the rest just warped away like John Lodge's old bass? Who knows, but I think time has taken it's toll on them, no question.

I have the letter where DH 163 is described as a 63 bass, and I believe it's a typo, as the serial number is directly above the year, and it just looks like the writer was looking one line up and duplicated. We all know it's a 64 serial, as Macca's bass is too, and not being a 61.

I'll try and put together a database this year. Vincent has practically 40% of the known examples, so he's got to get busy...

[leftybass]

Well, it may possible to assume that the jumping-off point for the Rose-Morris models is January 1964 (DA), for this is when we see the earliest examples of product, not only in basses but guitars as well. There are some 'DA' 1997s and 1998s that have surfaced that have been owned by Forum members. Correspondence undoudtedly exists from the late months of 1963 between Roy Morris and Radio-Tel about the agreement, some of which has been written about.... and I personally believe that some of the samples were started on in late 1963...one example is a solid-top 325 in Fireglo with a DA sn#, inside the control cavity is the word "sample".

At some point prior to The Beatles' arrival in the USA, Rickenbacker converted a 1960 315 into a 325, and laid a B&W picture of The Beatles (in which John Lennon is holding his '58 325) beside it and took a picture....this can be seen in the Smith book.

There are also instruments that do exist for the USA market that are identical to Rose-Morris export models, but have the domestic model numbers and the 'S' (special) designtaion. 335-S, 330S/12, 360S/12, 4001-S. Richard Smith found docs on these guitars when writing his book.....so while most of them were exported abroad, some stayed here too.

And, since the paperwork exists for it, I can't say that Paul's bass is a Rose-Morris model..even though it is identical to one.

[wints]

And, since the paperwork exists for it, I can't say that Paul's bass is a Rose-Morris model..even though it is identical to one.

That is, of course, technically correct John. Whenever I see DA 23 I think RM, even though I know it's not a true import. With the next serial number being an export, well, we all have a right to be confused!

We are, by the obsessive nature of this forum, discussing the fine print here, and that's what makes this place so much fun, and a learning experience for all.

Typically of many Rics in the 60's, the eyes are telling you one thing, but as ever the devil is in the detail.

[rickfan60]

Did Rickenbacker (internally or otherwise) ever refer to them by their RM model names? Doesn't someone here have one that has 4001S written in the control cavity?

[johnallg]

I thought the RM 1999 was a Rose Morris stock number given to the RIC 4001S when they imported it for the UK/Europe? Wouldn't any bass deemable an RM need to have been imported and distributed by Rose Morris? No 4001S was an RM 1999 until it hit their warehouse, stock number system.

[rickfan60]

That is exactly what I contend.

[jingle_jangle]

So, the discussion seems to boil down to one point:

Is a Rick an RM upon conception, or can it only be given its designation once it was warehoused at its destination?

[johnallg]

Well, and I will ASSume Ted will say the same, RIC/Electro never made any RM 1999 basses, only 4001S basses. The ones sent to Rose Morris, when put into RM's inventory, became RM 1999 basses.

[vincent_gallo]

4001s is in the cavity of every RM1999 I own, which are all documented as exported basses. It was clearly a factory number only as it was not a number used for ordering through retail. I contest that the name RM1999 is valid for all of the bass instruments baring the model features we consider standard for a RM1999 and built during those years. RM1999 is a translated model #, a nickname and a term used to describe a basses features and production year. Forensics has no place in this debate. If you guys are saying that technically a 4001S (which I say was not really a model # then) and a RM1999 are exactly the same bass other than the retailing portion then you are only bickering about provenance.

I do not believe the model had a domestic name.


Richard Smiths books should not be used for this type of argument, as the production numbers information in his book may be a tiny bit ********. I own more basses for several production years then his book claims were even made.

A good 1950’s/60’s database is needed fast

[ilan]

Is a Rick an RM upon conception, or can it only be given its designation once it was warehoused at its destination?

I think that an RM1997 is an RM and not a 330 once traditional f-holes were cut into it.

If 4000 Series basses had soundholes, what shape would McCartney's bass get? "f" or cat's eye?

[leftybass]

As Ted has stated earlier, the only way IMO that a guitar or bass with export features can be determained as a product bound for Rose-Morris Ltd. is by the official docs, i.e. the sales invoices to Rose-Morris, by serial number.

Some of the RM1996s I've seen actually have a second serial number on the top of the peghead, ala Selmer numbers on Hofner export instruments...most likely added by RM when the guitars got to the UK.

Vincent's side of the debate has some support in terms of the basses, but there were guitars made that have f-holes etc. but were not sold through Rose-Morris or exported abroad.

Some of Smith's data is hard to ignore, and I can't totally dismiss his research unless something that is more accurate is procduced. The Rose-Morris instument totals have special mention in the back of the book, which I think deserves some merit....he saw something in the files that warranted special mention.

[vincent_gallo]

I completely disagree with John Simmons. As well I do not believe using guitars in this debate is useful and further still John is using examples bases on a variety of production years where as my position is regarding a specific production year and definitive features

I feel Smiths book has nearly zero integrity regarding 1960’s bass production #’s and should be ignored. Hopefully accurate information will one day be published.

A 1964 two pickup unbound dot inlayed fireglow 4000/4001/4001s IS A RM1999 whether or not it was exported or sold through Rose Morris as the name !!!!!!! unless John or Ted or whomever can show me another USA model # or name published for such an instrument.

[jingle_jangle]

Richard Smiths books should not be used for this type of argument, as the production numbers information in his book may be a tiny bit ********.

A good 1950’s/60’s database is needed fast

(Pardon my off-topic safari here for a second)

I have no quibble with the second statement, and Mr. Gallo should be a spark plug in this venture, provided he's got the spare time, as he certainly has the knowledge and opinions and passion.

Re: the first statement..."********" are castrated bulls. "********" are what was taken from said bull, and the term has come to mean, "nonsense".

Could this be some sort of catechresis? Perhaps my correction will prevent that...

Now back to a very zesty debate.

[leftybass]

My own personal observations are referring only to instruments made in 1964.

For the sake of discussion, let's take other RM distributed Ricks out of the equation, save for basses.

The 'collective opinion' concerning the dot-inlayed non-bound 2 p/up basses from 1964 is that they are thought of for the most part as RM 1999 basses. I too am a believer of this. It could probably be proven, in time, that all of these basses could be traced to being billed to Rose-Morris limited from Radio-Tel.

Rickenbacker was certainly building instruments with the 'S' designation in 1964. I've held one in my lap, and seen paperwork to authenticate it as such. It's a guitar mind you, but it shows that the practice was around.

Until someone does do the definitive reference-work, we can only speculate...on all of it.

Common-sense would dictate that if it was billed to Rose-Morris from Radio-Tel, then it more than likely IS one of theirs.

As far as DA 23 goes, it is not an assertion on my part that McCartney's wasn't part of the shipment, it is merely a fact I bring up. The document was scanned and printed in color for all to see in 'Beatlesgear'. It may look like an RM 1999 and is built like one, but it isn't....'technically', as Andy put it.

One thing I'm a FIRM believer in is that they didn't make enough left-handed versions.