Make your own Ric, well..... sort of.

[scotty]

Regardless if it is real or not good or bad its only £120 and im sure it would be fun in building(screwing together) id still buy this just to annoy everyone out there in the forum I dont really want to get involved in the Logistical laws that im sure will crop up in this thread.What i know is its just a fake and at £120 if it all goes wrong youve not lost much!Yeah id buy a fakenbacker why not its a piece of wood that kind of looks like a popular guitar.I as am a consumer of Rickenbackers I an not offended by this furthermore if this is a concern to RIC they will snuff this out quick.
OK im waiting for the storm!

[godber]

Did I guess your custom paint job Scotty-the-mischievous?

Rickenbaxter.jpg

[fireglo67]

Did I guess your custom paint job Scotty-the-mischievous?

Rickenbaxter.jpg

It's a Rickenbaxter 330....... Scottys signature model!

Those sly dogs over at Ric kept that one quiet!

Stick it on ebay and watch it fly.......

[deaconblues]

It is what it is. A cheap copy.
I like the fact that maybe I will finally get to have my 330 with white binding.
If the factory won't do it, why can't I?
Will it last or play well? I doubt it.
It will be good as a fun project.
Those are the type where you take it to a barbecue and not worry about thrashing it around.
It has it's uses.

Oh, it has its uses... FIREWOOD!

[scotty]

`Thats not chicken.Its Pea and ham without the bones!Whats yer Beef guys its a beauty! Im lovin it do do dodoo do

[jingle_jangle]

A couple of things come to mind besides burning one of these on Guy Fawkes night:
1. It seems this is right up there with those Chinese Rickenfakers, and all that copyright infringement that RIC is so diligent about pursuing,
2. It also seems that one could take the wiring schematics, a non-descript, generic semi-hollow guitar body, a couple of single coil pckcups, a 21 fret set in neck if you like, and knobs and switches and make your own Rickenbacker styled or shall I say inspired guitar without the legal hassles.

Looks to me like these guys are pushing the legal envelope at their own risk. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

JimK

Amen to this. I hate to generalize too much, but there seems to be a different attitude over there across the Pond...a lot more flaunting of intellectual property laws, and a whole lot of nose-thumbing when it comes to Rick knockoffs.

This particular nastiness of a DIY Fakenbacker has cropped up at least once before on the RRF. It seems to me that if we're here to celebrate the exquisite and unique instruments made by RIC, we should not be watering things down by even considering these in anything but a negative light.

That's ignoring the legality of this, the ethics, and the fact that these are butt-ugly anti-Ricks.

Absolutely fair comment.

But.....

What if it was a really top quality kit using quality wood, excellent electronics and hand crafted by a skilled luthier?

Is it offensive because it is a cheap knock off, or because of the legality, ethics and the potential damage this sort of thing could do to Ric?

It's just I'm thinking of how many people embraced the Piers Crocker fake Rics. I'm not sure of the background story of his Ric copies and whether or not he had permission from Ric to produce those as a third party. If he didn't have permission, those guitars were beautifully made for sure, but legally and ethically just as offensive and wrong as this, no?

Briefly put, it's BOTH issues. The legal and ethical violation, to some extent, contributes to the cheap, ****** knockoff situation, because it's for the most part the people who make the cheap ****** junk (the Chinese, these days), who simply do not GET the idea of intellectual property, or (in a more cynical view) simply COULD CARE LESS what laws they are violating to make a buck.

It's commonly known and accepted that any product with a unique and marketable feature, if sent to be manufactured in China these days, must be contracted by either the designer or broker to be made in such a way that there are stiff-real-word penalties to the contract manufacturer in the event that copies appear in the marketplace. It's known that without this, at the same time the items are made for the company who originated the idea and product, extra production will be made on the same line with the same tooling, to be labelled with a competitor's logotype. At this point, whether the Chinese "get it" or not: whether they understand the concept or ownership of intellectual property, or whether they choose to simply ignore it in the interest of turning a quick buck, becomes a moot point.

