Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I would say that the post late 70s Rick basses seemed less high quality in terms of hardware than the early 70s ones.
The changes like the new tailpiece and discarding of toasters made the bass less appealing to some players I think.
But theres always the opposite view that the new wave wanted basses that were set apart from the old wave of rockers.
With hindsight however there is the ongoing view that the old bass bridge casting was more sturdy and the look of the elongated headstock of the earlier 4000 series (with dark wings if visible) was way more elegant and attractive than later variations.
Was that a decline?
Well looking at the pouplarity of V63 basses CS series and Vintage and Signature guitars I would say yes.

I always bang on about this but if Rickenbacker catered for the players who want vintage accurate but new playable instruments that are insureable and gigable then that would be a positive step. Gibson did it with the 1958 Les Paul re-issues so why not?
The guitars that appear to be pristine after all these years ( mainly fireglo) are I think true testament to the great skill and knowledge of the people who designed and carried out the finish of those guitars.
Those of us that are fortunate enough to have encountered vintage (60s-early 70s) 4000 series basses will tell you that most that you come across have had a hard life to say the least. The predominantly fireglo finish is bomb proof though so a well looked after 6/12 string guitar will seem almost untouched by comparison.
In the late 70s the retro-fitted hardware business wrecked a lot of fine vintage Ricks.

I mentioned a while back that we need to see more RMs....where are they?
Everybody wants one more than a 58 Les Paul so why not do something about that market?

There needs to be an acceptance from Rickenbacker that their stock in trade is their vintage appeal and that they need to move on from the need to develop the next world beating new design (its not going to happen) and just keep giving us what we all want to play and see played.
Just as there is now the Classic Rock tour of bands from the 60s and 70s that still influence the future so Rickenbacker should carry their guitars ahead as a present and future classic like Fender do and rely on their classic designs.

In short....Yes they did.

I have no complaints, I ordered this new in 1982 and received it in March of 1983.



The guitar is a bit heavier than it's 60's and 70's counterparts but it's something I don't personally have a problem with.



The wiring was still old school with the treble cap still being used.

Trig posting here? Having no BGC will do some strange things to people.

sloop_john_b wrote:Trig posting here? Having no BGC will do some strange things to people.

yeah, what happened to the BGC?

Server is down

Did Rics decline in the 70's....?

No.

These certainly do not show any decline in fit/finish/playability/sound:

seyesbass wrote: I always bang on about this but if Rickenbacker catered for the players who want vintage accurate but new playable instruments that are insureable and gigable then that would be a positive step. Gibson did it with the 1958 Les Paul re-issues so why not?

What do you mean by that??

dpowell wrote:

seyesbass wrote: I always bang on about this but if Rickenbacker catered for the players who want vintage accurate but new playable instruments that are insureable and gigable then that would be a positive step. Gibson did it with the 1958 Les Paul re-issues so why not?

What do you mean by that??

I think he means accurate-to the nth-degree spec vintage reproductions (possibly means relics, I dunno..). Most Les Paul fanatics are guitar nerds x10, that will microscopically evaluate a phillips screw for correct shape. Then again, you're talking a Half million dollar standard guitar too...

But, I'd say Ric cares enough about the player to consistently produce high quality guitars for a 50+ year span. Can't say the same for Gibson/Fender and many others particularily in the 1970's

I'd say no.

collin wrote:

dpowell wrote:

seyesbass wrote: I always bang on about this but if Rickenbacker catered for the players who want vintage accurate but new playable instruments that are insureable and gigable then that would be a positive step. Gibson did it with the 1958 Les Paul re-issues so why not?

What do you mean by that??

I think he means accurate-to the nth-degree spec vintage reproductions (possibly means relics, I dunno..). Most Les Paul fanatics are guitar nerds x10, that will microscopically evaluate a phillips screw for correct shape. Then again, you're talking a Half million dollar standard guitar too...

But, I'd say Ric cares enough about the player to consistently produce high quality guitars for a 50+ year span. Can't say the same for Gibson/Fender and many others particularily in the 1970's

Huh...I happen to own a '64 reissue 325 and a '58 reissue Les Paul, and the 325 is much more accurate and of much better build quality. Many features on the reissue Les Pauls are incorrect, such as top carve, tailpiece position, pickup ring and pickguard plastic, TRC, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Les Paul. It's just not Rickenbacker-quality.

dpowell wrote:
Huh...I happen to own a '64 reissue 325 and a '58 reissue Les Paul, and the 325 is much more accurate and of much better build quality. Many features on the reissue Les Pauls are incorrect, such as top carve, tailpiece position, pickup ring and pickguard plastic, TRC, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I love my Les Paul. It's just not Rickenbacker-quality.

Actually, this is a subject close to mind lately. I used to have a 360v64 FG and thought it was an identical reissue of an OS 360. Then I recently bought a '65 365OS, and took detailed pics and measurements of both instruments. It was amazing how different the two were. Not different in terms that Les Paul fanatics use (screw heads etc..) , but big stuff like the actual shape of the body, headstock, thickness of the neck, etc etc....they were miles apart, despite the fact that RIC mentioned using "original templates" to build them.

Granted, no two Rics are identical, so my comparison is limited. At least the build quality was always top-notch on both of them.

collin wrote:. . .they were miles apart, despite the fact that RIC mentioned using "original templates" to build them.

Show me where this was said.

What certainly is true and what probably was said is that these were built on much of the same machinery using many of the same fixtures. The "C" Series was the first line where the intent was exceptional accuracy and because only then was there the interest in such detailed replicas.

johnhall wrote:What certainly is true and what probably was said is that these were built on much of the same machinery using many of the same fixtures. The "C" Series was the first line where the intent was exceptional accuracy and because only then was there the interest in such detailed replicas.

Sounds good! So when is the headstock going to be turned around on the 4001c64?

Eden.

P.S. (The headstock on the Sir Paul C64s should remain backwards)

The V-Series guitars left a bit to be desired...some more than others!

I am quite happy with my 360V64. I guess I am not that fanatical about the details; it is still a fantastic guitar, to me, anyway. Same goes for my 4001V63.