Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:58 am
by greg_mitchell
"modern Rics rule..."
Right! None of that overblown, over priced overrated "vintage" stuff in here. No siree. Not here.
Actually, I'm partially serious in that as I think modern Rickenbackers are of a better quality than their predecessors.
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:02 am
by BobKat
There are definitely some things about newer Rickenbackers that lend more confidence than older ones. That takes nothing away from older ones, but the '80s did bring some great improvements in structural integrity and longevity. Did this come at the cost of tone? Some say yes but I think it's a blanket statement. Some new RICs sound better than some vintage pieces and vice-versa.
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:19 am
by kcole4001
I think the whole "vintage" thing is part nostalgia for "the good old days" & part fact that quality isn't what it used to be when everything was hand made & pride of workmanship mattered more than gross sales figures.
This quality issue isn't relevant to Ricks since they're still made with the care & pride they always were, only now with more advanced equipment & materials.
The high prices for vintage Ricks are really for rare & discontinued pieces, not better made or finished pieces. But of course we all know that already.
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:27 am
by BobKat
Well said.
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:33 am
by greg_mitchell
I've yet to find a problem with mine....tonally or otherwise. I think in alot of situations it's what you're playing through, playing style, style of music, et cetera that makes the difference. I'm certainly happy with mine and if something were to happen to all of my guitars, my 4003 would be the first one I'd replace.
The reason for at least some of the "vintage" guitars not sounding as good ,in my humble opinion, is that some are bought, put away and not played, or not well cared for i.e. left out of their cases for extended periods, exposed to temp. extremes, and the like. I may be way off base here but I feel like that is possibly some of the examples of old guitars not sounding good.
However overall I feel that the newer Ricks have a much better build quality and the electronics are better than the older ones.
But that's my opinion.
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:35 am
by greg_mitchell
Oh, by the way....welcome Bob...glad to have you!
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:36 am
by BobKat
Glad to have been asked to contribute.
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:02 pm
by beatlefan
Bob....
I haven't a "SHADOW" of a doubt that you're the right man for the job!

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:34 pm
by cheyenne
Welcome Bob!
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:54 pm
by jps
Welcome, now let's make Bob "sweat the details"!
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:12 pm
by dannyboy
I'm sure you'll do a great job, Bob! Welcome

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:17 pm
by lawton
Wow, Bob! Reading the blurb at the forum opener page makes me feel really good that you liked the setup on the 325C58 I sold you -- Geez... I didn't know that I was THAT good!

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:27 pm
by wayang
"Congratulations, Bob"...looking forward to lots of good info...
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:13 pm
by jwr2
old rics are over rated ... the old 4001 basses are yellowed, the pickups are weaker, they have a bass cut capacitor, when their truss rods are improperly adjusted the neck is damaged, and just putting on round wound strings stresses the 4001 beyond its design specs ...
Give me a modern Ric bass ... it is stronger, louder, fuller, more versatile, less rust, less yellowing, it is newer and better ... plus the modern basses can be converted to a 5 string bass ...
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:28 pm
by johnnyb
After only three weeks with my new 4003fg..and having owned a 1982 4001 (in 1982!)..I would tend to agree that modern Ricks sound a great deal better than I remember my 4001 sounding..( yes I know..I just mean "bassier") I rather like the new neck...I love being able to roll off and into a very "precise" sound with that rick bite always present