Was this o.k. to do?

[aceonbass]

I don't have any of those tools either, but when I want something done, whether it be on an instrument or an engine, I find someone that does quality work to my specifications. I don't know if the person who owns that bass did the work or not, but I'm sure it cost SOMETHING to have done. For awhile it seemed there was no shortage of people wanting their RIC bass converted in this fashion, but for whatever reason, a lot of them ended up on Ebay going for less than the cost of an unmodified instrument.

[ram]

While what Steve says is true, I tend to ascribe to the Paul/Dane mantra here. You can do whatever you want to your instrument, but there is nothing like seeing it update by a pro. With my convert I supplied the hardware and a few hundred dollars and got back this:

far superior to anything I might have come up with!

but to each their own....

[jingle_jangle]

I'm not trying to get anyone riled up here, just saying that most bass players don't have paint spray operations, wood joining tools, etc. to do this kind of thing. I appreciate the effort to "do it right", but if the owner decides to do it the other way, it's their call.
Either way, the end result is modified and partially refinished, which might effect the resale value also.

Not riled up, Steve, just amazed that such a statement could be posted on a Forum devoted to well-crafted musical instruments. Craftsmanship is most definitely NOT "an opinion".

Resale value is usually affected anytime an instrument is modded. But if the MOD is a HACK, say bye-bye to any chance of getting a good price for it. We comment negatively or humorously on hacked work frequently on this Forum. Whether or not something is hacked or well-done is not a matter of "opinion".

That's my point. And, what Dane says is true--if you don't have the tools, hire it out.

The referenced tuner placement could have at least been centered in its position in the headstock and placed the same distance from the edge of the headstock as the other holes on that side. Since the hacker already had a drill, all he needed was a ruler or scale. tape measure, etc. It's something you can buy for less than $1 if you don't have one laying around the house.

Makes me wonder about the pictures on this guy's walls and whether his shelves run uphill or downhill...

No matter what, in the end, the method of placing the 5th hole on the bottom of the headstock looks odd even when the hole is symmetrically located.

[whojamfan]

Is there a pic of the headstock in question/discussion here? I couldn't find one.

Great link Paul, very funny.

Personally, I'd rather have something done right-meaning- "looks like it came from the factory that way" to me, especially on an instrument as pricey and hand crafted as these. Resale value is completely affected by these mods, as they will become what's known as a "players" instrument. This simply means it has no collectibility or vintage value added, and will never likely increase in value from the eyes of a store/dealer. No business wants to have something hanging on their wall that they can't flip under normal parameters, as usually, only a "player" looking for this type of mod would be interested in buying it. I spent many years on that side of the counter looking at countless modified instruments, and 90% of the time, the stores were not interested, or would consign for a limited amount of time, but only if the work was pristine.

This was mainly just for hardware "upgrades"-that new bridge, custom pickups, tuners, etc. People get very bummed when they find out the $600 worth of hardware and a $300 paint job they slapped on a $500 dollar guitar doesn't make it worth $1400. If the work was done perfectly and flawlessly, most places still wouldn't be interested in buying it(for any real money)or giving you a decent trade in. Your only real course of action is the auction sites, provided you find someone who wants your exact instrument with those mods at the price you want. Good luck with that, and carefull not to give it away after paying for several relist fees, not to mention that there is a good chance you will get it back if the buyer has any little problem with it, or just doesn't like it, which is a huge possibility.

Having an instrument drastically modified like this really kills the resale further, and to cut corners is really doing youself a disservice. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there is nothing beautifull about shoddy work. Even if you planned to be buried with this instrument, do you really want to look at some mediocre craftsmanship on an instrument you plan on being your flagship, signature,or show-off piece?

I'm all for mods, when they look good, even if I don't like what was done. The fact that something was done professionally overrides any personal feelings I have over said mod. A good job is a good job-period.

