This past weekend, a friend and I ventured from the Twin Cities to Lacrosse Wi.,for an afternoon at Daves Guitar.Since I was there last 2 years back, he has a whole new place,and is it cool!
This crazy guy really is into the Ricks, in most all colors, including a 4003 in the Desertglo, which I really like.Also, some very cool 660 models,6 and 12s.One of my favorites, though I personally can't deal with the short scale,but it's still classic, is the 325V63 in Fireglo.
I didn't know they even did this, but it is very happening.And lots of 3 PU 340s in 6 and 12, all with toasters.Dave sure knows how to order! Upon going in the large back room with the acoustics, I
found to my surprise,2 Rick acoustics, the Fireglo maple model, and a rosewood model.While I am decidedly a dyed in the wool Martin acoustic guy from way back, nonetheless, these Ricks showed
excellent workmanship, played very well, and had
a quality sound to them.I would have liked to see
the 12 string model, but Dave said he was waiting on that one.If you ever get to the Lacrosse area,
stop in Daves; I guarantee thrill seeking at it's finest!!
Rick acoustics
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Don: Using Martin acoustics as a point of reference then, I would be interested in your comparision between Rickenbackers and Martins with regard to materials, sound, appearance and playability.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Peter,
I think if I get into it any farther, I wouldn't be objective anymore.I gave the new Ricks a good looking over, checked the neck for feel, thought the setup was good,and that's really about it.I have 2 Martins that are my standards to judge by; a 1970 D12-35[the "S" style,12 fret model] and a '96 HD-28VS 12 fret 6 string.Rick does Not make a comparable model.
FWIW, McGuinn has a Rick acoustic 12, but when he gigs with acoustics, he is not known for being a Rick guy, he's a Martin guy.John Hall himself said something to the effect that if you were a Martin user, you might not like the Ricks that much.I don't recall the exact quote.Two things aesthetically I think would look better on the Rick acoustics, and it's just my opinion, would be to do the neck laminating with the "vintage"
wide walnut center stripe, like the V and C series,and to use either Waverly open gear tuners,
or Kluson repros.Somekind of pickguard could look nice as well, but I haven't figured out what kind of shape it would be.A guard made to look similar to the inlay material would be kind of interesting.Also, I wasn't really paying much attention to the strings when I tried them, but I'd guess factory stock is lights? Even the new Martins are done like that, but I demand mediums
to get a good rumbly bottom end.So, again, in spite of my longstanding personal acoustic preferences,I thought the Ricks were good.
I think if I get into it any farther, I wouldn't be objective anymore.I gave the new Ricks a good looking over, checked the neck for feel, thought the setup was good,and that's really about it.I have 2 Martins that are my standards to judge by; a 1970 D12-35[the "S" style,12 fret model] and a '96 HD-28VS 12 fret 6 string.Rick does Not make a comparable model.
FWIW, McGuinn has a Rick acoustic 12, but when he gigs with acoustics, he is not known for being a Rick guy, he's a Martin guy.John Hall himself said something to the effect that if you were a Martin user, you might not like the Ricks that much.I don't recall the exact quote.Two things aesthetically I think would look better on the Rick acoustics, and it's just my opinion, would be to do the neck laminating with the "vintage"
wide walnut center stripe, like the V and C series,and to use either Waverly open gear tuners,
or Kluson repros.Somekind of pickguard could look nice as well, but I haven't figured out what kind of shape it would be.A guard made to look similar to the inlay material would be kind of interesting.Also, I wasn't really paying much attention to the strings when I tried them, but I'd guess factory stock is lights? Even the new Martins are done like that, but I demand mediums
to get a good rumbly bottom end.So, again, in spite of my longstanding personal acoustic preferences,I thought the Ricks were good.
