Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

tennis_nick wrote:I'm starting to find all these "historically accurate" models to be a waste of resource. The past is gone, take your product and move it forward....

There are many people who love and appreciate the vintage reproduction models.

The c64 has the backwards headstock, which is totally different than any other Rick bass. It therefore cannot be an accurate reproduction.

I reject the premise of the thread title.

I think the superimposition of the two body shapes against one another shows how close the C64 is, rather than shows how "wrong" the C64 shape is. Further, to actually prove the claim, one would need a sihouette of McCartney's actual bass before Sir Paul reshaped it. Unless one can somehow manage to superimpose the C64 silhouette against McCartney's bass before he reshaped it, one can't tell for sure if it's REALLY accurate, can one?

One has no way of knowing which bass is closer to the original template from back in the day; the CNC shaped C64, or the hand shaped RM bass from back in the day. It is far more likely the former. As John A and I have mentioned, it's likely that a hand cut and shaped body from back in the day is likely to vary from the template to a certain degree, depending on the hands that are shaping it.

The differences are quite subtle, so it should not be that big of a deal, and I don't think it was RIC's goal to make an EXACT copy of a RM model, or McCartney's specifically down to the last millimeter, if that's even possible. That said, the C64 is a great approximation of a RM model, as the subtle differences between the silhouettes you've posted demonstrate.

I think almost all vintage model Rics are slightly different from what they copy in a number of ways.

Wes your post does not contain the results of your "research" and so for me your comments are just what they appear to be. Subjective, somewhat inflammatory and devoid of absolute proof.

Either prove your point and tell us why the slight difference that you claim exists causes you so much angst. If you are unable to do as asked I can tell you in the most clear and precise manner that this thread is destined to be deleted.

People who purposefully set up a thread to be controversial and initiate unfounded criticism of Rickenbacker designs, QA/QC processes, and or management of same will also not be tolerated. The rules of this forum that you have agreed to abide by in exchange for the privilege of being a member are very clear on what can and cannot be discussed.

I submit this to everyone reading this thread....

How many RM1999s were made with precise consistancy?

You can't take a profile of a C64 and a RM1999 and expect them to be the same....the manufacturing process was drastically different in 1964 than it is now, and you will find the C64 basses to have a much higher degree of similarity than the entire run of RM1999 basses due to the CNC process. The RM's were all over the place.

IMO the C64 is a pretty good contemporary reissue of the RM1999, although one change I would make would be the peghead---make it right-handed.....or if a Macca-spec bass is what you're wanting, then it HAS to be a lefty...the WHOLE bass.

winston wrote:If you are unable to do as asked I can tell you in the most clear and precise manner that this thread is destined to be deleted.

Brian, I won't delete it. I'd like to get it more intelligent level headed responses like yourself, John A, Kris, Paul A and John S...then I may lock it.

Ok, I have an old and used RM (which is not going anyware) but if they turned the headstock around on the c64 I'd start saving now! (the c64s basses should be backwards though!)
I doubt that you would find any RMs out there that are the same (Wints needs to throw his 2 cents in about now)
I agree that the c64 sort looks a bit fatter than your average RM but most of the surviving RMs have been sanded at some point and whos to say that Ric didn't have a original RM to copy off when they designed the c64.

If anything seems out of spec on the c64 (apart from the headstock) it would be the neck shape and thickness. The C64 is simply built with a greater safety margin in the strength department (so its bigger)
And does anyone really want the old horeshoe back? (I'm sure many will say yes until they actually hear them...)

Eden.

weemac wrote:And does anyone really want the old horeshoe back? (I'm sure many will say yes until they actually hear them...)
Eden.

Eden, I'm assuming that you meant that you think the RIHS is a great improvement over the original design.

rickenbrother wrote:Eden, I'm assuming that you mean the RIHS is a great improvement over the original design.

Well it is really isn't it...

The old horse has its own sound, but its a bit lean... It dosen't survive well without some toast!

Although there are some great surviving examples of old ones, there is alot more consistency with the RIHS (and power)

I'll keep my starving old horse though!

Eden.

weemac wrote:I'll keep my starving old horse though!

Eden.

You must not be feeding it enough toast!

I have a related question regarding vintage/reissue instruments from RIC. I have read in some threads that the CS reissues have different head stock sizes (lengths?) based on the year made and that V63 basses had varying neck thicknesses. How can reissues have different measurements based on build date if they are truly reissues? Does this indicate that RIC's interpretation of vintage/reissue is different from that commonly held by other manufacturers? By this, I mean that RIC may be intending to put out as accurate a representation of the model using modern build techniques and technology as they can without being tied to copying it exactly. If this is true, this a perfectly acceptable method of production as long as we understand the product being made (IMO) and know that it isn't an exact copy. Would we want to buy a new instrument with the old neck design and have to worry about string tension?

This leads to another question. How much different is the V63/C64 than an S model with a toaster and horseshoe from a tone/playability standpoint? [I'm really trying to convince myself that I don't want a C64 and that my 4001 will do just fine. That will help the bank account in the future. ]

winston wrote:Wes your post does not contain the results of your "research" and so for me your comments are just what they appear to be. Subjective, somewhat inflammatory and devoid of absolute proof.

I'm sorry, should have started this thread with the photos. I am not unreasonable, evidence must be presented to come to any logical conclusion. Here are two different 4001s basses that I'm comparing my C64 to.



Note the wrong shape and size of the side contour on the C64. Not long enough, deep enough, nor is it the right shape on the ends. Also note how the C64's upper hip is the the wrong place.



Note that the C64's crests are not pointy like the '64. The upper horn isn't as pointy, more like a nub. Upper horn is also fatter in the middle.

nukebass wrote:Are the C64s shaped differently from the current 4003s (besides the contour, I mean)?

They appear to be exactly the same, except the binding means the 4003 gets pointier horns. This is pretty solid evidence that RIC didn't put very much (maybe no) effort into making the shape of the C64 vintage-correct.

Wes, your pictures do not really justify starting this inflammatory thread. The C64 and C64S are recreations of Macca's RM1999. There is nothing in the product description that says it is an absolutely perfect imitation. The V63 basses also varied quite a bit though the years. No one is griping about that!
Look at identical twins. Guess what? They are not perfectly alike.

There are many people who WISH they could have a C64 or C64S.

I think you owe RIC and this board an apology.

I see the padlock coming soon!