Dear John hall part 2

[cassius987]

Frankly I don't see the current lineup as being all that modern, 650/4004 aside. Players gripe about tiny frets, rattling bridges, thick varnish on fretboards...those problems have existed since Rickenbacker guitars were introduced way back in the day and have gone largely unaddressed.

That's kind of my point. Why have a reissue then? It's not a big departure.

[deaconblues]

Because at least with a reissue it's supposed to be there -- it adds to the old-school charm. If you want to be "forward looking", make forward looking products.

[cassius987]

Because at least with a reissue it's supposed to be there -- it adds to the old-school charm. If you want to be "forward looking", make forward looking products.

I feel like we're saying the same thing in a way.

[paologregorio]

What's wrong with the 4003 or 4004? They're both great basses. When I bought a J-bass, I didn't want anythin new or fancy; I wanted a classic looking J-bass. When I buy a Rick bass, I want the same thing.

[sloop_john_b]

What's wrong with the 4003 or 4004? They're both great basses. When I bought a J-bass, I didn't want anythin new or fancy; I wanted a classic looking J-bass. When I buy a Rick bass, I want the same thing.

There's nothing "wrong" with them; the argument here is that they're stuck in no-man's land between vintage and modern.

For instance, the 4003 is a few small steps from being '68-spec; why not just go all the way? I don't see much of a reverence for, say, 1" spaced neck pickups.

So, you'd have one "full vintage" and one "full modern" (4004) offering.

[jps]

...you'd have one "full vintage" and one "full modern" (4004) offering.

+1, a perfect pairing.

[paologregorio]

I didn't think about the neck spacing; fair point. The oldest Rick bass I've ever had was a `79 4001, which had the 1" spacing , so I forget about the vintage spacing, but then again, I'm a rick player who uses 21 and 24 fret models interchangably without much thought on the difference, though I must say, though I used to prefer w/o question the 24 fret models (they looked sturdier to my eye-the neck ending AT the body on 21-fret models made me think the neck was prone to snapping off), I like the way 21 fret models accecntuate the 330/WB/WBBS/OS body shape more than 24 frets do.

[cassius987]

For instance, the 4003 is a few small steps from being '68-spec; why not just go all the way? I don't see much of a reverence for, say, 1" spaced neck pickups.

Those mods are easy enough to do for those who keep wanting vintage specs, though. Is it really going to make such a huge difference? The only thing people can't really do at home is go from S to non-S or vice-versa, hence why I support the idea of a 4003S in production. Everything else is basically something that can be done with very simple mods, if it's such a big deal RIC could even supply kits with the proper pickups and pickguards. Or instead of bringing back a whole new reissue model just bring back the "VP" option or what have you, which would apply to both neck and bridge pickups and the neck spacing.

I've played several C64(S) basses, no V63s however, and they're great but it basically just felt like a slightly different flavor of 4003 that I could have also gotten with a 4003 and some OEM parts. Not counting the binding and inlays.

[deaconblues]

There's nothing "wrong" with them; the argument here is that they're stuck in no-man's land between vintage and modern.

For instance, the 4003 is a few small steps from being '68-spec; why not just go all the way? I don't see much of a reverence for, say, 1" spaced neck pickups.

So, you'd have one "full vintage" and one "full modern" (4004) offering.

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.

Joshua, I think it's safe to say you're not a vintage guy. But those of us who are appreciate old-school spec on a guitar/bass that's relatively easier to own than a true vintage instrument. For everyone else, the standard line should reflect truly modern tastes and functionality, IMO.

Look at it this way: a Fender Standard Strat has a 9.5" radius and jumbo frets. A '57 reissue has a 7.5" radius and vintage frets. Fender sells truckloads of each.

[antipodean]

Look at it this way: a Fender Standard Strat has a 9.5" radius and jumbo frets. A '57 reissue has a 7.5" radius and vintage frets. Fender sells truckloads of each.

Very true, but as you say, Fender is a huge volume player - much larger than RIC. As a result, Fender is in a more favourable position when it comes to producing instruments with a variety of specifications as they can amortise capital costs over a larger number of sales. IMHO RIC has chosen to maintain the current spec on their "volume" ranges as this is where they see the bulk of demand, wich makes the most sense economically. If demand for "modern" Rickenbackers (e.g. with jumbo frets, flatter fretboard, heavy-duty bridge and user-friendly tailpiece) outstripped demand for the current spec, the it would make sense to change production, but I don't believe the demand is there. The alternative would be to build "modern" spec instruments as niche products (in a similar manner to vintage RIs), which would result in them being priced at a substantial premium to the standard range.