One more[make that Two more] thing[s];compared to my "S" bodied Martins and their necks, a lot of guys would easily take the Rick, if neck feel
was a big deal.I've also been used to a mid 60s Fender P bass since 1966, so big necks don't bother me.And, since I Know you Beatle fan guys here can relate to having to have a guitar like a Beatle had,that's also why I got into the Martin "S " models; my 1st one I got back in '77, a D-35 S 6 string, which I got mightily excited about after seeing Harrison play one on Saturday Night Live in late '76 with Paul Simon.He just looked so[may I use an old 70s California phrase here?]Righteous with that, I went and found a superb, blowaway perfect one new a few months later.It sounded like Stills on the 1st CSN LP,
which is my "model" for perfect acoustic tone.One last time, No slam on the Rick acoustics at all; they just don't do that certain"whatever," I hear in my head.
was a big deal.I've also been used to a mid 60s Fender P bass since 1966, so big necks don't bother me.And, since I Know you Beatle fan guys here can relate to having to have a guitar like a Beatle had,that's also why I got into the Martin "S " models; my 1st one I got back in '77, a D-35 S 6 string, which I got mightily excited about after seeing Harrison play one on Saturday Night Live in late '76 with Paul Simon.He just looked so[may I use an old 70s California phrase here?]Righteous with that, I went and found a superb, blowaway perfect one new a few months later.It sounded like Stills on the 1st CSN LP,
which is my "model" for perfect acoustic tone.One last time, No slam on the Rick acoustics at all; they just don't do that certain"whatever," I hear in my head.
Interesting comments from Don...I am still searching for a Rick acoustic to try out and hopefully soon.
It is easy to agree with Don as to why Martins are what they are vs. the new Rickenbacker acoustics: Martins are arguably the benchmark for all other manufacture of steel-string acoustic guitar production (I would have to include Taylor as well). As a comparison I seriously doubt if Martin could compete with Rickenbacker in making a comparable electric 12-string semi-hollow guitar--we all know who leads the pack here
..
Guys: Doesn't Roger McGuinn have a Martin signiture guitar patterned after his D-12-45??
It is easy to agree with Don as to why Martins are what they are vs. the new Rickenbacker acoustics: Martins are arguably the benchmark for all other manufacture of steel-string acoustic guitar production (I would have to include Taylor as well). As a comparison I seriously doubt if Martin could compete with Rickenbacker in making a comparable electric 12-string semi-hollow guitar--we all know who leads the pack here
.. Guys: Doesn't Roger McGuinn have a Martin signiture guitar patterned after his D-12-45??
John, Actually, Roger's Martin sig. 12 is called a D-12-42, only Slightly less fancy than a D 45.
Daves Guitar had one of these in stock ,too, that I tried, but it needed the neck straightened, and the strings were shot. But it's Very nice.Other than aesthetically, I'm not sure it would sound a lot better than my '70 D-12-35, which has such a tone and sustain that at times it almost has this
[for lack of a better term?] harpsichord-like tone.
Daves Guitar had one of these in stock ,too, that I tried, but it needed the neck straightened, and the strings were shot. But it's Very nice.Other than aesthetically, I'm not sure it would sound a lot better than my '70 D-12-35, which has such a tone and sustain that at times it almost has this
[for lack of a better term?] harpsichord-like tone.
I checked out Dave's on Nov. 1, and played those two acoustic Ricks also. (They need new strings by now, btw.)
My "tonal reference" is the Gibson sound, not so much the Martin, but of course, Dave's has dozens of "reference" guitars available for quick comparisons.
Nevertheless, I compared the tone of these new Ricks to the Gibson sound with which I am familiar. Plus, I had one of my own guitars with me, a 16" maple jumbo Gibson, also bought at Dave's.
For the Ricks, I liked the tone of the rosewood (700S) a bit more than the maple (700C) guitar. The maple, even with its fairly bright tone, had a lot of bass presence, which I like. This was kind of a pleasant surprise. But in a "Blind Taste Test", I likely would have chosen the rosewood model.
I guess I was expecting the 700C to be bright anyhow -- John Hall has said that the tonal spectrum for these models was bright. The Rick "sound" is bright for their electrics too, in part, no doubt, due to their heavy use of maple in their electric production. I think I would characterize this maple Rick acoustic as being not unlike a Larrivee, i.e., getting towards the brightness of a Taylor, but not _quite_ that bright. Which is a good thing, IMO. I've never really liked how Martin "does" maple, so cannot comment on how it compares with a Martin maple.