I have spoken to Piers Crocker and gotten the impression that he believed at the time he made his "F" knockoffs, what many builders believe: that, because of Fender's and Gibson's neglect in protecting their designs and "trade dress" items in a timely manner, any guitar shape was fair game. I'm sure he knows better now, and this seems to be borne out by the fact that he hasn't built any more Rick knockoffs in the last 5 years.

Makes no difference who built them, or how well they are made. If there was not permission granted, and they were built for profit, they are counterfeits.

Still, that kit is most offensive. Most people don't have the sensitivity to be able to tell what's wrong with the interpretation, but if you were to put the kit built side-by-side with a real Rickenbacker instrument, people would be able to spot the difference, and rate the kit in unflattering terms. And that is the crux of one type of damage done to Rick's hard-earned reputation.

If I was a marketing guy (used to be a creative director in a former life), asked to design a campaign for RIC (something that they, frankly have no need for at this time, at least not for purposes of increasing market share!), I would focus upon one thing that John Hall has told me and has said on numerous occasions:

"We've never built our guitars anywhere but in the USA and never will, either."

[whojamfan]

Yeah, but now I can cover it in truck bed liner, throw a Floyd on it and some EMGs and be the next God of Metal dude!!

[fireglo67]

Briefly put, it's BOTH issues. The legal and ethical violation, to some extent, contributes to the cheap, ****** knockoff situation, because it's for the most part the people who make the cheap ****** junk (the Chinese, these days), who simply do not GET the idea of intellectual property, or (in a more cynical view) simply COULD CARE LESS what laws they are violating to make a buck.

It's commonly known and accepted that any product with a unique and marketable feature, if sent to be manufactured in China these days, must be contracted by either the designer or broker to be made in such a way that there are stiff-real-word penalties to the contract manufacturer in the event that copies appear in the marketplace. It's known that without this, at the same time the items are made for the company who originated the idea and product, extra production will be made on the same line with the same tooling, to be labelled with a competitor's logotype. At this point, whether the Chinese "get it" or not: whether they understand the concept or ownership of intellectual property, or whether they choose to simply ignore it in the interest of turning a quick buck, becomes a moot point.

I have spoken to Piers Crocker and gotten the impression that he believed at the time he made his "F" knockoffs, what many builders believe: that, because of Fender's and Gibson's neglect in protecting their designs and "trade dress" items in a timely manner, any guitar shape was fair game. I'm sure he knows better now, and this seems to be borne out by the fact that he hasn't built any more Rick knockoffs in the last 5 years.

Makes no difference who built them, or how well they are made. If there was not permission granted, and they were built for profit, they are counterfeits.

Still, that kit is most offensive. Most people don't have the sensitivity to be able to tell what's wrong with the interpretation, but if you were to put the kit built side-by-side with a real Rickenbacker instrument, people would be able to spot the difference, and rate the kit in unflattering terms. And that is the crux of one type of damage done to Rick's hard-earned reputation.

If I was a marketing guy (used to be a creative director in a former life), asked to design a campaign for RIC (something that they, frankly have no need for at this time, at least not for purposes of increasing market share!), I would focus upon one thing that John Hall has told me and has said on numerous occasions:

"We've never built our guitars anywhere but in the USA and never will, either."

I'm not disputing the fact that Rickenbacker are absolutely correct in their aggressive approach to protecting their products and copyrights. You just have to look at the squillions of different rubbish fender and Gibson clones out there to see what harm it can do both financially and to their reputation. And I'd guess that if Rickenbacker weren't seen to be actively persuing the makers and sellers of these copies, eventually they'd end up in the same position as Fender/Gibson in that they would no longer have the strong backing of the law courts.
And I also do not dispute the fact that all copies are obviously just made to make money, and in the case of guitar copies, on the back of the reputation and desirability of a company product such as Rickenbacker's.

I suppose that my point (if there really was one) was that there seems to be some double standards when it comes to some peoples attitudes to these copies.

When it's an obvious cheap and ugly knock off, like these kits, people post pictures of chainsaws.
When someone posted a picture of a Piers Crocker copy, people were cooing over them almost as much as the real thing.

