Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

sloop_john_b wrote:Eddie - I love that you went with the 12'er headstock on the "sixer" as well.

..I'm lovin' that your lovin' it John!

BTW the truss rod cover you see on the sixer is an original mid/late '60's one...I liked the idea of having a genuine vintage part on it given the iconic status of the original Rose Morris 1993.

Okay boys, be nice! It would be nice to get back to the NAMM 2013 topic.

rickenbrother wrote:Okay boys, be nice! It would be nice to get back to the NAMM 2013 topic.

What is there to talk about? We covered the 350MC, you told us that wasn't the name of it, didn't follow up, and here we are.

So getting back on track, what's the name of it?

testify!

Electrostring wrote:

k43rover wrote:kinda makes me wonder why you bother posting in the first place....

One could say the same about your dozen look-at-what-I-did-refin-look-at-me-!!! posts, eh

I prefer slash- over f-hole. Still, the white limited run is a nice item as is.

Well, if you take a step back and actually consider what you're saying Werner, I think you might spot that there's a pretty basic difference between our posts on this thread. This is a specialist Rickenbacker forum. I'd say that a reasonable number of people on here will actually be interested to see in some detail what I've done in recreating a 1993 spec guitar from the white guitars and in discussing those mods. While f-hole guitars are clearly not your cup of tea, they certainly are for many of us.

I'll leave it to others to decide about the value your posts about your own personal preferences/opinions have added.

rickenbrother wrote:Okay boys, be nice! It would be nice to get back to the NAMM 2013 topic.

The only reason I brought up the modded white guitars in this thread was that the original discussion about the (near complete absence of) new RIC product at the NAMM show was, for me at least, incredibly boring. A number of people had expressed their disappointment that the comments made by John Hall alluding to new f-hole product before the show did not translate into physical guitars on display at the show. In that context, I think a discussion around the lack of reissue or new-design f-holes is actually directly relevant and something that quite a few people would want to have. The modded white guitars illustrate just how quick and easy it would be for the factory to do something similar.

I liked the conversion pics and info Eddie.
Ok back to Namm I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

scotty wrote:I liked the conversion pics and info Eddie.
Ok back to Namm I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

LMAO

Back to NAMM Part Deux:

I wish the Colonel and his misses a lovely holiday . . .

Those 1993's are super nice, Eddie. Job well done.

Too bad you couldn't do anything about that backwards f-hole.

dpowell wrote:Those 1993's are super nice, Eddie. Job well done.

Thanks Dan.

dpowell wrote: Too bad you couldn't do anything about that backwards f-hole.

I agree. That's really one for the factory to comment on. I recall in previous threads there was supposedly some line about deliberately making it a different shape to minimise the risk of guitars being passed off as original. If that is true, I'd find it very strange logic as anyone familiar with original '60's Ricks would be easily able to spot the differences between a '60's guitar and a C series standard reissue. A comment like that also makes little sense given the whole concept of the C-series as highly accurate recreations...clearly nobody seems to have been too concerned about the various C series models produced over the past decade being passed off as original.

I thought about whether anything could realistically be done to restyle the f-hole shape but, as with the conversion of the headstock to a '60's six string shape, if there ain't no wood there to reshape, it makes it too big of a job to be worthwhile.

I've heard that argument before and I think it's pretty lame.

Gibson and Fender are making thousands of super-accurate reissues, including guitars with faked wear. I haven't heard any problems involving these being passed off as vintage guitars. And anyway, that's in the secondary market and doesn't affect Rickenbacker. Buyer beware.

All of this could be solved with a simple "REISSUE" stamp into the wood inside the body cavity. That way the accuracy of the guitar doesn't need to be compromised.

dpowell wrote:I haven't heard any problems involving these being passed off as vintage guitars.

Oh, they are. Big market, big time. Some have gotten so good you really can't tell. I'm with the company on this one. Whether or not that was the original intention we'll never know, but I can totally understand the reasoning behind it if it was done for that purpose.

I think the reason we haven't seen C's passed off as vintage is either they're too well done to know, or, more likely, just the numbers game... waaaay more people into Gibson and Fender than Ricks, and similarly way more G & F out there than Ricks.

jdogric12 wrote:

dpowell wrote:I haven't heard any problems involving these being passed off as vintage guitars.

Oh, they are. Big market, big time. Some have gotten so good you really can't tell. I'm with the company on this one. Whether or not that was the original intention we'll never know, but I can totally understand the reasoning behind it if it was done for that purpose.

I think the reason we haven't seen C's passed off as vintage is either they're too well done to know, or, more likely, just the numbers game... waaaay more people into Gibson and Fender than Ricks, and similarly way more G & F out there than Ricks.

Even if they are, it doesn't negate my other points. There are other, better ways to solve the problem -- if it's the manufacturer's problem, which I'm not convinced that it is.

Totes agree. And I suspect, like most of you do, too, that this is probably a situation similar to the birth of DCM