Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

rickenbrother wrote:

ajish4 wrote:Welcome Gordon!

EXCELLENT!

I'm REALLY starting to get a case of GAS for one of these babies!

I know, I was behind you in the hotel corridor right after you played Andy Winters Gibb RM1999!

Ok, here's the $$$$$ question....what MIGHT one expect to pay for an ORIGINAL player RM? Not a show piece, but one that has seen a fair
amonut of use? 4k? 6K? I'm not talking a minty one, but one in average condition....8K?

cassius987 wrote:So if these basses were made to be inferior to the 4001S of the time, why are they more popular? John Entwistle, Paul McCartney, and Chris Squire I take it?

Not inferior, just spelled differently!
I believe apart from the ROMO badge on the case they are the same as the 4001s so if you have one without a case it is going to be really hard to know which is which...
Eden.

I just looked at the pictures. What a well-preserved bass. The FG has aged so beautifully. What I noticed when looking at the huge body closeup was the neck wood looks like it could have come off the factory shelf today. Same coloring and grain patterns that we get today. Neat.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick Cassius.
Rose Morris tried to keep the Rickenbacker bass within a price bracket comparable to the Fender and Gibson basses on sale in the British market.
They ordered the more basic option of the 4001 without binding and fancy inlays to keep the cost down and make sure they could shift them.
Its difficult even now in the 21st century to describe how impoverished we were (and probably still are) in England when compared to the rich sunny people in California and Purchase Tax on imports made US guitars very expensive.
Back to the bass.....
Build quality and structure were not compromised by the omission of the "deluxe" features and these basses were some of the very best instruments that Rickenbacker have ever produced and I can personally vouch for that.
Because the Rick factory only shipped 150 odd basses like these to Rose Morris and with high profile users such as the Who Floyd Beatles kinks and Bee Gees and Yes becoming icons of Rock later on,those original imports have become a comodity in the bass collectors market that compares with the iconic 1958 Les Paul in the vintage guitar market.
Both the Gibson and Rickenbacker have glued set necks that make the interchangeable Fenders easier to cobble together by comparison an also easier to fake.
That puts the 58 Les Paul and the 4001s in a very exclusive bracket.
I think an RM with general wear and tear in all original condition is going to fetch well over ten grand (£) and possibly double and beyond.
You cant underestimate the market for genuine Rock guitar rarities and at present its a better investment than gold.
That just about pushes all of us players out of the bidding and also makes it virtually impossible to gig an instrument like an RM.
So where does that leave us?.
I have banged on for years about this and I still maintain that Rickenbacker could build a totally vintage accurate copy of the RM retailing for four times the price of a current 4003 and the order books would be full from day one.
Gibson did it for the musicians who wanted a 58 Les Paul (even Page uses a re-issue) and Rickenbacker have the skills to do the same for the 60s RM1999/4001s with a market thats begging for them.
John Hall said that a Rickenbacker boutique Custom Shop wasnt possible some years back but these days I beg to differ and say why would anyone here for instance spend $6000 on a Fender Custom Shop 60s Jazz Bass (thats what it costs in England)if it was in a store hanging next to a Rickenbacker 60s RM1999 re-issue for the same price? Why let Fender have the lions share of the vintage re-issue bass market?
Even as an investment purchase the RM re-issue wins hands down.
Oh well here I go again...........................
It just bugs me because I love Rickenbackers and they could do this so easily but they seem to put a toe in water with the V63 the CS and C64 and then pull back from the verge of going all the way for some reason.
Technically its 90% hardware that separates the 4003 from an RM and there must be engineering companies screaming for orders so whats the problem?
Dont hold your breath......
Look for those "Fireglo Reds Under The Bed" guys!

What Pete said, +1!

jps wrote:

cassius987 wrote:So if these basses were made to be inferior to the 4001S of the time, why are they more popular? John Entwistle, Paul McCartney, and Chris Squire I take it?

RM1999 is the same bass as a 4001S, just the RoMo designation of said bass.

I see--somewhere I was misinformed to believe they were "cheap" versions of the same thing, by which I mean inferior. But I don't give a rats about binding or inlays, etc., so I don't consider losing THAT sort of thing inferior at all.

cassius987 wrote:

jps wrote:

cassius987 wrote:So if these basses were made to be inferior to the 4001S of the time, why are they more popular? John Entwistle, Paul McCartney, and Chris Squire I take it?

RM1999 is the same bass as a 4001S, just the RoMo designation of said bass.

I see--somewhere I was misinformed to believe they were "cheap" versions of the same thing, by which I mean inferior. But I don't give a rats about binding or inlays, etc., so I don't consider losing THAT sort of thing inferior at all.

The term 'inferior' to most of us would imply that something is sub-standard, 'not-as-good'......not lesser-priced.

A 4001 in comparison to a 4001-S or RM1999 of the day would be considered a 'Deluxe' model, rather than 'superior' to a 4001-S.

The basses were equal in terms of structure and quality, only the appointments were different.

The *problem* is that Ric is already backlogged.
Good problem to have.
Fender is about expansion. While a 'truism' is that if a company isn't growing then it's dying doesn't really apply to Ric.

The RM1999 is one of the iconic basses in musical history. It's status from the 60's, with all the famous people who played one, defines it's postion today. For many bass boomers it's simply the quintessential Rickenbacker.

The company has nearly spent 30 years now reissuing it in various forms, (B, V, CS, C) and people still want them. All from an original run of just over a hundred basses.

'Nuff said...

Thanks for posting about your bass Gordon.

and on a similar note, the two peice body,set-neck 4000 was rickenbacker's most "budget" version ever,and you can hardly consider them "inferior", just different. (and of course less "features") ok,enough with the italicized words,woody! for some of us,the deluxe features of the 4001/3 are not necessarily an improvement......i tend to like the way they look,but prefer not to have binding on the neck,or body. (love it on the headstock,(4002),though....

s4001 wrote:While a 'truism' is that if a company isn't growing then it's dying doesn't really apply to Ric.

That concept is just based on our 10,000-year old culture of constant expansion based on unsustainable agricultural methods... it's BS to me.

Uh ... right.

You don't have to agree with me, but I agree with me.

Ok, I'm lost.....where were we?