[deaconblues]

Very true, but as you say, Fender is a huge volume player - much larger than RIC. As a result, Fender is in a more favourable position when it comes to producing instruments with a variety of specifications as they can amortise capital costs over a larger number of sales. IMHO RIC has chosen to maintain the current spec on their "volume" ranges as this is where they see the bulk of demand, wich makes the most sense economically. If demand for "modern" Rickenbackers (e.g. with jumbo frets, flatter fretboard, heavy-duty bridge and user-friendly tailpiece) outstripped demand for the current spec, the it would make sense to change production, but I don't believe the demand is there. The alternative would be to build "modern" spec instruments as niche products (in a similar manner to vintage RIs), which would result in them being priced at a substantial premium to the standard range.

The current line is, in large part, comprised of guitars that adhere to a mid-'70s design (minus x-bracing). If you think there wouldn't be any demand for some subtle improvements to the line, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The model 650 has certainly enjoyed plenty of sales since its inception.

[antipodean]

Very true, but as you say, Fender is a huge volume player - much larger than RIC. As a result, Fender is in a more favourable position when it comes to producing instruments with a variety of specifications as they can amortise capital costs over a larger number of sales. IMHO RIC has chosen to maintain the current spec on their "volume" ranges as this is where they see the bulk of demand, wich makes the most sense economically. If demand for "modern" Rickenbackers (e.g. with jumbo frets, flatter fretboard, heavy-duty bridge and user-friendly tailpiece) outstripped demand for the current spec, the it would make sense to change production, but I don't believe the demand is there. The alternative would be to build "modern" spec instruments as niche products (in a similar manner to vintage RIs), which would result in them being priced at a substantial premium to the standard range.

The current line is, in large part, comprised of guitars that adhere to a mid-'70s design (minus x-bracing). If you think there wouldn't be any demand for some subtle improvements to the line, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The model 650 has certainly enjoyed plenty of sales since its inception.

Sorry I wasn't clear - I do believe there is some demand for modern spec Rickenbackers (you and JB are cases in point), I just don't believe that the demand for modern features outstrips demand for traditional features (i.e. that there is not sufficient demand to make economic sense for RIC to produce modern-spec instruments in numbers at the expense of the existing spec) at this point in time. This could change....

[cassius987]

Joshua, I think it's safe to say you're not a vintage guy. But those of us who are appreciate old-school spec on a guitar/bass that's relatively easier to own than a true vintage instrument. For everyone else, the standard line should reflect truly modern tastes and functionality, IMO.

Look at it this way: a Fender Standard Strat has a 9.5" radius and jumbo frets. A '57 reissue has a 7.5" radius and vintage frets. Fender sells truckloads of each.

I'm not a vintage or a modern guy, I'm just me. I like my '76 4001FL every bit as much as my 2008 4003FL. But I make them work for my needs and wants, and the shape they're in when I buy them (the '76 was trashed). Regarding the RM1999 reissue, I'm burned out on seeing it come back and go away and come back again. If it's such a critical thing for RIC to make why didn't these all sell out ASAP? I remember several that languished on shelves while a big volume of 4003s sold relatively quickly at my local dealer. If RIC's going to spend their time on an "extra" bass outside the admittedly older school 4003 and the modern 4004, I kind of want to see something a little more exotic.

I don't see why the current 4003 is an abomination by being too close to vintage but not enough (that's what I think I'm hearing). I'd be sad to lose it to a bunch of RM1999-spec instruments. The 4004 really is not a replacement for the current 4003 at all (if it were to be subsumed in favor of something even more vintage-y like I believe I am hearing people suggest), but if they changed pickup position of the neck pickup a little maybe I'd think different. Without a pickguard your ability to move things around suddenly becomes very limited.

Again, if it's vintage specs you crave, you can basically just get a 4003 and some OEM parts and have your cake already.

I think the comparison to Fender is a bit disingenuous but Evan already addressed it better than I could have.

Sorry I wasn't clear - I do believe there is some demand for modern spec Rickenbackers (you and JB are cases in point), I just don't believe that the demand for modern features outstrips demand for traditional features (i.e. that there is not sufficient demand to make economic sense for RIC to produce modern-spec instruments in numbers at the expense of the existing spec) at this point in time. This could change....

Well (and succinctly) put, +1.

[johnhall]

Players gripe about tiny frets, rattling bridges, thick varnish on fretboards...those problems have existed since Rickenbacker guitars were introduced way back in the day and have gone largely unaddressed.

"Problems"? What part of 100% factory capacity is not misunderstood?

"Addressing" is done when a product is NOT selling, and certainly not when demand far exceeds the ability to produce it as it is.

[deaconblues]

I think the comparison to Fender is a bit disingenuous but Evan already addressed it better than I could have.

All I was saying was that both models are very successful.

"Problems"? What part of 100% factory capacity is not misunderstood?

"Addressing" is done when a product is NOT selling, and certainly not when demand far exceeds the ability to produce it as it is.

If it works for you, fine. I'm just stating my personal opinion.