Horseshoe pickups on the 4001 reissues

[JohnCovach]

Jason still has a few in stock at $400 each--at least as of yesterday.

[woodyng]

FYI, According to the site,these are not for bass.....but they will be producing those in the future.

[JohnCovach]

My info is directly from Jason via personal email.

[cjj]

Lollar's latest HS has Mylar connecting the HSs on top, which, of course, everybody's gonna remove:

horseshoe-legal-300x132.jpg

Given the title of the photo ("horseshoelegal.jpg"), I'm gonna venture a guess that this is his work-around for Rick's patent.

Comments?

Well, as far as I know, the patent on the horseshoe expired decades ago...

But, there's the issue of trade dress, which can get a lot more complicated...

I meant to say, "trade dress", as it is an appearance issue...

Ah, but trade dress not only an appearance issue (it may well be in the case of the Lollar pickup, I have no idea). Trade dress is tricky. One aspect of protection under trade dress is that the feature being protected must not be "functional." That is , the design, shape, materials, etc. that make up the trade dress in question must not serve a utility function other than creating recognition in the consumer's mind.

So, if a feature is actually necessary for the function of something, then it cannot be protected under trade dress, even if that feature makes it look like someone else's product...

[marcinkus]

I had a Lollar HS some years ago, that pickup worked very strange on my 4003: the D and G were clumsy and thin sounding, the other strings sounded fine, but the reissue ric HS smoked it off. I sold to a forumite who used it for its lap steel after some mods.

[soundmasterg]

Ah, but trade dress not only an appearance issue (it may well be in the case of the Lollar pickup, I have no idea). Trade dress is tricky. One aspect of protection under trade dress is that the feature being protected must not be "functional." That is , the design, shape, materials, etc. that make up the trade dress in question must not serve a utility function other than creating recognition in the consumer's mind.

So, if a feature is actually necessary for the function of something, then it cannot be protected under trade dress, even if that feature makes it look like someone else's product...

That was my understanding of it also. Besides, it seemed kind of funny to me that Rickenbacker suddenly got the trademark shortly after Jason was making them, especially since Rickenbacker doesn't make a vintage accurate one. I think there is room for both in the market personally.

I have one of Jason's earlier horseshoes but have not put it into anything yet. I also have one of the RIC reissues but also have not put it into anything yet. I was thinking about making a hollow body bass and putting the RIC horseshoe in the bridge position and a vintage Harmony H22 Dearmond pickup in the neck position. It would be sort of like a Harmony H22 with the shorter scale length and skinny neck, but have the option of a hot bridge pickup also. One of these days when I get done with school and catch up on some projects, then I might start that one....its my way of getting a hollow body bass tone without resorting to a Hofner, which I can't stand. Those things sound great on record, but every time I play one they have no sustain and sound like poo....haha.

Greg

[JakeK]

its my way of getting a hollow body bass tone without resorting to a Hofner, which I can't stand. Those things sound great on record, but every time I play one they have no sustain and sound like poo....haha.

Greg

That because Paul used a compressor on his bass. I know he used one on the Ric, and I would think he'd use one with his Hof, too.

[johnallg]

its my way of getting a hollow body bass tone without resorting to a Hofner, which I can't stand. Those things sound great on record, but every time I play one they have no sustain and sound like poo....haha.

Greg

That because Paul used a compressor on his bass. I know he used one on the Ric, and I would think he'd use one with his Hof, too.

I believe they daisy-chained two compressors when Paul recorded.

[berth]

I believe they daisy-chained two compressors when Paul recorded.

I just bought these black flatwound rotosound strings because I read over here he used them and I am after his sound on one of my Rick's while he was probably after a completely different sound.

[coolingitdown]

Let us know how the tapewound strings sound on a Rick. I've always been curious.

[wints]

There really is no comparison between a 60's HS and the later, much more powerful RI in the V series. Apples and oranges. The latter has so much more contemporary output, where the timbre of the 60's version is so much more subtle.

I've yet to fully charge my original's, but even fully gaussed I doubt they will sound like those huge 12-14K RI's...

[berth]

Let us know how the tapewound strings sound on a Rick. I've always been curious.

I need to file my topnut a little more and do not have the right tools yet (I did order them). But sofar I think it is the short sustainless ploink sound I'm after.

[johnallg]

There really is no comparison between a 60's HS and the later, much more powerful RI in the V series. Apples and oranges. The latter has so much more contemporary output, where the timbre of the 60's version is so much more subtle.

I've yet to fully charge my original's, but even fully gaussed I doubt they will sound like those huge 12-14K RI's...

+1

My magnet shoes with 8k Sergio coil (RIC form, solid poles) does not sound even like an 8k high gain from the 70s. There is a fullness to the notes that is not like the other RIC pups, be they magnet under or magnet rods like a RIHS.

[pag]

+2

Thats pretty much along the lines of the thread I chipped in on the other week.
About "new concepts" where I wished for a Custom Shop version of the 60s 4001s/RM.
Having owned three RMs and now have two CS basses and a V63FG I can confirm that the original HS
of the 60s sounds more subltle in its tonality to the re-issue.
One interesting point I should make is that my RM #DA24 had a non magnetic RI HS (the original HS pup was missing in 1986 when I bought it) and it had a tone that was almost indistinguishable from the 60s original so the bass itself being 99% 60s original must a big influence on the end result from your amp in my opinion.
Having said that,my 1990CS has the fiercest sounding HS you could imagine.
I like both!
As for the cosmetic look of the re-issue,I think on the whole its a success (a sturdier non lifting 3 screw vintage look tail would be the icing on the cake for me though!).
My 1990CS has wear scratches all over the chrome HS and looks the part of a well worn 21 year old bass so from a "mojo" point of view the RI works on that level too.
The second CS (a 1991 painted white like Andrews RM) has a RI HS with a slightly meatier fuzzy sound when driven hard and not being a technician I have no idea why it sounds different from the other CS HS but its a great sound.
The 1999 FG V63 HS has a more metallic clunk and isnt quite as hot as the two CS HS pickups but again its also got a great sound.
( I recently put my replacement C64 tail on the V63 as it wasnt happy on the CS and the V63 tail is now the replacement on my 1990 CS.Now I am also considering flatwounds for the V63 for a true 60s sound)
Although they might not reproduce the exact sound of a 60s HS,in the heat of a noisy gig the RI HS pickups give a good account of themselves.
To sum up,its a good pickup is the RI HS,and for practical purposes having a pickup that looks vintage accurate and sounds almost all the part but doesnt loose its gauss, it has to be good for a gigging musician.

[teeder]

I love the RI HS in my '92 V63! It's an absolute monster! I also have a '60's Toaster in it that I can dial in some added warmth as needed. It's my favorite bass!