Price guide?

ilan · Post by **ilan** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:59 am

I have a feeling that some price guides reflect not only the current market and recent transactions, but also the editors' opinions.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:40 am

Ilan,
right you are, but...if a semi casual lurker sees a ric bass set at too high a price, they might pull the trigger thinking, "man these are going up, better grab it", thus making the seller's opinion a reality. CS or v63, anyone?
It's probably good for Rickenbacker's image as a whole to have some prices climb.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:09 pm

Kendall, thaaaannnkkkkssss ffffoooorrrr theeeee liiiinnnnkkkk (I'm still shaking from seeing all of Simon Mole's basses! UNCLE!!!).

Back to the price guide: my perspective on it is that it woould be more of an archive of what the price was on such-and-such a date. It would also have a distinction with regard to actual selling price (that is, guitars that indeed sold) versus asking price (like those on GuitarBase, or on eBay where the reserve wasn't met or no bids were placed).

I concur with Brian about the often laughable prices put on some guitars in the current price guides. In particular, Rickenbacker acoustics from the 1960s are given some small value; I have never even seen one (not counting 360Fs, I think of them as electrics) for sale anywhere! How can the books put an accurate value on them?

squirebass · Post by **squirebass** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:44 pm

How could you put a value on one of the seven 325s that were made in the same batch as Lennons?
I think only one of those have ever surfaced, maybe none. Some of you Rick Guitar experts correct me if I'm wrong here, or inaccurate about the original 325s... Some guitars are so rare that the market is defined by maybe only one seller, in that case the skys the limit!

marc61 · Post by **marc61** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:59 pm

Gene, that's the reason for the guide. Not just to tell you what an 88 4003 is going for but, to educate.

Rarities have to be indentified, not just for value but, so collector's don't get taken by being told"yeah this is what Lennon used". They have to learn how to identify what they're buying.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:44 am

Gene, I know what you mean. I've only seen one other 370/12v64 for sale (a LH JG), and it was on eBay with the reserve not met. So how does one put a value on my 370/12v64 FG, which may be the only one made?

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:06 am

Or how about my 1977 4000FL BG, which one of the price guides doesn't even mention, let alone give a value to?

Other factors affecting value are color and year. For example, my 1987 320 Silver

should be worth more than a comparable-condition Jetglo. My 1984 325v59 and my 1970 331LS are both from the first year of manufacture and should also have slightly higher values for that reason. That's why a simple retrospective listing of what sold and at what price is better than some sort of all-inclusive prospective price list for all models (which is what the published guides are trying to provide).

ken_james · Post by **ken_james** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:32 am

I've never seen a fretless 4000, that looks like a great bass, how does it sound? Do you prefer flats on your basses?

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:53 am

Some beautious guitars! I'd still trade my 4005 for a v63 and a c64s in a heart beat. (I can dream)

ilan · Post by **ilan** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:54 am

I passed on a badly refinished fretless 4000 two years ago, still kicking myself for that. It had a horseshoe pickup and it sounded very full and round.

wormdiet · Post by **wormdiet** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:06 am

I'm kinda wondering how well a new Burgundy 360/12 with toasters will appreciate/depreciate in a few years.. . . I hate GAS.

ken_james · Post by **ken_james** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 5:26 am

I doubt that it will depreciate much if any, special color with a VP upgrade, you could get your money back fairly easily.

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:23 am

Where are the pics of the '70 331LS? I want to see it!!

Those are among my faves of all time.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:17 pm

Steve, I think I posted at least one pic in another thread, but I'll post some more when I get home later tonight.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:15 pm

Ignoring the FIFO principle:

Steve, here are some pics of my 1970 331LS:

The top picture is the guitar as received, missing its bridge, bridge plate, tailpiece, and nut. The second picture is a view of the lights and mylar lining. The third picture is a close-up of one of the exposed-pole high gains (like the ones Kenny is now trying to find). The bottom picture is the guitar after restoration and actually producing light for the first time in 20+ years.

Kendall, I'm just a hack bass player, so take my opinion with a very large grain of NaCl. The 4000FL plays great to me. It has a very mellow sound (think "Walk Away Renee") when the tone is cranked to the bass sude, but, surprisingly, it has a bit of a bite when the tone is cranked to the treble end. I have F***** nylon-wrapped flats on it right now and like them. I have Rotosound flats on my 4003FL TUR:

mainly because black strings would look a bit goofy to me. My other RIC basses have roundwounds, but I might put a set of the black nylon-wrapped flats on the Redneck when I get around to restringing it, just because black on black looks so good.

But I guess I should do that on the Tuxedo, too...