Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Baker69 wrote:Are people afraid of taking old (and expensive) Rics to gigs for fear of them getting accidentally damaged, (or even stolen), or are these old necks a bit too fragile now they're getting on in years? ... my '78 4001is one of my main gigging basses and I personally do not have any worries about taking it to gigs and playing the old girl, I bought the bass to play and not for it to sit at home in its case.

I don't think the age of a well-cared for wooden instrument makes it fragile. I do think that some older 4000-series basses had very thin necks, and so were fragile from the start.

I gig my '72 4001 regularly; like you, I bought it to play it. I keep an eye on it to keep it safe from damage or theft. I have no interest in playing the sorts of venues where those risks are too high; never mind the bass, I'm looking out for myself!

johnhall wrote:Boiled down, it's the rarity and value that's keeping some of these old guitars from gigging, not any particular fragility.

I think this summarises my thought....The few times I have gigged with my old 1967 4005 I have always been very careful and never let the bass alone

There seems to be a lot of variance in the 'older' Rics, mine seems fine with no neck issues or excessive tail-lift and am very happy to gig with it, but there again I would never buy a bass for it to be just used at home or as an 'investment'.

The general concensus so far is that people seem to be more concerned about theft rather than the fragility of the bass itself. Personally I don't play the sort of gigs where the bass is left alone on stage or in a changing room, and if I did consider there to be any risk whatsoever I would always carry the bass around with me in its soft case. I worry more about transporting my basses in the car than anything!

I know of no real fragility issues with 4000 series basses from '72 on. The flatter headstock angle and laminated neck of the skunk-stipes era basses makes them pretty solid. That said, they're not quite in the same league as classic Fender basses (and some of their derivatives) when it comes to ability to absorb punishment. I've seen P-basses survive abuse that would render most other instruments unplayable....

I have no experience with pre '72 Ricks, but as Mr Hall says, they're so rare and valuable as render them non-viable as gigging instruments for most of us....

Alot of vintage Ricks are solid workhorses still out there gigging with the best of them, just look at Chris Squire's RM, its been refretted probably several times, thrown across a stage, broken, refinnished at least 3 times, pickup leads broken , ectt....and it still keeps going and going.

Rarity is why you dont see many of them. The numbers on the pre-seventies basses just arent there, as they were made in small batches vs. mass production. You'll find alot more early sixties vintage Fender basses than you will Rickenbacker basses of the same era.

cheyenne wrote:A lot of vintage Ricks are solid workhorses still out there gigging with the best of them, just look at Chris Squire's RM

It's had its headstock snapped off at least once and grafted back on at RIC. If your 60's Ric can get the same quality maintenance, then by all means, gig the snot out of it. Otherwise, John Hall has a point.

It's a bit like McCartney's Höfner. It's a fragile bass - all hollow body Höfners are (I have accidentally broken one at 14) - and the neck needs to be re-glued every 5-10 years or so, and McCartney's bass has had its entire fretboard replaced (by Mandolin Brothers, if I'm not mistaken), and set-up is checked almost daily by Macca's tech. So he can gig it. But does that make his bass a "solid workhorse"? Workhorse, definitely. Solid, not IMHO.

I will accept at no charge all vintage Ricks to give them a comfortable home in their well-earned retirement. Ain't I a pip?!

I have no hesitation gigging my '73 Rick. The neck is strong as an ox, and it fits purrrrfectly in the hand.

If people used them for gigging back in the old days, why can´t they gig them today as well?
Martin Turner on gigging a Rickenbacker: http://www.flyguitars.com/interviews/martinturner.php (paragraph in the middle of the website)

johnhall wrote:Boiled down, it's the rarity and value that's keeping some of these old guitars from gigging, not any particular fragility.

this ^

My most treasured and potentially most expensive bass is my CS. I dont gig without it. I also bring along another RIC (sometimes vintage, sometimes late model) as a backup just in case. The great thing about the vintage basses is that they sound and play so well. Why would you confine that to the basement/bedroom etc?

To put this in perspective, remember that classical musicians play Stradivarius, Guarneri, and Amati instruments on stage ... if they were fragile after 300-400 years, they'd all be in museums (the instruments, not the musicians! ).

People often say that vintage instruments sound & play better. I agree, but why´s that? Why can´t the very same factory who made those great vintage instruments, anymore manufacture instruments as good as them? Or can they? (I´m not talking only about RIC but musical instrument manufacturers in general)

It's really down to the wood and it's selection. There are many bad vintage instruments out there too, whoever has my old 73 Jazz I feel sorry for them, it was the most dead sounding bass I had ever heard or owned, I even put flats on it because I thought this would help , oh dear.

On another tack from the thread above but one, Guarneri had a gift of selection and actually made his violins to a shape where he thought the actual piece of wood would sound right, Genius del Gesu.

doctorwho wrote:To put this in perspective, remember that classical musicians play Stradivarius, Guarneri, and Amati instruments on stage ... if they were fragile after 300-400 years, they'd all be in museums (the instruments, not the musicians! ).

True, but the wildest orchestra show is still tamer than the tamest rock show!