Nice work, Paul W

[aceonbass]

Don't be lost Timothy. Just go back and read what I wrote previously. In short, RIC licensed Paul to build RIC branded acoustics. Although JH may be okay with Paul building a body and neck to turn a 4001 into a 4080 that never was, RIC never actually licensed Paul to build 4080's. As Kevin stated previously, others have done very similar things that were viewed very negatively here. All of the customized Ricks I've done retained 90% of the original instrument in order to retain their identity as real Ricks.

[manta]

(Ping)I guess my point is for the owner of this guitar his main reason to have it built is to use it in his profession and produce his special sound. So I suspect the fine points of the purity of origins isn't likely to be anything that deeply concerns him a long as it performs it's function for his livelihood. Maybe if he gets to the point, if ever, that he wants to sell, one can try to shave some dollars off the price tag by arguing it's pedigree. In the meantime, I suspect you will have to just wait until the owner of the guitar corporation chimes in to indeed get a proper ruling. We can continue to play trivia games in the forum in the meantime. I am not sure what else you would call it and just exactly what the guidelines are for how one determines the 50% rule. Said corporation owner hasn't laid out the specifics there either. It seems to have found a very productive home with a happy owner who is using it for what it was intended. Does the builder leave Rickenbacker on one headstock and put a blank crest on the other to satisfy the "rule"? If it was being sold and someone was trying to misrepresent it, then I could possibly see a reason for this debate. How it was made seems to be a pretty above board process, well-documented for all to see. So my best description of the last 3 pages on this subject is a kerfuffle. It is a great looking and, by all accounts, sounding doubleneck for sure. You've done some very nice work, too, btw. Isn't the "potato head" bass 8 string your baby? (Pong)

[wmthor]

... RIC never actually licensed Paul to build 4080's. ...

Only Paul W and John Hall would know. Ever consider that there's a license agreement which has never been made public?

[aceonbass]

Timothy, JH has previously stated the "50% rule" on this forum. I dare say that one neck on a double neck is not 50%. Richard, while it may be possible that RIC has licensed Paul to build 4080's, I think we'd have heard about it by now, and a line out the door started for these. Paul's already stated that his licensing agreement with RIC to build acoustics has expired and will not be renewed. Again, I think it's a beautiful instrument (other than the guard being so close to the cutaways). I just don't think it can be called a Rickenbacker. Oh....and Timothy, yes, that's my "potatohead" 4008 in Paul's book. There are five other custom basses in Paul's book that I've done, though not all are credited to me for some reason. Thanks for your compliment on the my "4008CS". It's gone through a few slight revisions since that pic was taken. It also has four siblings out there in the world.

[bassduke49]

Dane, I credited the ones where you deserve mention (at least the ones I knew about). The Midnight Blue Laredo at the time I photographed it had only the addition of the pickguard and a swapped out TRC; I didn't feel that special credit was due there, sorry. Perhaps there were others that you did for other folks where I lost track of the craftsman? Did you do John Luke's 4004/4000 tribute?

[admin]

I don't think many of us are in a position to know what arrangements RIC may have made with any parties unless they have made a comment in passing. I want to thank all for an interesting discussion and for keeping it civil.

[aceonbass]

Paul, yes I did do the modded 4004FG tribute to the early 4000 and 4002. That bass belongs to Woody Cross now.

[bassduke49]

OK, thanks, Dane. I'll put a correction notice in my copy for the next printing (if there is one and if they allow corrections). Any others?

[collin]

JH has previously stated the "50% rule" on this forum. I dare say that one neck on a double neck is not 50%.

While I agree that one neck on a doubleneck isn't quite 50% - the original parts count as well, IMO.

At a bare minimum, I think you need either the neck or the body to be original Rick wood to be considered a Rickenbacker. For example, I have a handful of vintage Rick guitar bodies with missing necks (some of which I know are destroyed) so I'll likely end up making necks for these and will consider them restored or customized Rickenbackers.

Same goes for necks - if I had an original neck or neck-through, I don't see why a new body couldn't be made for it and still consider it a restored Rick. Bonus points if its all factory hardware & pickups, wiring, TRC etc.

I'm clearly not an authority on this, but it would make logical sense to me. This is above and beyond what is done in the car restoration world (in which people take some serious liberties reproducing chassis/shell etc.)

[aceonbass]

OK, thanks, Dane. I'll put a correction notice in my copy for the next printing (if there is one and if they allow corrections). Any others?

Nope. There are a few minor corrections as to details of a couple of the basses featured, but that'd be nitpicking wouldn't it?

[bassduke49]

Your (or formerly your) basses? No, that would be accurizing. Give it to me (PM please).