Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

woodyng wrote:It would be cool if the 2 companies could collaborate,maybe offering a toaster/lollar horseshoe option in a new Ric.

+1!

woodyng wrote:

antipodean wrote:

weemac wrote:I would love if it could be sorted out for some sort of win-win situation, but I doubt that could happen...

Eden.

+1. I have fitted one of Lollar's HS pickups onto my V63. It is a very different beast to the Rick RIHS - far lower output with a more transparent sound, which would appear to be qualities shared with vintage horsies. Lollar's second-generation shoes also appear to have decent charge retention properties.
..

Yes,that is one of Mr Lollar's claims to fame,reproducing various pickups that sound just like the vintage ones. It would be cool if the 2 companies could collaborate,maybe offering a toaster/lollar horseshoe option in a new Ric. (Preferably an S model) And $450 seems like a lot for a pickup,but it wasn't that long ago that RIHS pickups were being sold for more than that secondhand. I've seen "real" horseshoes going for closer to $1k,during the peak. I used to really want to get one,but ultimately decided that it was to fix a problem that didn't need fixing. (My 74's hi gain sounds just fine,and i'm just too dam cheep to spend that much money just to have the gap tooth look)

Then you haven't heard a magnetic-shoed pickup. There is a different quality to the notes; a different solidity or dimensionality. Hard to describe, easy to hear.

johnallg wrote:Then you haven't heard a magnetic-shoed pickup. There is a different quality to the notes; a different solidity or dimensionality. Hard to describe, easy to hear.

+1 on this. I too, have a difficult time intelligently describing some differences in tonality but there certainly is a difference between the RI HS, hi-gain pickups and a magnetic HS (output levels notwithstanding). I have never heard a Lollar HS so I have no comment on it's sound; what I do remember of the only one I have seen in person was that the shoes seemed very flimsy (flexible) to me. IIRC, those shoes looked like they were made with a sheet of rubberized magnet material sandwiched between two steel (I assume) sheets to create the shoes. So, in some respect I suppose Lollar's HS pickup works somewhat differently than the old Rickenbacker HS pickup, but the basic function is the same.

Well,i HAVE heard them,(vintage Ric HS's),at least on lps and in concert.... I have not had the opportunity to witness what the Lollar HS sounds like in person.
The point is that Mr Lollar also is a guitarist who knows what the originals sound like,and builds pickups that sound as close as possible to the vintage ones,and that the RIHS does not sound the same.

I believe the old Lollar horseshoes used the flexible magnet, while the new ones use and actual magnetized piece of steel alloy, similar to the Beauchamp patent description...

jps wrote: I have never heard a Lollar HS so I have no comment on it's sound; what I do remember of the only one I have seen in person was that the shoes seemed very flimsy (flexible) to me. IIRC, those shoes looked like they were made with a sheet of rubberized magnet material sandwiched between two steel (I assume) sheets to create the shoes. So, in some respect I suppose Lollar's HS pickup works somewhat differently than the old Rickenbacker HS pickup, but the basic function is the same.

Jeff, I'm not sure on timing but for at least several years Lollar has been using single-piece shoes that are as solid as those used on the factory RIHS (and are cosmetically indistinguishable). I had the new shoes fitted to an older pickup I bought from another forumite.

It was in November 2005 when I saw the Lollar with the sandwiched horseshoes.

woodyng wrote:
Yes,that is one of Mr Lollar's claims to fame,reproducing various pickups that sound just like the vintage ones. It would be cool if the 2 companies could collaborate,maybe offering a toaster/lollar horseshoe option in a new Ric. (Preferably an S model) And $450 seems like a lot for a pickup,but it wasn't that long ago that RIHS pickups were being sold for more than that secondhand. I've seen "real" horseshoes going for closer to $1k,during the peak. I used to really want to get one,but ultimately decided that it was to fix a problem that didn't need fixing. (My 74's hi gain sounds just fine,and i'm just too dam cheep to spend that much money just to have the gap tooth look)

Having bought two Rickenbacker magnetic horseshoe pickups from the 60ies recently for my restoration projects, I can say that $450 for a new magnetic horseshoe is very cheap!

I won't comment specifically on the suit other than to make some generalizations, correcting some of the most ridiculous statements I've seen around on this matter.

The issue at hand is TRADEMARK and TRADE DRESS, nothing whatsoever to do with patents or copyrights.

The suit is about the APPEARANCE of the goods and associated predatory marketing and nothing whatsoever to do with the actual mechanical design or functionality.

There are probably a hundred ways one could design a wrap-around magnet pickup that would work using the horseshoe principle- but designs that don't LOOK like the original. There's also no reason why they wouldn't drop right into an existing instrument. I can even think of many ways to design a pickup of this style that's better performing than the original, especially if not confined to the shape envelope defined by the TRADEMARK.

Most people forget that we were founded as a pickup company, not an instrument company, supplying both kits for consumers and wholesale units for other makers. Many of the pickups people have offered up as examples of "prior art" or alternative designs were in fact produced in our factory or under a license from us.

We have continuously produced pickups within the shape defined by the trademark since 1931 but not all of them are actually wrap-around magnet in design, which rather proves the point that the look and appearance can be entirely distinctive- which is our intellectual property- but does not limit the possibilities with regard to functionality.

We've previously stated that when this market is fully "cleaned up" we will produce true horseshoe pickups again and our intent hasn't changed. It's only the infringements and attendant legal requirements associated with that which has delayed our program.

I also find it rather interesting that no one was bothered enough to voice their objection to our trademark during the statutory "publish for comments" period or during the six year period of contestability. There's plenty of postings demonstrating that our trademark application was widely discussed by the interested parties- but not one made the effort to even write a postcard to the PTO objecting to it.

John, very interesting and insightful comments.

So please Mr Lollar, bend your magnets at a 90 degrees angle instead of giving these a U shape so we can get magnetised HS from RIC again...

johnhall wrote::
We've previously stated that when this market is fully "cleaned up" we will produce true horseshoe pickups again and our intent hasn't changed. It's only the infringements and attendant legal requirements associated with that which has delayed our program.
:

As long as RIC is not making and selling true horseshoe pickups themselves there will be room in the market for third-party HS PUs.

rick turner horseshoes are not involved in any infringement suits, or were these lollar pickups ?

BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS wrote:rick turner horseshoes are not involved in any infringement suits, or were these lollar pickups ?

Turner and his lawyer were most gracious by ceasing and desisting promptly when asked to do so. They earned our respect in the process.

It is nice to see this issue resolving, albeit slowly. It will be good to see the return of the Horseshoe pickup offered by RIC. I find threads about trademark issues most interesting as the finer points are often discussed. Thanks to John Hall for his comments.