MAD...VERY VERY MAD...YES. FURIOUS...PLS READ

[jingle_jangle]

One of the simplest, most basic tenets, which finds greater and greater acceptance among otherwise smart people is the notion that the market "speaks", therefore it must be accommodated without ethical consideration. In other words, "If it sells, it's good."

I never said that this is a "good" thing (and I'm on your side with this issue). I merely pointed out that in spite of our best efforts there is not a whole lot one can do to reverse the trend. The market dictates many aspects of our lives, some way, way more important than parceling out a guitar, health care and gasoline prices come to mind. It's part of the price (no pun intended ) we pay for a supposed "free" market. In other words, I can't tell you what to sell or how to sell it if you own it and put it out there, whether it's whole or in parts.

I think what we can all do is stick to our own set of ethics when wheeling and dealing. Unfortunately there is not much one can do when selling to someone you don't know, e.g. via e-Bay. But with a bit of digging you can get a pretty good idea of a person's intentions. This is one reason I try to sell and buy most of my stuff locally, and in many cases from people I know.

John, my post wasn't in the nature of opposition, but rather an expansion. We have the same views and conclusion.

[analogpackrat]

Thinking that Ricks overall were built superior prior to an arbitrary date for no other reason than your own subjective reasons (like sound and appearance) is corksniffing.

I beg to differ. It's a musical instrument and the sound and playability, however subjective they may be, are of primary concern to the player (not the collector). My third favorite Rick is a 1996 360-12WB which is clearly not vintage. I knew I had to have it the first time I strummed a big open E chord at the store.

That being said, I would love to hear somebody tell me how a guy using a manually operated router that would routinely torpedo guitar necks into the wall is doing a better job shaping a neck crafted the same way every time by a CNC machine that scraps a guitar neck maybe a few times per year.

Understanding that Ricks built according only to the tolerances and repeatabillity barely imagined 20 years (nevermind 40 years ago) and finish applications (UV) only very recently perfected by a minority of the most renowned guitarmakers on Earth is acknowledgement that the march towards higher quality continues every day at RIC.

Being an engineer myself, I do understand the desire to streamline production, reduce costs, etc. But as a player, why should I care about your old neck router vs. CNC tolerances and repeatability if it doesn't improve my experience? Just because you can build identical shapes doesn't make them better, does it? You start with wood that has variable characteristics, so there is still going to be variation in the final product, right? I can see how CNC could make for more consistent joinery and thus a more stable and long-lasting instrument.

I should also clarify my earlier point about preferring older Ricks. I never said the more recent ones were bad. I have four made since 1992, so obviously I still like the newer ones, too. I just don't get the argument that your ease of production has anything to do with my experience playing the instrument. I fully appreciate that you have a company to run and there are a lot of tradeoffs involved. Just don't lose sight of the purpose of the production (I don't think you have).

[jingle_jangle]

It ain't black and white. It's a matter of drawing the line for maximum benefit to both maker and user.

[analogpackrat]

It ain't black and white. It's a matter of drawing the line for maximum benefit to both maker and user.

Like I said--tradeoffs are clearly there. I get it. Let's just be honest about the fact that the modern means of production are not purely for the improvement of the article as an instrument. If they were all hand made masterworks most of us couldn't afford them!

[jingle_jangle]

My comments were in the interest of clarification, not conflict...

[RIC_FACTORY]

Thinking that Ricks overall were built superior prior to an arbitrary date for no other reason than your own subjective reasons (like sound and appearance) is corksniffing.

I beg to differ. It's a musical instrument and the sound and playability, however subjective they may be, are of primary concern to the player (not the collector). My third favorite Rick is a 1996 360-12WB which is clearly not vintage. I knew I had to have it the first time I strummed a big open E chord at the store.

That being said, I would love to hear somebody tell me how a guy using a manually operated router that would routinely torpedo guitar necks into the wall is doing a better job shaping a neck crafted the same way every time by a CNC machine that scraps a guitar neck maybe a few times per year.

Understanding that Ricks built according only to the tolerances and repeatabillity barely imagined 20 years (nevermind 40 years ago) and finish applications (UV) only very recently perfected by a minority of the most renowned guitarmakers on Earth is acknowledgement that the march towards higher quality continues every day at RIC.

Being an engineer myself, I do understand the desire to streamline production, reduce costs, etc. But as a player, why should I care about your old neck router vs. CNC tolerances and repeatability if it doesn't improve my experience? Just because you can build identical shapes doesn't make them better, does it? You start with wood that has variable characteristics, so there is still going to be variation in the final product, right? I can see how CNC could make for more consistent joinery and thus a more stable and long-lasting instrument.

I should also clarify my earlier point about preferring older Ricks. I never said the more recent ones were bad. I have four made since 1992, so obviously I still like the newer ones, too. I just don't get the argument that your ease of production has anything to do with my experience playing the instrument. I fully appreciate that you have a company to run and there are a lot of tradeoffs involved. Just don't lose sight of the purpose of the production (I don't think you have).

