(We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progress)

[cassius987]

[pag]

Theres so much work going on with that old bass that surely it would be easier to just build a new one!
Reading all the varying concerns here makes me think that one
way of solving the problems over what one person thinks of as reducing its authenticity and the other
as a sensible restoration is to bring out an RM replica (as opposed to the previous VR series) and have done with all the controversy.
Guitarists are parting with their hard earned for other makes of vintage replicas.
I would love to see the new vs old debate that would erupt from the appearance of that bass.
Is it worth consideration?

[walker]

I think so. I think it was done with the V63 series, but unfortunately not done true to the actual specifications of the era. There were "upgrades" and "improvements" which pulled the reissue series away from being true replicas. But an actual repro series with the accurate 63-64 neck thickness, pickup output of 7.5k, 200v wiring harness, magnetized horseshoes and so on, I'm sure that there would be many dropping $$$ for those specimens. It's a sidebar from what I'm doing, however. I have a thing about fixing broken stuff v just throwing it out and getting a new one. That's also why I used to drive my cars into the ground.

[johnhall]

Is it worth consideration?

On a rainy day, when all the current orders are filled.

Unfortunately, it's probably like the 4005- everyone wants one but isn't ready to ante up to a real world price if it gets down to it.

[sloop_john_b]

Is it worth consideration?

Nope - the true RM guys will never be satisfied with anything short of a real one. Buy a v63 or pony up IMO.

[cassius987]

Is it worth consideration?

Nope - the true RM guys will never be satisfied with anything short of a real one.

This.

[Seans]

Is it worth consideration?

Nope - the true RM guys will never be satisfied with anything short of a real one.

This.

64 was a pretty important date in rock history for Rickenbacker.

[wints]

I'll keep this brief.

There is obviously a profound difficulty here these days to be able to read a paragraph correctly and keep things in context. For the less able and emotional...
Go back and read it again. At no point in my original post do I mention that Mark is trying to misrepresent this bass.

I have stated that basically replacing half a bass with new wood is going to compromise originality. If someone feels differently, fine, but that's simply the way it is. Now, I'm no math major, but when you basically replace half a bass with new wood, ( let's just call it 40% new) and then make a statement you have a 97% legitimacy , well, your simply talking out your ***. This is where the "honest" comment is correctly contextually applied.

However, if you feel that such an instrument is still 97% legit, then your reality is indeed a wonderful place to be...

Again, how people will view such a bass is purely up to the individual. As I originally posted, the function of an instrument should always outweigh the aesthetic, and that was where my validity point was directed, but that seems to have been overlooked here. Personally, I don't give a sh*t what people do with their instruments. That's up to them.
I do have a problem when people talk ******** though...Oh, and my top horn's better than yours? Please...

And people ask me why the old school don't post much any more...

[GeoffWinston]

This debate reminds me of the story of the janitor who proudly claimed he'd been using the same brush for 23 years even though it had had twelve new heads and seven new handles.

[walker]

Yep, people say all kinds of crazy stuff.

[pag]

I know of what I speak though when it comes to RMs..
In reply to the above posts regarding RM owners I have to tell you I have had three RMs one of which was
the Gibb bass which was the best of the three by far and I have played a few of others
I have stumbled upon over the years also.
The condition of the half dozen or so originals I have handled is the main problem for me just looking at them purely as a guitar and forgetting
the outlay and potential investment value these days for a second.Even the Gibb bass was re-finished and had been around the block a few times.
For a player such as Mark and many others who want the original detail of an RM I think a replica is (by comparison with a mint original)
affordable and insureable for gigging.

I have a beautiful CS built in 1990 that puts some (not all) RMs I have played in the shade and I bought a new V63 plus a second CS
so the outlay for those three would be on the way to what you would dish out for a ltd replica and I think the money is out there for such a bass.
I think the price of the top drawer 58 Les Paul replicas is a good indicator of the kind of figure you would have to shell out.
The RM is a classic bass heard on many famous recordings and I think that plus its versatility as a bass in general would
give it the edge over a vintage 4005 replica for most bass guitarists.

Its because its an icon that a poor old battered and bruised RM like Marks can create so much discussion on the forum.

As much as I love old guitars the top guitar manufacturers today can produce new instruments just as good and importantly for players
more consistently good than back in 1963.
New is better for all sides of the argument I think and I would love to see an RM replica join the 58 Les pauls and Strats etc. from other makers custom shops.
I recently bought a new custom shop 1970 Jazz Bass thats been put together so much better than the few originals I looked at which was a decider for me.

Go on Mr. Hall dip your toe in the water with a ltd run of 10 or 20 to test the appetite out here in bass guitar land!
Put my name into the hat for the draw for who gets to buy one by the way if you go ahead.


Best of luck with the rebuild Mark,
Do some recordings of it when its done.

[johnallg]

I wonder what kind of comments would be posted here if the RRF was around back in the late 60s and Macca had posted with the fancy paint job he put on his RM, then the aggressive sanding including turning the upper horn into a phallic symbol leaving it with no finish in the end? Where is the magnetic horseshoe pickup?

How about Squire posting the stickers, then the sanding and foil covering, then again sanding and painting his RM cream, after also converting it to stereo.

[rickenbrother]

I think it will be horrible Mark. Once you have it finished send it to me for a proper burial...



Eden.

Nah, I think it will need do to sort of like the Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour.

[jps]

I think it will be horrible Mark. Once you have it finished send it to me for a proper burial...



Eden.

Nah, I think it will need do to sort of like the Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour.

That's exactly what I thought when I read this earlier today!

[aceonbass]

Mark, earlier you said you were going to include dings and such to relic it I guess. Well, with this kind of work going into it, I would make it look perfect. If it gets dinged up or whatever in use, then so be it, but this kind of effort should be taken on every aspect of the bass. Get the tailpiece and bridge replated. Use C64 tuners..new screws and hardware. When vintage cars get restored properly, no nut or bolt goes untouched, although this is more like replacing quarter panels with repros than just changing a water pump. I think this is in the same class and should be treated the same. The only thing I would have done differently is to clean up the center section issues via routing, followed by gluing in maple blocks to fill them. Then after the upper wing is reattached I would have routed it per original specs. Seeing the center section gutted like that was kind of shocking. Nevertheless, these are the kind of projects I like. Can't get enough of them, so keep the updates coming, and kudos to having the huevos to do this.