In my opinion, I'd say that the guitars that people like Crocker were/are producing are far more of a threat to Rickenbacker than a million of these glue together kits could ever be. If you stuck a half decent TRC on a Crockenbacker 360F, I'd doubt I'd be able to tell that it wasn't the real thing. I certainly wouldn't say that about these kit guitars.

[winston]

Topics similar to this crop up every once in a while.............yawn and they always get beaten to death. Defenders of the faith in one corner and those who desire absolute freedom to buy or build anything that they want without being criticized or pursued by the keepers of the law in the other corner. Nothing it seems will bring the two sides together in absolute agreement.

But: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Point 1) They should never have been made at all. and Point 2) no one should buy them.

We can joke about this all day long as some of us have intended to do to make light of this topic but the manufacturers of this garbage are breaking the law. We can say and demonstrate that there are knock offs of all sorts of products, all over the place and readily available. It does not ever equate to it being right. End of story.

Two wrongs simply don't make a right.

[fireglo67]

You say tomaytow and I say tomato......

End of discussion.

[scotty]

Ok im done here

[rick_ovic]

As I understand the situation, Piers Crocker did not have permission to copy Rickenbacker's F model guitars and, as a consequence, he received a cease and desist letter from RIC.

[weemac]

The problem is, there are plenty of folks out there who will never be able to afford a real Rickenbacker. They may be big fans of the instrument, but they have to eat as well. For many, if it looks a bit like a Rickenbacker and sounds a tiny bit like a Rickenbacker, it's the best they will ever be able to afford.

Now while I agree about Ric protecting it's interests, I just find it sad that the little guy has to suffer as well..

How many of you out there started with a cheap Strat or LP knockoff. You knew it was not real, you knew that it was a cheap piece of plywood with a dodgy neck. It sounded like ***** and the frets would draw blood from the sides of your fingers.
However If you squinted, it still gave you the evocative feeling of having a guitar a bit like your musical hero's signature model. And it made you look cool when you posed infront of the mirror. (didn't work in my case)

Some will eventually be able to afford the real thing and the nasty fake either gets "customised" or just placed in the cupboard (with no cups) and brought out for nostalga, or for their kids to learn on.

But for many, the nasty knockoff is the closest they are going to get (apart from carefully playing a real one in the music shop, if the shop assistant will even let them touch it!)

Don't forget the little guy!

I'd love a old Ferrari but I can only afford a old Fiat!
emac.

[grazioso]

things like crockenbackers and those 4005 and one off pieces came out of need for something different that the RIC is simply not willing and/or able to do. if the person who plays it out is big enough name the corporation will look the other way. it is pointless to put some cheap do it yourself look_a_like kit next to f body or other high end rickenbacker inspired guitar. that is wrong match.

paul w has licence to make acoustics - that sounds like good way to do it here in us for high end instruments that there is no gigantic demand for.

what i don't get is : why everybody talks about china everytime this debate rises from the ashes again. there are other countries where decent guitars are being produced beside china (e.g. czech republic where i came from) where people do have enough integrity not to do extra production runs and production cost is somewhere between orient and usa. you can still find here and there very nice epiphones les pauls made for european market there in 1990's which i wouldn't hesitate to put against any us made gibson. the only reason this production ended was the fact that korean production was cheaper. the same factory went and produced bunch of high end dean guitars and same story, it went to korea or whatever. than they went making fender like parts for parts dealer, last news i got is that they are closed. the whole region took big hit there from this. typical corporate **** of penny saving. so taking dormant label like electro and make bunch of those es16 es17 and like 450/12 with electro label for normal money in place like that sounds like win win to me. it is part of eu, so you have your trademark and copyright laws enforced, quality of production is excellent, no eu import duties. why nobody thinks of that? beating again and again that empty straw of oriental crop in these debates seems rather pointless.

[jps]

I'd love a old Ferrari but I can only afford a old Fiat!
emac.

In that case get a FIAT Dino.