Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Don't forget the upcharge for the "live" 12- string bass in a custom-hydrated aqua case.

"What, all 50 of you if the price were $1500, and all 2 of you if it's $4,500?"

My opinion: Having watched the sales of these with lots of interest over the years, I'd say this statement is spot on.

Wow. I can't believe how much discussion this has generated!

To be selfish about the issue, I would be disappointed if RIC issued a new "special" bass when there is over a two year wait on a production COY model (4004 bbr and, I'm guessing AFG for those on order). My understanding is the reason they quit selling the 4005s in the first place was lack of sales.

Of course that doesn't mean I wouldn't want one, but $4500 (and that's street price?) is a lot of cash.

It would have been an even bigger prank if the AF was announced without explanation until Monday. Fortunately, Mr. Hall isn't that cruel.

the kicker is the only reason there is even a demand now is the fact that they are no longer in production.

If they WERE still in production, I doubt there would be more than 50 orders a year.

Quote: "I don't see the humor. There's nothing funny about a reissue with Grovers and Hi-Gains."

yet another reason the 4005 won't really be re-issued ... those who want one can't agree on features ...

Hey JH,

How many V68's would sell ?????

I've said this before, so forgive me. I think that the number of people who want 4005s so badly and are willing to pay $4000 to $6000 for a new one, is matched by the number of vintage instruments that come up for sale at that price. It wouldn't make sense for RIC to tool up for such a small number.

I agree with you Paul. If someone has $4000 and up to spend and really wants a 4005, there are plenty from the 70's (and even 80's) out there that can be had for around that price.

1. Obviously I missed something. Silly me. I was spending time with my family on Sunday and doing family errands.
Anyone have a copy of the "News Release?"

2. The market at $4500 would be admittedly miniscule. I would not (and could not) pay that much.

3. I have never seen a 4005 go for less than $6000. The recent one on eBay, the Chicago one and the one at the Reading show were all at around that price or more. Most I've seen are around $8000. So, I'm sorry, IMHO, the "if we were really interested we'd buy a vintage one now" doesn't fly with me.

Mark - in the past year, I bought one for well under $6k and have seen two others - one on the forum, one in the UK - go for under $6k as well.

The recent one on eBay was a '68, which is a more desirable year for the 4005's having CB and toasters. CME? Come on, what do you expect?

Could be John, could be.
But still way out of my possible price range.
Not only would my wife divorce me but my kids would divorce me too.

Those were the last you will see at "well under $6k". That was 2006. This is 2007 and the prices have notched up to the $7000+ range and are not likely to ever go back down

A true new product exactly identical to an original 67 version in every way would be compelling at a $4500 retail, which would go under $4000 street of course. I would buy one, maybe more than one

But I am afraid that RIC would fail if they stepped on their own collective ***** and made it an inaccurate reissue, like the Chris Squire debacle

Elys, I would say "debacle" is a strong word. I'm sure many, many people are happy with their "debacle" CS basses. I played one of the earlier ones and loved it - if I hadn't been getting a 4005 at the time, I probably would have went for it instead.

OK. Not saying at all that many who have one should not like theirs. I had the impression myself from playing a couple different ones that it had a chunky neck, and have heard many say it was not an accurate reissue of the Rose Morris, especially the neck. John Hall responded by saying RIC never said they would reissue it to exactly the same specs as the original, particularly the dimensions of the neck were not planned by RIC to be as thin and fast. Not to mention that Chris Squire had some rather strong words quoted in the press about how the reissue was not at all like his, too.

If I am wrong, and if I am misquoting John, then I sincerely apologize. Please, pick a different word than "debacle", I did not mean to offend anyone.