Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

#1,Jason. I was going to say "overreact much?", so you are much more diplomatic than i.....
Mark,bottom line,it's your bass to do what you think is best for it. (And i too support what you are doing,FWIW),looking forward to the butterfly emerging from this caterpillar......

You're both entitled to your interpretation of where Wints was coming from, (even though Wints is the only one here who is qualified to clarify his point), but it came across pretty strongly to me (as well as others who wrote me in private) that his intention was to discredit the bass' merit and my classification of what it is exactly, for whatever reason he felt compelled to do that. Like Hall said, the end result is going to be a good thing, so why scrutinize? Wints went well beyond the mere specification that it's no longer original - that point was made when I first started this thread. His focus was on questioning whether it's even an RM anymore due to the repairs I've done, and to suggest that I'm not coming clean on some aspect of this whole subject. When someone says "Be honest" or "Let's face it" that's a suggestion that there's something that needs to be acknowledged that's been skirted or missed somehow.

At what point do you decide to interpret words loosely to fit into the connotation your prefer, and when do you hold them to their literal meaning? By the definitions that I understand language, Wints made some inferences that weren't cool; it pi$$ed me off, so I called him on it. No regrets. Obviously some have a better tolerance for questionable comments than I do, I can accept that.

walker wrote:Like Hall said, the end result is going to be a good thing, so why scrutinize?

Not to put too fine of a point on it but that's not exactly what I said. I suggested it has the potential to be something nice in its own way. . . but realistically it still has quite a way to go yet.

And sorry if I misinterpreted your statement earlier, but I think what I took from it was the focus on the end result being a good thing regardless of what name you give it.

A ways to go, but man - it's definitely come a long way, too.

Touché! Mister Hall….
<><><><><><>
Least we not forget this is a Restoration. Which essentially means to, either make an object or damaged area on that object look new, or to make it look its age without any noticeable damage or repairs. There is no pretext to it being Conservation or Preservation project. I think we may tend to get these all bundled up into one notion which they are not.
<><><><><><>
Pins between the wings and thru neck pieces… interesting concept. I had never really thought about before.

Those pins remind me of the much larger rods that go through late 50's Combo 400's bodies.

As the owner of another rm1999 that has been brought back from the dead. I feel it is more important to have the instrument running and out there than to be the subject of cork sniffing.
Like mine, this will be a restored heavily damaged and unplayable rm1999.
Nothing more but certianly nothing less...

Eden.

ram wrote:• Repair: To fix (best possible outcome) a damaged or worn area on an object.
• Restoration: To either make an object or damaged area on that object look new,
or to make it look its age without any noticeable damage or repairs.
• Conservation: Primarily dealing with cleaning an object, doing the least amount of harm to its original finish.
• Preservation: To stabilize an object from further deterioration. This may entail using an archival wax to maintain the surface finish.

Pretty obvious to most, (but good for Tom to clarify these differences,) what I'm doing is in the neighborhood of repair and restoration. And for the record, my end goal is to recreate what it would look like as a well cared for but not necessarily excellent or mint 1964 era bass. I'm going to try my hand at a sun & age faded Fireglo finish. Little nicks & dings here and there are being thrown in for good measure.

People sure do get worked up about all kinds of stuff huh...?

Mark, cheers man, I hope it turns out exactly how you want it to.

Thanks, Josh.

And far be it from ME to get worked up! Clearly I've demonstrated that I'm above expending such unnecessary energy.

cassius987 wrote:People sure do get worked up about all kinds of stuff huh...?

Slow week.

Mark, do what feels right to you. There will always be folks who disagree or who would do something different with your project. The key thing to keep in mind is that you have in your possession a rare and desirable instrument which was heavily modified prior to you receiving it. Since the modifications did not allow a simple fix, i.e. repairs, you have chosen to restore the bass which involves extensive restoration. The degree of restorative effort is of course, based on what YOU personally want the outcome to be. I know others may feel passionately about what you are doing in order to put your bass back in solid, playable, and aesthetically pleasing condition and I fully understand this passion. However, don't allow that to dissuade you from your goal.

Please keep us posted on the progress!

Jim

walker wrote:Thanks, Josh.

And far be it from ME to get worked up! Clearly I've demonstrated that I'm above expending such unnecessary energy.

No worries man. It's your baby, I get it. When I got my 5-string back from Paul I was pretty offended when someone took a shot at the bridge we decided to use for the project but it's all water under the bridge at the end of the day... the bass is in my lap right now in fact, I just took a break from jamming with some People Under the Stairs. There's nothing some good hip hop can't cure!

This is a great project Mark. It's wonderful to see you putting in such a huge effort to restore that battered RM to it's playing glory. Kudos to you sir!

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



Eden.