Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Garry, you miss my point, when I go into a store like Guitar Center and ask why they are no 4003's in stock? I am answered that there isn't that much demand for them right now, like for Fender and Ibanez. I used to have my own music store, one of the brands I sold was Rickenbacker. I sold several 4003's, but I couldn't give away their guitars.
I'm not knocking Rickenbacker, they make some of the finest instruments there are. if I could do it all over again I would be a Rick dealer. I think Fender is highly overrated, but they way they have always marketed themselves has been genius. A music store owner doesn't mind having a stock of instruments in his store that he knows will sell quickly.
How does a player know if he/she likes a new instrument such as the new 4004/5Cii, if they never have the chance to try one?
My chances are pretty good that I don't have to email Mr. Hall. I have seen and spoken to him at the NAMM show, and also see him just going about my business living in So.California.
Thanks Brad for seeing my side, I know you understand from a business as well as players perspective.

Please pardon my perspective, but John Hall seems to have some very specific ideas about RIC that to me, look risk averse. Tradition and corporate stability appear to be far more important than growth. To expand would mean modern products and agressive marketing and the evil "name branding" thing. It's an extra level of effort. People often ask, how rich does that (fill-in-the-blank) need to be? Perhaps John Hall is content where he is.

I've got a 4001 which is a fine playing and looking instrument, but I've played better necks. In a perfect world (where I have money), I would buy an FBass BN4 and a BN5 and rarely play the 4001 again. I had a friend's 330 for a year. You can't bend on it because the frets are too low, and I found the neck pup useless. It also suffers from neck dive. Great for jangly chords, but I get far more utility out of the Fender and Gibson designs.

James Grove said: People often ask, how rich does that (fill-in-the-blank) need to be? Perhaps John Hall is content where he is.

Good point James, I've often thought that about plenty of owners of any kind of busuness. I also respect that Rickenbacker has not licensed out their instruments to foreign builders to make Fakenbackers, which would supposedly be the same thing only cheaper.
Like I've said before, how does a player know he / she will like an instrument if there is never one available to try? I have never seen a 4004 series bass in person, except for at the NAMM show.
Maybe RIC is content for the most part about selling instruments as much as they do, but I'm sure that there are at least a couple of instruments that they expected better sales from, like the 4003S/5........They weren't thinking fingerstyle bassists would want to play one?

I also tried a couple 4004 series basses at the last Winter NAMM. No one asked me whether I'd like to plug in I don't recall any amps, or anyone else plugging in for that matter. The 4004s were nice though I'm still thinking about that neck-to-body ledge, but think I'd prefer the 4001 look with J-bass pickups, spacing, and tone. Remember that Geddy Lee is a guy who used to play Ricks - past tense. Since that body is trademarked, only RIC can build swamp ash and alder versions for sale. Roger Sadowsky says he has to build basses that can deliver at a minimum, "The Jazz Bass Sound," or pretty much forget customers altogether.

Hey James, I also noticed that Rickenbacker was just about the only guitar company at the NAMM show without amplfiers, so you could hear their instruments..........once again, I don't understand their lack of marketing. It was a nice 2 level booth, with a meeting office / balcony on top.........but where were the amps? It was the quietest booth at the show.

Back to the original title of this thread,regarding limited use of checked binding, I believe it is twofold; 1] it is at least a bit more labor intensive installing the binding when you have to deal with 2 separate pieces of binding material, though since I learned to do it at the Rick factory 30 years ago, they have come up with a more efficient method of doing it, and 2], the availability of the material has not remained constant over the years.If memory serves me, in the last 15 years, the only models that use this have been ltd. editions; McGuinn, Hoffs, Petty,Wilson, Lemmy, and the 381s.That's not an insignificant # of guitars made,but compared to their regular production instruments, not nearly as many.Only John Hall could tell us just what the current supply is and future availability of this material, which I believe is made in Germany, or somewhere in Europe.

Rick is difficult to deal with as far as customer service goes. At Guitar Center, the guys will tell you that they don't push ricks because of their return policies. They have tags on their RIC instruments telling you that once you take it out of the store you cannot bring it back. You don't see the same policy for Fender or Gibson.

Also, the quality of RIC instruments has gone down the tubes since the mid-seventies. Their necks are like baseball bats, the newly tilted headstock makes the basses look like cheap Korean copies, and the finish qualities stink. You can see the skunk stripes protrude through the finish.

One thing is for sure, they do have a unique sound that needs to be re-discovered. That sound fits right in the pocket with most of the rock and roll being made today. Where is their promotion? Fender offers Vintage, not so vintage and new stuff, and most of the Fender stuff is very close to original. Not like buying a 360V64, and then a few years newer "real" vintage instruments are produced. If they're going to do a vintage series then make it THE vintage series instead of releasing the truer Vintage series.

The RIC sound represents rock and roll, and whether good or bad, alot of it is being made these days. I don't mean to knock RIC over the head with a bat, I just sense that their attitudes are that "you'll buy what we give you" and what we offer you is good enough, take it or leave it. That's not good enough for me.

Charlie, when you can sell everything you are able to produce, you can set the terms. It's that simple. And they can. They don't need to promote. They don't need to set up clinics to demonstrate potential.

RIC has no problem selling all their production to their dealers, they could sell more if they had the capacity to produce more, and they could sign up many more dealers if they wished. But they seem happy the way things are. I would be too.

