Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

shamustwin wrote:I vote for a 5 string 4002 or a 2 string 4005.

+1
Eden.

Who's to say Ric won't make a radical change like Harley-Davidson did with the introduction of the V-Rod? The style may be totally different (like the V-Rod) but the tone would be the same or even slightly different (again, like the V-Rod).

H-D made that change because of burgeoning market demand, at least partially. The H-D aftermarket was getting so large that prices were in line or higher than a new one. This meant that as time went on (assuming demand stayed the same) that H-D would be competing against its own aftermarket.

Ric is kind of in the same boat in that respect.

And like Chief Brodie, they might want a bigger boat.

A very interesting obeservation Scott.

I like Ricks but HD's don't do much for me. If you said MV or Ducati... mmmmmmmmmmm...

Scott, one could say that RIC had tried that with the 3000/2000 series of basses (and to some extent, the 4005 and 4002 series). I dunno, my guess is something more retro.

more retro.....yeah the 1957 4000 RI !!!!

I'd personally like to see a traditionally styled fiver with a neck dimensioned about like a Stingray 5 - which is actually pretty narrow.

woodyng wrote:more retro.....yeah the 1957 4000 RI !!!!

+1000!

kenf wrote:I'd personally like to see a traditionally styled fiver with a neck dimensioned about like a Stingray 5 - which is actually pretty narrow.

I have played a Stingray 5, the neck on my Zon Sonus 5/1 is more Rick like, I think. The MM was a bit chunky, I thought.

jps wrote:

woodyng wrote:more retro.....yeah the 1957 4000 RI !!!!

+1000!

This is what I want too. Very seriously doubt it though.

jingle_jangle wrote:...or maybe this:

My band wanted to cover this, but I could never remember the words.

shamustwin wrote:My band wanted to cover this, but I could never remember the words.

Paul states:

Scott, one could say that RIC had tried that with the 3000/2000 series of basses (and to some extent, the 4005 and 4002 series). I dunno, my guess is something more retro.

I don't know. Looking at all of the basses out on the market, how much more retro do you get other than any Ric or a Fender bass? When I think retro basses, I think of these two and only these two. Maybe even an upright depending on how far back I want to imagine.

Not that Ric (I should start capitalizing that when referring to the company RIC) needs to cater to the lolly-palooza crowd or the surf punks down the street, but who really is their target market? Bassists in general? Bassists with taste? Bassists with no sense other than a desire to own a Ric?

What really is behind the marketing minds of RIC? What do they dream about and where do they want the company to go? It's not about what you or I want RIC to do or make, it's what they feel is necessary to 1) carry them longterm and 2) make their customers happy--in that order.

If, in the process of doing (1) you create another following of customers to feed into (2) so much the better. H-D started that but I don't honestly know where they are now because I haven't given a fig about H-D in over a decade--though I do hear things now and again.

So, while a retro kit will definitely appeal to its current base of customers, it likely won't appeal to new customers.

That's the point I was trying to make.

I'm not saying they'll start making fancy 7 and 9 string fretless basses with neon glow sharkfins and stereo kazoo outs with quatro-double equilizer quantum pickups or something like that, but it does make sense for them to create something very new but still be a Rickenbacker.

And the reasons the 3000/2000 series didn't do this is that the high demand for the 400x series was too great to just limit production of them while they pushed further on the 3000/2000 lines.

Now with that said, if they introduce something even remotely different, they likely will be stuck in the same position as they were then simply due to the demand of the 4003.

Anyway, I've brain dumped enough and it probably doesn't even make a lot of sense. (I have a tendency to leave out words when I'm at work because I get interrupted about ever 23.4 seconds)

I get what you're saying. I think if they took some cues from newer boutique lines like Conklin (which in all honesty are reviving many of RIC's own practices from days of yore with some of their "innovations", like beautiful and stable laminate necks), started going to regular 5-string production and/or fretless production, unleashed the new bridge or went over to the 4004-style bridge, and lastly turned away from Horseshoe-style routing, I think they'd have the makings of another great modern model to compliment the market the 4004 was (I'm guessing) designed for.

That said, I would be super interested in a 4004 if not for a few unadjustable things like the pickup placement. I don't want to have to rerout it and all that... might as well start from the ground up in that case. But my point is that maybe RIC just need to let it diverge into a couple of slightly different models in order to appeal more widely? My dream 4004 would probably have more fret positions, an extra string, a laminate neck, be fretless, and have 4002 pickup spacing. But that's just me and I have literally zero confidence that a bass like that will ever come from the RIC factory, based on current evidence.

We also have to remember that no matter how much RIC wants to innovate and improve they are facing a backlog from a bunch of ravenous people, a large chunk of which are retro purists. Now, I don't think a brand new 4003 is retro at all--far from it, they are modern machines. But stylistic designs away from the current look of the 4003, for instance, would be a huge blow to the constituents of the current backlog, or so I would guess. Sure, the backlog is slowing things down, but it's also a known source of revenue that RIC needs to fuel future innovations. A rock and a hard place, it would seem.

It's a tough spot to be in. I don't envy RIC's position. There are lots of roads they could take, but which is the right one? Which one will stay the most true to the original intent of the company while expanding horizons? I have no idea.

Tarrbot wrote:(I should start capitalizing that when referring to the company RIC)

Don't forget to italicize it, also!

RIC

Bold is useful, too.

RIC

If you want to really get it right, try a color.

RIC

Yes, RIC is definitely in a great position and in a bad position. Great with the demand, bad with how it limits the choices in what is expected.

I'm definitely in love with my 4003. I can't see how they could improve upon that basic design for the retro fans.

However, this is where the crux of the decision probably lies. If you're RIC, do you 1) go with a "same but different" look a la the 4004 or do you 2) go with a completely different look but give it retro Ric options like checkered trim or horseshoe pups and shark fin inlays?

I'm not sure where the smart decision is on those two. Personally I want to see both as an option but I prefer to lean more heavily on option 2 as it might appeal to more non-Ric folks, especially if you have the ability to not order the retro Ric options and rely strictly on the different look.

Jeff states:

Don't forget to italicize it, also!

RIC

Bold is useful, too.

RIC

If you want to really get it right, try a color.

RIC

Shouldn't I link and underline it too? RIC