RM1999 DC179

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:11 pm

ajish4 wrote:

Ok, I'm lost.....where were we?

Over here!

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:25 pm

I don't know if v63's are truly representative of an RM model, but I sure prefer the look and feel over the 4001's and 4003's I've played.

cassius987 · Post by **cassius987** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:19 am

ajish4 wrote:

Ok, I'm lost.....where were we?

My bad, I'll shut up.

tallpat1 · Post by **tallpat1** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:04 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Macca owns a RM1999 Its a 4001S LH made for him by FC Hall and delivered to him BY John Hall at the ripe age of 15 in 1965 in CA.

jps · Post by **jps** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:07 am

tallpat1 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Macca owns a RM1999 Its a 4001S LH made for him by FC Hall and delivered to him BY John Hall at the ripe age of 15 in 1965 in CA.

You are absolutely correct, and I too have made this correction to posts in the past. Paul's bass was never in the hands of Rose-Morris.

seyesbass · Post by **seyesbass** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:21 am

THATS where we were!

The interest in DC179 and "all things RM" brings us back to the enigma that the Rose Morris 4001s basses produced over time.
I owned DA24 which is an "RM", but being the same in construction detail and next serial number to Pauls "4001s" DA25 you have there in a nutshell the cause of the confusion.
The term "RM" is quite a recent one and "60s dot neck mono 4001with split pick up cover" would be the description usually used in ads for those of us lucky enough to remember seeing the odd few in the Melody Maker back pages in the 70s.
Its all the fault of Rose Morris for giving their imported Rickenbackers a totally off the wall model number instead of using the definitive Rickenbacker catalogue number.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:09 am

seyesbass wrote: ...I owned DA24 which is an "RM", but being the same in construction detail and next serial number to Pauls "4001s" DA25 you have there in a nutshell the cause of the confusion...

I thought Paul's Rick was DA 23?

ajish4 · Post by **ajish4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:36 am

rickaddict wrote:
seyesbass wrote: ...I owned DA24 which is an "RM", but being the same in construction detail and next serial number to Pauls "4001s" DA25 you have there in a nutshell the cause of the confusion...
I thought Paul's Rick was DA 23?

I thought so too...I thought Macca's WAS a lefty RM?

LOL, I"M SO CONFUSED!

ajish4 · Post by **ajish4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:38 am

cassius987 wrote:
ajish4 wrote:

Ok, I'm lost.....where were we?

My bad, I'll shut up.

I didn't mean to try to silence you Joshua, all discussion is welcome! I was SERIOUS, I lost where the thread was going!

Damn, it sucks getting OLD! I walk into a room to get something, and I can't remember WHAT I went into the room for!

headbanger · Post by **headbanger** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:05 pm

Is this the 5 minute arguement or the full half hour?

DA23 is Macca's bass, I'm sure Pete just made a typo.

Whether it's a RoMo has been argued at length on this thread, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=380896&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60
which is excellent reading for an exhaustive case study on 60's 4001S basses.
I think the washup was was that all RM1999's are 4001S's but not all 4001S's are RM1999's.

Macca's bass was specifically made for him by an astute F.C. Hall no doubt in order to potentially capitalise on the order he had just taken for this very type of bass from RoMo.
It was made to identical specs to the soon to be RoMo models.

The term is really just the descriptor for exports models made to this spec and guitars with an F hole instead of a slash.

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:06 pm

cassius987 wrote:You don't have to agree with me, but I agree with me.

That's all that matters, Joshua!

I wish JH would give us the story of when he presented the bass to Paul. That's one I'd like to hear.

cassius987 · Post by **cassius987** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:09 pm

teeder wrote:I wish JH would give us the story of when he presented the bass to Paul. That's one I'd like to hear.

I may be mistaken but I think he talked about it a bit on Antiques Roadshow.

wints · Post by **wints** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:13 pm

headbanger wrote:Is this the 5 minute arguement or the full half hour?

DA23 is Macca's bass, I'm sure Pete just made a typo.

Whether it's a RoMo has been argued at length on this thread, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=380896&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60
which is excellent reading for an exhaustive case study on 60's 4001S basses.
I think the washup was was that all RM1999's are 4001S's but not all 4001S's are RM1999's.

Macca's bass was specifically made for him by an astute F.C. Hall no doubt in order to potentially capitalise on the order he had just taken for this very type of bass from RoMo.
It was made to identical specs to the soon to be RoMo models.

The term is really just the descriptor for exports models made to this spec and guitars with an F hole instead of a slash.

Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Love it!

Thanks again for clarification and reference to that old post. I just went back over it, and was enthralled again!

ajish4 · Post by **ajish4** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:24 pm

Thanks for posting the link Jerry,

I have a LOT of reading to do!

wints · Post by **wints** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:45 am

ajish4 wrote:Thanks for posting the link Jerry

Tony, you've Jaded Mr Fergusson, instead of Geeing him. It's the down under version!

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179

Re: RM1999 DC179