[whojamfan]

I wanted to turn my 330 and 360/12 in to a 340 and 370. Apparantly, this is a fairly easy process one can do with a drill, but I won't even entertain the idea. I'm just a hair off or the drill slips-or whatever-my guitar goes way down in value, but worse, I have to look at it. Even if I did it perfectly, the serial# reveals that it's not a 3 pickup model, so that affects resale as well. Right now that doesn't matter so much, but when the instrument becomes vintage, it will greatly affect resale. I'd pay a pro to do this, but it's just not that big a deal to me to lay out the cash.

[atomic_punk]

I wanted so badly just to walk away from this topic out of respect but I wanted to clear up a few things.

Paul - I agree, craftsmanship like yours is the pursuit of excellence and what you and others do here is amazing stuff and should be held in the highest regard. What I was trying to say is that it has been decided that one way is the "right" way to do this conversion, and another has been scoffed at and ridiculed. I was saying that is a matter of opinion and ultimately, the owner will decide, knowing that the bass (any bass, really) will be devalued by modification. Myself, I do not own any basses that are not 5-strings, that's what I need to do my job. We all have our preferences and that's what makes us all unique.

I have not seen the headstock in question so I don't know if the tuner is off center or badly spaced. In that case my comments take on a new light that I do not endorse. If you're going to drill a hole, please...measure twice (at least!). And please, to the people at RIC, please consider making a 5-string available so we can stop this madness.

Some people (including myself) think the potatohead (no offense to anyone who loves them) is ugly. I prefer the long 4008 headstock. But I am not going to say their bass sucks because I don't personally like it. I usually refrain from comment if I don't like something because I know that is something they wanted to do with it. As Ram says above, "to each their own", and rock on, brother! Peace and love!

I also like 4004's without pickguards. But, that's just me.

[aceonbass]

I pulled a picture of the headstock in question from another thread....

[jingle_jangle]

Thanks, Dane, for posting that--I couldn't find it.

Steve, glad you clarified. We are in agreement. Good craftsmanship, besides being its own reward to the craftsman, enhances the intrisic value of the object. However, with regard to what the retail mindset will do to (or with) it, YMMV.

[ram]

I also like 4004's without pickguards. But, that's just me.

you reble, you!

[aceonbass]

Come to think of it, that comment must have been directed at me since I've been known to do that. Then again, I'll bet John Hall's never picked up and admired one of those 4-2-5 conversions.

[sgstandard]

With all due respect to you "Mod Squaders" out there, IMHO, you'd be far better off just getting an additional 5-string bass and leaving the Rickenbacker original. I realize you want to do "the limbo", and see "how low can you GO", but I think it's a mistake, and something MOST people eventually regret doing. If you absolutely HAVE to do such a thing, just be sure whoever's doing it knows what they're doing. A previous post makes several valid points, such as the tuner holes being equally distant from the headstock edge. Regardless - Best of Luck !!

[aceonbass]

While I do have non RIC 5 & 6 string basses, I like being able to grab a real Ricky when I go for a 5 string once in awhile. I stress the importance of making a mod on anything look FACTORY. This minimized the buyers remorse down the road. Due to the backlog, there are a number of things RIC isn't doing right now, 5&8 string basses being two examples. I don't work on NEAR the scale Paul does, but my customers haven't regretted any of their 5 or 8 string conversions. In fact my 4004L5 MID is on it's way to Turkey as I type. It's all in the execution and the details. If something other than a RIC will do for a 5 string, then we could say the same for our 4 strings.

[gareth]

What might get forgotten in all this is the relationship that the weight and design of a headstock has on the overall sound of the bass. There's a very delicate relationship between the size and position of the headstock, and the playability and sustain of the bass, not to mention the string tension and tuning issues. The headstock-less basses of the 80's were an attempt to totally remove these issues from the equation. You can also run into issues with balance if it's not done carefully.

Essentially, if you're going to futz around changing the headstock dimensions, you need to take these factors into account, or you might end up a mile sonically from where you thought you were headed.

It's just my opinion of course, but I prefer Paul's method of retaining the original headstock design aesthetic to minimize any unintended consequences.

[wj350]

Beautiful instrument!