Do you think Ric should introduce a budget range bass?

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Sat May 22, 2010 10:28 am

Before anyone explodes. the first vote on here is mine and it's a hefty NO.
Just interested to see what others think.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sat May 22, 2010 11:00 am

collin · Post by **collin** » Sat May 22, 2010 11:21 am

Nope.

Do they really need to? Not really.
Keep in mind, drumming up more business would be a problem for them right now, not a blessing.

godber · Post by **godber** » Sat May 22, 2010 11:44 am

I guess that it would depend on what the "budget" is. If we are talking a made-in-Asia-bolt-on-neck-thick-poly-finish-in-a-gig-bag, then no. But a labour-saving-no-binding-dot-neck 4000 or 4003S is a big fat YES

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat May 22, 2010 12:08 pm

Most definitely NOT!!!

Last night I had a long discussion with Martin Keith about just this exact subject. We talked about Fender, G&L, Rickenbacker, Gibson, the usual suspects, and agree about one's aspirations for quality instrument instead of expecting their dream manufacturer to build cheap knock-offs of their well respected American built models.

BTW, for those who read Bass Player magazine, and have seen the current issue with the review on two of Martin's basses, the fretless Elfin should be in my hands in a couple weeks; I bought it from Martin at NAMM.

windchimp · Post by **windchimp** » Sat May 22, 2010 12:18 pm

Absolutely NO.

There are plenty of other brands which DO to choose from. Besides, a "budget" line of instruments would certainly have something left out to make it "budget" - then it likely would be a Rickenbacker in name only.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sat May 22, 2010 12:21 pm

Where's that pic of the guy beating the dead horse when you need it?

Seriously, I'd love to see the 4003-S return. I dont think you could really call them "budget" though.

kiramdear · Post by **kiramdear** » Sat May 22, 2010 12:24 pm

I wouldn't mind seeing a 3000/3001 re-issue but there's no good reason for that to happen.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat May 22, 2010 12:35 pm

cheyenne wrote:Where's that pic of the guy beating the dead horse when you need it?

Take your pick:

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sat May 22, 2010 12:59 pm

Only if it is a 4003S.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sat May 22, 2010 1:29 pm

Thanks Jeff.

fabandgear · Post by **fabandgear** » Sat May 22, 2010 1:57 pm

I like the fact that when I play a Rickenbacker, everyone knows it's a high quality American-made instrument, not just some cheap spagetti-logo decaled log made in the Bangledeshi Colony on Mars!

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat May 22, 2010 2:00 pm

fabandgear wrote:not just some cheap spagetti-logo decaled log made in the Bangledeshi Colony on Mars!

Hey, that's were I'm from!

fabandgear · Post by **fabandgear** » Sat May 22, 2010 2:27 pm

jps wrote:
fabandgear wrote:not just some cheap spagetti-logo decaled log made in the Bangledeshi Colony on Mars!
Hey, that's were I'm from!

Nanoo Nanoo!

Seriously, RIC could flood the market with lesser-quality guitars and see their reputation for building the best guitar on the planet fly off into outer space!

ilan · Post by **ilan** » Sat May 22, 2010 2:48 pm

Definitely YES. Give the Ric experience to more players!

I'm thinking about a bolt-on model (hey, 4080's were bolt-ons) with an oil finish, dot inlays, no binding, mono wiring. Maybe a single-pickup 4004 style without a pickguard.

Will it sound like a 4003? probably not, but 4004's don't sound exactly like 4003's either. RIC have done bolt-on basses and different body materials in the past with good results.

Fender's 60's and 70's budget models sound excellent to me. Anyway not any worse than P's and J's of the same period (and definitely better than Tele MkII basses). I absolutely love Musicmasters (bodies made from 4-5 leftover strips of wood, 6-polepieces guitar pickups) and Mustangs (and own 5 of them).

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum