Rickenbacker original vs. Japan copy RIC

[bohousp]

I have two bass RIC
1) natural is Japan copy AZTEC - probably about 30 years old
2) RIC 4003 FG (2009)
The both bass have nice sound. Japan copy have old ric sound and original ric have new modern. I using both bass on concerts.

[weemac]

A nice looking pair!
The current run of 4003 basses are probably the best ever overall and the fireglow looks great!
The 4001s copy while very nice looking may cause some arguement, whilst building a copy I believe is legal, selling it is not.
Rickenbacker have been very protective of their designs (rightfully so) and many of the fans may take a dislike to discussion or even the existance of copys. However there are folks who own or have owned fakers here as well...
Best look at it this way, You have one of the best era 4003 basses! And you have another bass as well....

emac.

[bassassin]

A lot of forum members take a very dim view regarding Rick copies, even vintage Japanese ones like yours. Because of the nature of US trademark law, their existence - or at least their visibility - does pose a genuine threat to RIC's ownership of their trademarks. I'm not sure it's illegal to sell them - attempting to pass them off as genuine probably is, but a replica with its own brand name is very probably within the law.

I'm a bit of an enthusiast/collector of vintage Japanese instruments, many of them were of exceptionally high quality - in the 70s the Japanese factories led the world as far as well-made mass produced guitars were concerned. Generally the Rick copies were top-of-the-range basses and I'm not surprised that a well-preserved example like yours rivals the real thing in many ways.

I'm glad to see yours still has its original badge - the Aztec brand (possibly related to Maya ? Hmmm...) is quite rare. Keep the original truss cover on it, too many of these basses end up with fake Rick TRCs, and good as many of the copies are - they don't fool people who know their Ricks!

Jon.

[Grey]

A lot of forum members take a very dim view regarding Rick copies, even vintage Japanese ones like yours. Because of the nature of US trademark law, their existence - or at least their visibility - does pose a genuine threat to RIC's ownership of their trademarks. I'm not sure it's illegal to sell them - attempting to pass them off as genuine probably is, but a replica with its own brand name is very probably within the law.

Not to kick the hornets nest, but with how furiously people here come down on someone wanting to do a scratch-build, well... there's not alot of people who are going to be very open minded about your guitar. I wouldn't be suprised if you got alot of comments saying to burn it.

[wints]

Jon's post is a good one. As he points out, the Japanese gear from the early 70's was not sloppy, and, if you lived in the UK, or Europe, was far more attainable than a genuine Ric instrument.

Many impoverished Ric owners from that part of the world probably owned one at the beginning of their musical journey, and because of that, like Bo here, own a real one today.

[wim]

Bruce Foxton from The Jam started his career on a Japanese (Ibanez) 4001 copy.
If it's built with the same materials as RIC uses and in the same fashion, it's bound to sound like a genuine one off course, its not the TRC that creates the Rick sound.
Both goodlooking basses especially that pinky fireglo drool..

[antipodean]

Interesting that the copy is based on the uber-rare skunk-stripe neck-through 4001S. I think I have seen just one genuine 4001S MG to this spec in all my years....