Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I suspect that a companiy like Tokai can give RIC actual headaches as the copies they make of Gibsons and Fenders are REALLY good guitars (better than Gibson and Fender copy themselves, I hear) and I suspect the Rickenbacker copies were real nice instruments in their own right. There is actually a Tokai Forum where owners talk about the instruments very highly, like fans of Rickenbackers do here. Tokai is a Japanese company that turns out about as many guitars a year as Rickenbacker using highly skilled craftsman labor (in other words, a cut above most Fender and Gibson production). If I was RIC, I wouldn't be happy if a Tokai Ricky copy showed up anywhere. If I was Stuart Spector, I wouldn't be happy if a Tokai Spector copy showed up either. If I wanted a Gibson or Fender, I might look into getting a Tokai copy. However, Tokai is not a cheap instrument. Spector released the Euro series which automatically prevents a company like Tokai from getting a price advantage as Japanese labor is costlier than Czech Republic labor, and no more skilled.

Copies are not always harmful to a company. I wish somebody would do a fairly close copy of a Status Graphite Buzzard bass, because it is far out of most player's price league and they'll never buy one anyway. Status Graphite might as well license it out and cash in on the style that John Entwistle made famous. You don't mistake it for ANYTHING else out there. John must have given it a bird name as you can see it's a highly stylized Thunderbird with many refinements, sort of like the Alembic bass he used previously.

If a company wanted to actually copy a Rick bass, the last thing they should do is make a body style that was close enough to infringe upon the design. More important would be studying how the sound was generated and then putting it in a body design that was acceptably close to give a similar feel. Alembic can't claim infringement with Status Graphite's Buzzard bass, but you can clearly see where John used it as a base to design from. Someday somebody will make a Super Rick, just as the Buzzard is a Super T-bird and the Sting Ray is a Super P-bass. Thr Rick bass is the only major early bass design that hasn't been "superized".

One more Rick copy of years back; Apollo.

Domino made a 4005 copy with a bolt on neck...someone (probably an Italian Co.) made a 330 copy bass (there was an earlier thread about the mystery Wyman bass) and Aspen made 4001 copies with maple necks and black sharkfin inlays.

I heard an interesting story about Tokai recently, supposedly offered as an excuse for infringements.

They, like most everyone else, have moved production to Korea (and perhaps China as well). That is to say, they have their product produced by a Korean company. Anyway, apparently their subcontractor knocked THEM off, selling the copy goods directly to distributors overseas. Supposedly most of the Tokai copy guitars you saw in Canada are of this variety.

Also, note that many of these brand names mentioned originated with an importer. The goods themselves come from a lesser number of actual makers whose names you've never heard of. The importers may have even switched factories at various times. They may be "brands" but they're not necessarily "makers".

That's a good point Mr Hall. I wonder how many of these brands we've mentioned come from the same factory? How many manufacturers of these copies were making neck throughs for instance?

"Sergio....you forgot Shaftesbury!
My parents bought me a Shaftesbury 4001 copy when I was 14 years old"

Tony - there's a Shaftsbury currently on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3779307667

I know Ilan, I posted on this on 'Rics for sale', under 'Paul McCartney copy?'. This listing is a real joke...bordering on deliberatly misleading, although I am sure that as a 0 feedback newbie, he just hasn't got the knack yet & probably doesn't know of the scrutiny that he is under.
I have noticed that ads like this get pulled on Ebay USA, but they seem to run the course in the UK. There was one not long ago selling a Rickenbacker case that obviously wasn't. It went for a reasonable amount of money even though I emailed the seller informing him that he might be mistaken. Are the copyright laws different over here?

Philip,just to backtrack a bit the Status Buzzard (and the earlier Warwick version it was taken from) were actually deisgned by John Entwistle, and the reason it's called a Buzzard is because it's supposed to represent a Buzzard in flight (Warwick have actually painted one up to show you exactly how,and they have also re-released the basses - in wood, obviously - at a lower price than the Status). The main element that was taken from his Alembic was the long rear bout which he found very comfortable for resting his arm on, and the Alembic was actually based on the shape of a Gibson Explorer, not a TBird. The normal Alembic version is called an Exploiter shape, but John's was slightly different to that and is referred to as a Spider.

I used to have an Alembic Spoiler with the Exploiter body style. It was almost identical in shape to Entwistle's, the only difference being that the lower horn's curve near the neck had a larger radius to it. I agree that it was comfortable and balanced perfectly.

Interestingly, Electro was apparently used for Rickenbacker's earliest output (1932 - 1934), until the 'Rickenbacher' - note spelling - name was added. The Electro name was dropped in 1950.
The Electro name was revived for a budget line brand name from in 1964 for two solidbody guitars - the ES 16 (as per Ric 1000) and ES 17 (as per Ric 425)

Source: p51, Electric guitars, the illustrated encyclopedia (Balafon)

I used to have a Shaftsbury Telecaster Bass copy. Was brilliant! Real good coffee-glo finish to it, too.

John Hall makes a good point. Many of the products we use come from sub-contract manufactures through importers. Auto tires are another good example - there are very few actual manufacturers, but many brands out there. This must make infringers a moving target that requires real vigilance. I have stated before that there is no right for anyone to profit from another's intellectual propriety if it exists in the form of a patent. Fender also protects itself with a patent on its trademarks and headstock shape, although this does little to prevent the onslaught of close copies. I hope they get enough for the "licensing" of aftermarket necks and bodies to offset the dilution of the market from a quality standpoint. If I was Fender I would also vigorously pursue the unlawful use of aftermarket headstock decals. Some I have seen are pretty close and are easily used to pass off a copy as the real thing.