Bach

86kubicki · Post by **86kubicki** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:28 am

Unfortunately that instrument may be sold to an unsuspecting buyer who thinks he's getting a genuine Rickenbacker.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:45 am

Caveat Emptor!

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:19 am

@Steve Wood: ...no! That was a guy who knew well about Rick basses and their pros and cons. That was why he liked that fake. Anyhow I always told it was a copy, not a real one. I've bought and sold a lot of Rick basses and never cheated on any buyer. Mercy!!!

86kubicki · Post by **86kubicki** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:41 am

Peter - you don't think there's anything wrong with affixing a fake Rickenbacker truss rod cover to an instrument that clearly infriges on RIC's trademarks? Eventhough you told the seller it was a copy, that's like saying you had a stolen car, but it's OK because you told the guy you sold it to that it was stolen. You may not have cheated any buyers, but you have cheated RIC and any unsuspecting buyers down the line who may be fooled into thinking this is a real Rickenbacker.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:31 am

I don't think it is our job as end users to enforce Ric's trademarks ... I understand why they enforce it the way they do ... but again it is not our job to enforce their trademarks ...

86kubicki · Post by **86kubicki** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:36 am

I agree Jeff that it's not our job to "enforce" RIC's trademarks, but I at least feel morally obligated to point out these situation when they arise. One of my favourite sayings these days is "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should".

ram · Post by **ram** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:11 pm

I think there are uninformed folks out there that, if they are willing listen, should be informed. The corporation will mind its needs, but folks who DO know the scam should say something - not going on a crusade or anything but a question on the sale or here on the forum (there are alot of lurkers out there).

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:05 pm

But at least everyone understands better now why we have the replacement policy that we do. This is a perfect example.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:18 pm

Indeed!
We may know a fake with one glance, but most others wouldn't know the difference between a real TRC & a cleverly cut ham sandwich!

Too many people buy expensive things before doing enough research. It's easy enough to say "I'll never ...", but reality often changes many well laid plans.
It's a tough stance, but there really is no gray area. Either part of the problem, or part of the solution, so to speak.
We all have some form of responsibility if we truly care about RIC & it's product.
If we didn't care, we wouldn't spend much time here.

I used to think "gray", but after much debating I figure either it's real or fake. Period.

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:30 am

...sorry if I offended any senior member of the board. The fake TRC, I sold the bass with will NEVER have the chance to be sold down the line as a real one, because it is a loose plastic foil (not sticky or glued) that was simply on top of plain white TRC, kept in place by the TRC screws. So EVERYBODY who will have a closer view (about < 1m) will easily recognize that the TRC is fake. NO CHANCE TO SELL IT AS A "REAL" ONE! Otherwise I would have removed it. However back to the bass... in terms of necks, this bass had the best "Rick"-neck I ever played.

markbass99 · Post by **markbass99** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:16 am

Hey Pete- if you get the chance you should try a late model Laredo neck, I'm still very impressed by the one I just bought. It's unbelievably thin in spite of it's fret board width, I think I actually like it better than my 73 4001's, which are quite thin.

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:33 pm

@Mark: Do you sell one of your 73 4001'S ???

My 4004Cii(2004)with walnut headstock wings, which I got from forum member Mark Henson, also has some nice neck. After "rathing"(VVT) and changing the gold hardware to chrome it sound incredible and looks nice.

However, I miss the 73 4001 features (CPinlays, CBbinding and the skunk stripe) and most of all the low weight (about 1kg less!)!

markbass99 · Post by **markbass99** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:50 am

Pete, the reason I mentioned the Laredo is because the neck on mine is noticeably thinner than my 03 Cii, you can tell they are manufactured differently(neck wise) even though they appear to be very similar.
My 73's are going to be part of my future retirement package and I drool every time I see those old features. Regarding the lighter weight, my 4004's feel slightly lighter than my 73's and a lot lighter than any 4003 I've ever owned.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:14 am

my two lightest Ric basses were my 1968 4001 and my 1998 4004ci ...

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:34 am

My CII is the lightest Rick in my stable. I've really been into the tone since I got the MXR M80.