I did not say, and I never will say, that better production methods will necessarily improve YOUR experience (read exactly and only what I said). What you're responding to is not an argument that I was making. Some folks are only vintage folks, some are only new instrument folks, most, I think, are a bit of both. My only point is, as you apparently do recognize, that building methods are much better now. What is clearly not up for debate is whether or not using a saw to manually cut frets slots is better than having a CNC machine do that operation with pinpoint accuracy. Or, if we're talking about paint, whether or not a 90% solids coating is going to hold up better over the long run than a 20% solids coating.

That being said, I would suggest tacking this discussion on to one of the numerous Old v New threads that exist since this is not the reason why the OP started this thread.

[rickenbrother]

I would suggest tacking this discussion on to one of the numerous Old v New threads that exist since this is not the reason why the OP started this thread.

The discussion has sort of "Jumped the shark", hasn't it!

[sloop_john_b]

I'd like to add my 2 cents but I'll wait for a new thread if there's one forthcoming. This thread so far has been a good read. I don't think its "jumped the shark" at all.

[rickenbrother]

I'd like to add my 2 cents but I'll wait for a new thread if there's one forthcoming. This thread so far has been a good read. I don't think its "jumped the shark" at all.

Well it sure got derailed!

[admin]

Most threads experience drift of one sort or another. Has this one veered away from the garden path, yes.

That it has moved toward a discussion of the merits of vintage versus modern, or hand work versus computer technology surely points to the depth of RRF members' views when it comes to this plot.

I think we have changed rows a couple of times here but through additional cultivation we have seen new growth.

[idealassets]

This has got to be one of the most effing bone-headed things I have ever seen. What a crock of ****.

I can understand your dismay. Other than for musical instruments and old Harleys, once something is sold, its gone. The buyer can do whatever he wants to with it.

You never know, maybe an accident happened and something on it was broken or ruined, so he did what he had to do.

As has been told to me in my experience with items for sale- "onc e its gone, its gone".

Craig

[Grey]

Thinking that Ricks overall were built superior prior to an arbitrary date for no other reason than your own subjective reasons (like sound and appearance) is corksniffing. That being said, I would love to hear somebody tell me how a guy using a manually operated router that would routinely torpedo guitar necks into the wall is doing a better job shaping a neck crafted the same way every time by a CNC machine that scraps a guitar neck maybe a few times per year.

Understanding that Ricks built according only to the tolerances and repeatabillity barely imagined 20 years (nevermind 40 years ago) and finish applications (UV) only very recently perfected by a minority of the most renowned guitarmakers on Earth is acknowledgement that the march towards higher quality continues every day at RIC.

Could have used that level headed advice in this thread. viewtopic.php?f=104&t=405149

[IHeartRics]

This situation reminds me of a '69 Chevelle Malibu 2-door I had. Yes it had the wimpy 307 but overall she was a nice looking car and could have been restored, even converted into an SS, if done properly. I sold it to a guy who said he fixes up and restores old cars and he was going to really do a number on her. He sure did. A few months later he pulls up in my drive ( I knew as the house was shaking). He chopped her up with with a poorly cut engine hood with a blower sticking out, put black Ford Mustang bucket seats in a blue interior, skinny tires on the front and puppy squashers on the back (so big they were eating up the fenders). He drilled and mounted cheap a K-Mart guages on perfectly nice, uncracked or faded dash. I nearly cried. He said, "What do you think?". I said, "Get out." and walked back in the house. Here she is when I had her.

If a guitar is damaged to a point it's worth parting, do it. But if it's perfectly fine the way it is, leave it the way it is. That's just my opinion.

Regarding vintage versus modern, Ben, I like the 21 fretter 330's and 360's better.

[Rickissippi]

There's another shop on there called the "Stratosphere" that does the same thing, though mostly with Fenders, which i suppose seems at least somewhat more acceptable to many since they were envisioned as assembly line bolt-together instruments from identical parts, and since so many Fender owners or Fender-style owners, assemble their own guitars from different parts now, anyway. I agree with those on here who say, "hey, it's his property now, and he's entitled to do with it what he wants," but I do see how it's annoying, too, no heartbreaking to see a Rick stripped and parted out. I don't think anyone on here really believes he shouldn't have the right to do it, just that we - as Rick lovers - hate to see it done.

[pag]

This thread has highlighted some issues that I think could be averted to some extent.
The vintage vs modern aspect has no relevance to an asset stripper which is effectively what a buyer who breaks down an instrument
for spares at a profit is engaged in.
For some time now I have longed to see a modern replacement aluminium bridge/tail and totally vintage accurate parts for the re-ssues.
The same people who now stock up with re-issue HS pickups to sell on would also buy the vintage accurate stuff but the butchering of
true vintage guitars might not happen to the degree we have seen if identical re-issues of their hardware was available.
Rickenbacker isnt in the business of saving the guitars that unscrupulous dealers are breaking down though and until
a series like say a Custom Shop RM and 63-68 style 4001 basses arrive on the scene (with spares available to fit other Ricks) the original parts will be sold for big margins.
Forgers could be in for a hard time if replica vintage hardware was marked underneath by some method in the cast or stamped numbers.
As for timber the wood on my 1991CS is as good if not better than any RM I have played and the build quality is as good if not better than it ever was.
The only reason old guitars are stripped is for the hardware not the wood so if the above ideas ever see the light of day we may see
the demise of the guitar asset stripper.