1964!

wints · Post by **wints** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:41 am

Until someone can visually inspect this bass in person, one can only speculate about it's original condition.

Defined statements using the term "non original" are purely subjective and should be stated as such.

We should be concerned with objectivity here, not it's opposite.

Nothing wrong with a little optimism in a place like this either. That's the reason, hopefully, why we are here.

Irrationality is a perception also.
However, one can be assured that if this is a refinish, I won't be asking the moderator to remove another forum members posting, which correctly pointed out that my original postings was wrong and commented as such...

j_gary · Post by **j_gary** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:10 am

Hi Andy,

If she is "modified", what do you think she should sell at?

I'm more concerned with the sellers silence than than the bass at the moment. I would think it would help the price if he were more communicative.

thinneckrick · Post by **thinneckrick** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:49 am

Come on Gary . Watch the "she" stuff . LOL

dale_fortune · Post by **dale_fortune** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:04 am

The thing about a refinished instrument is: Most people without the knowledge of what to look for will assume that it is still the original finish...and they will do this with honesty..but then there are people who don't have a clue and could care less taking the attitude and excuse: I thought it was original...Then seller/buyer work the details out later with the seller usually coming out ahead.

j_gary · Post by **j_gary** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:06 am

Doggone it Jeff! I'm busted!

headbanger · Post by **headbanger** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:55 am

Dale, this is a tough call though I do agree that the finish doesn't look as "glass like" as it should. The finish on my old girl(apologies Jeff), where it isn't worn or damaged is glass like in appearance.
Since you posted your comment about the heel I've been comparing the two and I think they look the same? They also look like they could have come from the same tree. These two basses are nine digits apart.

vincent_gallo · Post by **vincent_gallo** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:10 am

Both Andy and Dale have made good points. I do not believe anyone can speculate accurately about the basses original finish from the photos posted but as Dale said, sellers without knowledge often will make claims based on little understanding and can sometimes be defensive and unreasonable when things are discovered. Just months ago a 60’s maple glow bass was posted here for sale. Everyone on the forum agreed it looked original as did I feel so. The seller offered me the bass for $10,000, which I agreed to pay instantly. When I picked up the bass I discovered the bass had a large area of over-spray over finish wear. I did not request a discounted price complain or imply I was unhappy in any way. However, by simply pointing the issue out to the seller he later posted here that I was a terrible person explaining I made this false claim to somehow trick him. I am still baffled by his outburst. In the end, like Dale said, the ignorant seller can solicit higher offers by supplying less than accurate descriptions. Sorting things out later can be uncomfortable for everyone. The real question here is the quality of the seller. My hope in coming to the forum regarding this bass was to try to get a better sense of the seller I have emailed several questions to the seller without reply. He has posted some questions but they are not very revealing questions and his answers are safe. I am sure several questions to him have not been answered and posted for some reason. I know so because I have emailed several questions myself that have gone un-answered, Answers would have helped give more insight to the bass’s history and status and given a good impression of the sellers business manners. I have also requested photos with the pick guard removed but none were supplied or posted.

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:41 am

For the record I was thinking of snipping it for $8,000.00. However, I will sit this one out. Go for it guys.

elysrand · Post by **elysrand** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:38 am

30 minutes to go....still at $7100....

peewee · Post by **peewee** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:15 am

And $7,100.00 it is....who got it?

rick_ovic · Post by **rick_ovic** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:34 am

The winner is not a Forum member, but he's known to a number of us. He's a nice guy and he's made a number of astute Rickenbacker purchases. I think he got a great deal on this one.

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:53 am

I cannot believe it went for so little. If not for the recent Cali trip and the fact that this is mandolin week, I would have taken a run at it.

Overspray or not, this is a still a 1964 Rick bass!

j_gary · Post by **j_gary** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:08 pm

If the seller had been more communicative I would have joined the fray. For $7100 I think one needs a lot more information. Perhaps it was all good, but I would not be comfortable gambling at that price. My fear is what he may be hiding, or even just unaware of. If he is unable to answer simple questions, he is either unconcerned or uneducated about the bass. Not the kind of seller to go deep with in my opinion. She sure looked like a sweetheart. (Dang! sorry Jeff!)

vincent_gallo · Post by **vincent_gallo** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:15 pm

I had a esnipe in at $15,555 but withdrew it. The reason was after receiving no replies to several emails I became uncomfortable with the thought of that kind of purchase. Then I was able to get a phone # and finally got the seller on the line. One chat with the seller and I quickly withdrew my bid. The bass seems very nice and was a very good deal.

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:27 pm

"but he's known to a number of us"

He was at MARF II