RIC has never claimed that the V series were exact copies, they made clear from the beginning that they were modern versions of the classics, with modern improvements such as the redesigned trussrod system, which necessitated a thicker neck. You don't like the thicker neck? Then you don't have to buy it. But plenty of people do, myself included.

Most dealers have no problem selling their inventory. Guitar Center may be an exception. But you cannot blame RIC if GC doesn't treat instruments properly.

RIC are not required to build 'em like they used to just because someone demands it. What do you mean, it's not good enough for you? What choice do you have? It's a privately owned business. You have the choice to deal with them or not. Bashing them (which is exactly what you're doing) will accomplish nothing.

And they are not Fender. We should all be thankful for that. My experience with Fender has been excellent, too, but the last thing I would want is for RIC to be like Fender. In my view, very few Fender products are faithful to the originals.

I own a 4001V63 that I bought from Chris at Pick of the Ricks this past summer. I have to say I love this bass! I have neither seen or heard anything that would make me doubt the quality of the construction at all. In fact, the quality is excellent. The headstock is tilted back a little, but IMO, this is not worth complaining about. I know my Ric is a vintage reissue brought up to date, and I am perfectly happy with that, but that is only my humble opinion.

My My, how people get touchy here. I didn't see Mr Taylor's response until now. I have all the right to bash whoever I please. My feelings for Rick are shared by many players who I've worked with that say the same thing that I do. Being a Fan is one thing. Getting a superior product is another. I happen to own 12 Ric instruments. I think that certifies me as a true fan. I also drive a Mustang GT, and this one is the fifth one I've owned. I think that certifies me as a mustang fan. I still and always felt that the car could handle alot better with just a little effort on their part. The same goes with RIC. I love RIC's but have seen some horror shows like the binding coming off the instrument while still at the store display, not to mention the action on the basses being an inch off the fingerboard. This helps convince a potential customer in buying a RIC! You say that they sell everything that they can produce? There are a few 4003's at Manny's Music here in NYC that have probably been hanging there for at least two years. I have to say it as I see it. My point is That if you have a product that is popular, and its quality control starts to go south, it's time to be honest and let others know about it. How would you feel if you bought two 360-12-V64's, paid good money for them, and now they have the "REAL" version of the same instrument at twice the price!!!

My mistake, the response was to Mr Westheimer,

Charlie, I can't complain about the quality of my 4003 one bit. It came out of the box in flawless shape. It hasn't been touched (setup) and doesn't need to be. The tilted headstock is a sensible thing. If you saw my 4001S you'd know why. The neck is a little thicker but not much. I also recall JH saying that they don't have to be this way because the newer trussrod system allows for thinner necks IF thet chose to make them that way.
If the C series basses were to come out with all of the old flaws in them which have been corrected over the years there'd be a lot of complaining customers. Just my observations.

Hello Gerry, you are 100% correct. I too have bought new RIC instruments that were flawless.
Needless to say that in the early seventies when the 4001 was being used by so many artists, their comments were often based on how thin the necks were and how they were the flipside to Fenders.
Those comments were very true. I too played them for the same reasons. My 71 4001S has the thinnest neck that I have ever played in any rick bass.
My 73 4000 and my 75 4001 are also thin. Move to the late seventies/early eighties, and now you are playing a Rickenbacker with a Fender neck on it!!!
You started to see less and less artists playing them. That tells you something. It used to be a pleasure to walk into a Sam Ash Music store in 1973 and pick up a RIC from the rack and the bass Had everything that made it that much different from the rest. Move to the eighties, and now you have the "Vintage Reissues" available. I ran to the music store to re-live that early seventies experience and was truly let down. the re-issues were just loaded with cosmetic features. You could blindfold me and I couldn't tell the difference between say, a 4001V63 and a modern day 4001S. I must say that being that the early horseshoe pickup was a problem, they redesigned the reissue to look and sound very much like the original. Hats off to RIC for that!!! I bought a 4001CS after reading that the neck was designed to Chris Squire's specs of his own bass. I'll tell you, I cannot belive that Squire's original bass had such a baseball bat style neck like the 4001CS. I'll also say that what they did was start with a 4001V63 and made minor mods to the headstock and finish and called it a 4001CS!! I know that there are some people that will say that there is a difference in neck style between the 4001V63 and the CS. the difference is insignificant to me, they are both in the baseball bat range. If you own an original instrument from one of the other manufactuers that makes re-issues, their instruments are very close to the original, not only in looks. but in neck and body styles as well. I'm not trying to bash anyone, I'm just being realistic and hoping that RIC can be competitive in making truer vintage instruments the way the F-boys do.

I just read Mr. Castro's reply to Mr Westheimer, and I thank him for clearing up the reference made to me which was intended for him.

I am a RIC fan and am happy to be one. I also respect the opinions of all who post on this forum concerning RIC, good or bad.

I value quality as much as anyone else. I have played over 24 years, and I used to own a 1976 4001 that was an excellent bass. It had the thinner neck long associated with Rickenbacker basses. Now I have a 4001V63, and while the neck is thicker than my old 4001, to me it feels more stable and strong. Most of all it has that fine RIC sound that I really had missed over the years.

I see Mr. Castro's point in that I have tried a lot of basses in stores from many brands. You pick up one and the construction is great, pick up another of the same make and it might not be so good. I just feel that RIC basses are some of the best basses around quality and sound wise. I speak only for my musical tastes, and is not meant to be ctitical to anyone who feels different so let's all relax.