The rosewood model was a bit more tonally satisfying, to my ears at least, and compared with other 17" jumbos in rosewood, I'd say that it, too, was a bit brighter than what I've noted in others.
I am not sure what the best choice of back and sides tonewood for these models would be in the 12-string version -- the maple runs the risk of being overwhelmingly bright ("I gotta wear shades..."). I have a feeling that the way Rick builds 'em, koa or mahogany might be good alternative choices for the jumbo 12-string guitars.
The neck profile was a bit deeper than I would've preferred, more like a D-shape, I think, than a lower-profile C-shape, which I find more comfortable to play. Perhaps this is to accommodate the twin truss rods, which I believe these models are also built with. I guess I would be happy to lose a rod, and have a slightly more comfortable neck profile to play.
Workmanship was, as noted earlier, very good. I liked the checkerboard as binding, except on the soundhole, where I would not have used it, just gone with some arrangement of white-black-white rings, maybe even a thin abalone rosette.
I'm not sure why they used the mini-tuners (Schallers?) on these six-strings, other than perhaps to cut down on weight? They looked a bit disproportionate, but, that's not that big a deal. I expect they weill use the same tuners on the twelve-strings, and perhaps they are aiming for the "uniform look". Myself, I wouldn't worry about that -- the other manufacturers don't either.
Overall, pretty cool guitars, unique in appearance. Tonally, each will have to decide on their own whether it "works" for them.
Jury is still waiting to see the evidence in the 12-string versions.
Fred
My "tonal reference" is the Gibson sound, not so much the Martin, but of course, Dave's has dozens of "reference" guitars available for quick comparisons.
Nevertheless, I compared the tone of these new Ricks to the Gibson sound with which I am familiar. Plus, I had one of my own guitars with me, a 16" maple jumbo Gibson, also bought at Dave's.
For the Ricks, I liked the tone of the rosewood (700S) a bit more than the maple (700C) guitar. The maple, even with its fairly bright tone, had a lot of bass presence, which I like. This was kind of a pleasant surprise. But in a "Blind Taste Test", I likely would have chosen the rosewood model.
I guess I was expecting the 700C to be bright anyhow -- John Hall has said that the tonal spectrum for these models was bright. The Rick "sound" is bright for their electrics too, in part, no doubt, due to their heavy use of maple in their electric production. I think I would characterize this maple Rick acoustic as being not unlike a Larrivee, i.e., getting towards the brightness of a Taylor, but not _quite_ that bright. Which is a good thing, IMO. I've never really liked how Martin "does" maple, so cannot comment on how it compares with a Martin maple.
The rosewood model was a bit more tonally satisfying, to my ears at least, and compared with other 17" jumbos in rosewood, I'd say that it, too, was a bit brighter than what I've noted in others.
I am not sure what the best choice of back and sides tonewood for these models would be in the 12-string version -- the maple runs the risk of being overwhelmingly bright ("I gotta wear shades..."). I have a feeling that the way Rick builds 'em, koa or mahogany might be good alternative choices for the jumbo 12-string guitars.
The neck profile was a bit deeper than I would've preferred, more like a D-shape, I think, than a lower-profile C-shape, which I find more comfortable to play. Perhaps this is to accommodate the twin truss rods, which I believe these models are also built with. I guess I would be happy to lose a rod, and have a slightly more comfortable neck profile to play.
Workmanship was, as noted earlier, very good. I liked the checkerboard as binding, except on the soundhole, where I would not have used it, just gone with some arrangement of white-black-white rings, maybe even a thin abalone rosette.
I'm not sure why they used the mini-tuners (Schallers?) on these six-strings, other than perhaps to cut down on weight? They looked a bit disproportionate, but, that's not that big a deal. I expect they weill use the same tuners on the twelve-strings, and perhaps they are aiming for the "uniform look". Myself, I wouldn't worry about that -- the other manufacturers don't either.
Overall, pretty cool guitars, unique in appearance. Tonally, each will have to decide on their own whether it "works" for them.
Jury is still waiting to see the evidence in the 12-string versions.
Fred
-
corey