collin wrote:paologregorio wrote:
I'm no expert, but i've owned enough true vintage gear to know that build techniques were really hit-and-miss back in the day. Of course this differed from manufacturer to manufacturer (Ric being quite consistent of course), but i've had some vintage fenders/mosrite/gibson that were inconsistent in feel, were hardly playable in some cases, and because of the materials (nitro..) show terrible wear after 40 years. In many cases, the issues these guitars had weren't because of the age/wear, it was evident that they weren't well made to begin with.
This is especially true with student model guitars. I was amazed at the quality level of a vintage student model Ric (ES-17), when compared to a vintage Fender equivalent I used to own ('66 Musicmaster II) from the same year, and likely the same price range originally. It seems like student models, to some companies, were throwaway instruments lacking even the basic build quality of higher priced models. Nowadays, beginning guitarists can pick up a relatively inexpensive guitar that plays well and will last.
Man oh man, if ever a couple of brief paragraphs merited an entire multipage discussion and its own thread, these do.
I'd like to share my own impressions of the guitars mentioned in this topic (this could be a book-length post, but I'll work on brevity here...), which is a unique mix of long-term observation with only occasional participation--since roughly 1964--and recent very deep immersion in guitars in general and Rickenbackers specifically--since very late 2004, in fact.
My very first recent restoration was my '59 Duo-Sonic, ex Ry Cooder. It had spent two years in a closet in my place in Brasil near the ocean, and had suffered climate-related deterioration as a result... the original nitro was flaking, the die-cast knobs were blistering, chrome corroded, frets green and fretboard gray. It would have been considered a condition 8.5 when it went into the closet. Today I would have cleaned it and kept it patinaed and let the history tell its story. But in 2004 my head was in a different, less-informed place.
But that little Duo-Sonic (and the half dozen similar ones I've owned since) were
very well-built little tone gems, once you accept the basic philosophy of mass-produced guitars with interchangeable parts. They were every bit as well built as their contemporary Strats and Teles, with differences being in the wooden bodies and the amount of finish applied. That's it--period.
The primary reason that these guitars show so poorly these days has to do with the fact that they were less-expensive, less-desirable, student guitars that sold for cheaper and cheaper prices to less and less well-off and less-appreciative subsequent owners, until eventually they were trashed. How often do we ever see an early Duo or Musicmaster that
hasn't been stripped to natural and had an oil finish applied? Ebay's filled with 'em! And a '66 Musicmaster II is a post-CBS guitar (from the marque's
worst, least notable, lowest-quality year imaginable, so it's useless as an example of anything save itself.
An ES-16 or -17 is also a student guitar, made from the same materials and with the same grade of hardware (and great HSC!) as the pro grade guitars RIC made. Difference: set neck, and less finishing time and materials. Same as Fender, as far as the idea of where to cut costs.
Amazing value for money, whereas Fenders were merely
good value for money.
Inconsistency in playing? Of course--they are natural materials; each with its own personality, despite man's attempts at getting wood to
behave , it still will do its "own thing". Difference in "feel" is true of all guitars; perhaps less today than in the past, but still a factor in choosing an instrument.
Consistency in manufacture: Rickenbackers of the '50s, '60s, etc...right up until the mid-1980s when JH made a serious effort (and much success) in bringing manufacturing technology up to snuff, Ricks were much more inconsistently-built than Gibson, Fender, or Gretsch. Gibson and Gretsch, being older companies with decades of experience in producing standard, bent-sided, luthier-constructed acoustic instruments, before the first Frying Pan saw the light of day, already had a good deal of tooling standardization and manufacturing technology in place to move on to the next phase--merely adding electronics and the capacity for amplification as a layer (if you will) on top of a traditionally-built instrument. Later on (post-1960s), both had difficulties with consistency, due precisely to their reliance on traditional construction methods, and the increasing difficulty with finding talented and capable luthiers to work at "reasonable" wages within a factory setting. However, this is a tangential issue.
Back to Rickenbacker: Rick's salvation in the area of construction and technology was the brilliant use of "billet" technology--the machining of a hollow-bodied, relatively thin-topped instrument from a solid block of wood. This could be done by semi-skilled non-luthier types at "reasonable" costs, on cheap tooling, and by virtue of exquisite hand-finishing and well-engineered construction and electronics, yield a beautiful instrument of excellent tone and playability at a salable MSRP. When Gibson and Gretsch were struggling to find a place to put a factory and train or obtain local labor forces, RIC just kept on producing, using the same methods, and updating their tooling until finally all roughing was done using CNC machinery and manufacturing consistency was achieved.
Fender? Well, the idea of manufacturing consistency came about very rapidly, once the goal of mass-production using bolt-together interchangeable parts was focused upon--literally within three or four years.
I've found much more variability in early Ricks (pre-1980s) than I've ever seen in early Fenders (post-1953). In fact, virtually every early Rick I've ever inspected is unique, despite similarities in model numbers and production dates. This is a good deal of their charm and, of course, provides endless fodder for discussions of Rickenbacker history.
