Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

collin wrote:

Tommy wrote:This is a great topic. Interesting (and blasphemous) take on vintage gear.


I say snobbery and an insecurity in the person that makes him have a need to say, "Look at me. Look what I have." It really is that simple.

....says a guy who includes a photo of his guitars in almost every post on this forum (and others).

You want to see my cars instead?
Oh, I am superstitious -- rule #1 for owners of classic cars: never take pictures of your classic cars.
How about a pic of my sneakers?

sloop_john_b wrote: No Scotty, it's completely black or white. You either buy newer guitars or you're snobby and insecure. There is no middle ground. Just admit that you're snobby and insecure like the rest of us.

All kidding aside, you do have to admit that Jim Irsay - owner of every single guitar played by every single '60s artist - is pretty insecure.

Wow, I'm pathetic!!!

opticnerve wrote:Wow, I'm pathetic!!!

Yeah, some interesting analysis going on in this thread, eh?

Vintage, new, somewhere in between, expensive, cheap, mid range price, whatever. As long as it makes you happy, who cares?

Tommy wrote: You want to see my cars instead?
Oh, I am superstitious -- rule #1 for owners of classic cars: never take pictures of your classic cars.
How about a pic of my sneakers?

By the way Tom, I'd love to see pics of your classic cars, but I understand the first rule of classic car club. I have a 63 Chevy II SS convertible that was my dad's first car.

blueflamerick wrote:

Tommy wrote: You want to see my cars instead?
Oh, I am superstitious -- rule #1 for owners of classic cars: never take pictures of your classic cars.
How about a pic of my sneakers?

By the way Tom, I'd love to see pics of your classic cars, but I understand the first rule of classic car club. I have a 63 Chevy II SS convertible that was my dad's first car.

Yep. That's why I'll never post photos of my Rickenbacker Capri era Ferraris.

There’s so many variables here. I have a ‘76 Tele Thinline hanging on my guitar wall. Up until this year Fender never reissued the WRHB and nothing else sounded quite the same. Guitars that haven’t been “correctly” reissued like that make a good argument for vintage guitars. In the Ric world the bracing change; and different pickup windings (I happen to like the 80’s wound hi-gains and want a guitar with them again someday), make a difference. I’m sure to some this is nuanced and they don’t hear a difference in those things.
On the other side there’s your run of the mill Strats, Teles, SGs, Les Pauls and so on that I think have been recreated faithfully to a point where paying a premium for vintage is negligent. Having said that, I’m sure to some there’s drastic differences and changes that they would argue make them better.
Buy what you can afford and what you think plays/sounds best and make music while not worrying what Bill down the street buys; his finances and wants are not your concern.

The "Something New" Ed Sullivan backdrop around the TV is pretty cool.

Kiddwad57 wrote:The "Something New" Ed Sullivan backdrop around the TV is pretty cool.

Yes, as far as collectors go, Mr. Irsay's display is tastefully done.

Heck, I just put my guitars in front of a white sheet and snap a photo. Jim Irsay at least knows how to do it right. If somebody is going to glom up all these old, historic, iconic guitars, I'm kind of glad it is a guy like Irsay.

So as a collector do you clean them, or just hope there's still some of the artist's sweat on them?

Tommy wrote:

drumbob wrote:...Higher prices for vintage guitars arose partially due to the fact that some companies had serious lapses in quality at certain points in time, such as Fender and Gibson. If the current production models were ****, players longed for the old ones, because they were made better.

Well said.
And couldn't you include Gretsch among them due to their Baldwin years?

I should have included Gretsch as a brand whose quality went downhill in the late 60's, and that was at least partially because they were cranking the guitars fast due to demand. I'm not convinced that Gretsch guitars were very good in the first place. Many of the old ones need neck resets and the binding tends to rot. Some of the hardware was sub-par as well, and a few of their designs were questionable, like the Astro Jet.

stringsncords wrote:I've been a RRF member for a long time, and I have a serious question:

As I'm sure many of us do, I frequent eBay and Reverb, searching the sites for my next Rickenbacker, and it seems that the
older the instrument, the higher the price. I've seen 50's and 60's guitars for many thousands of dollars.

Is it the collector/antique value? Are the older models superior to the newer models? Is it just the "coolness" factor? Are they worth the money?

I would think that the older an instrument gets, the more problems potentially arise; they're made of wood, glue, metal/plastic parts and electronics,
none of which improve with age.

Opinions, please.

Thanks!

This thread got silly, so I’ll try to veer it back.

Firstly, people are ASKING crazy prices, not necessarily getting those amounts.

I suggest that the vintage market is fumbling in the dark, and seeing what sticks. Particularly with Ricks.

Also, yes, these are guitars made of parts that go bad at varying rates. Therefore, finding examples that haven’t failed (of ANYTHING that’s, say, 50 years old) is more and more rare every day.

I have two vintage-y/vintage-ish instruments that I bought new, my 78 4001 and Martin HD-28VL. I like getting new instruments and wearing them in myself. The only "vintage" instrument I ever look for is a 1981 left handed Ibanez Artist. It was the one that got away years ago. So even then, my relationship with vintage instruments is more a personal thing than something driven by an instrument's age and worth. But I understand the urge to find great vintage basses. Geddy Lee's books made collecting look very attractive.

Is this it?

https://reverb.com/ca/item/373598-ibane ... eft-handed