Electrostring wrote:Maybe they meant 75 instead of 65?
That would make sense as I believe the picture I posted of him using it still unmodified was taken in '74.
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Electrostring wrote:Maybe they meant 75 instead of 65?
admin wrote:Just in passing it is up to me and I am in complete agreement. Problem solved. Your patience is appreciated.

collin wrote:admin wrote:Just in passing it is up to me and I am in complete agreement. Problem solved. Your patience is appreciated.
Yerrr OUTTA here!![]()
![]()
Good call Peter (and Gil), when somebody spends 90% of their time here blasting RIC and other members, they're proving they have nothing worthwhile to contribute on this forum. Take the vitriol and hate elsewhere...
Very true. But 100% jerk means 100% jerk. There is a way to get your point across without personally insulting people and this forum.Hotzenplotz wrote:BTW: 100% negativity means not automatically to be 100% wrong. Hard to put up with sometimes, I know - as I read...
I can completely understand the factory's position. They have a well established product line which has stood the test of time and remains in demand. In troubled economic times like these I am sure their primary focus is, and should be, the safeguarding of existing business and looking for sensible and sustainable organic growth where there may be opportunity (e.g. the recently announced plans for expansion of distribution into Germany/France). While many people on here (not least me) would love to see new niche products come to market, I think we all have to be realistic about what sense these types of products make for RIC in the bigger scheme of things.jps wrote:....they did not have to make something totally new and different as what RIC makes is exactly what the majority of the playing and buying public wants already.
Agreed!redamber wrote: Truly, Rics to die for!