Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

aceonbass wrote:The AllParts tailpiece definitely looks different. Every time I see one on a real RIC bass I do a double take because I wonder if it's a Rickenfaker. I think they cheapen real RIC basses. Every one of these I've ever seen that was old LOOKED old, with blistering chrome.

I've seen a couple that have lasted ok but I think that Dane has hit the nail on the head!

Eden.

jps wrote:

2ndHand72Rick wrote:Has there been a recent design change in the stock rick bridge?

Pics of '60s/'70s/ current type of tailpieces.

Tailpieces_Bottom_3981_800.jpg

Show us a photo of the underside of an Allparts tailpiece for comparison, please.

holding an AllParts bridge in my hand now, looks essentially identical to the middle one shown in your picture. I like the look of the newer one on the right, seems like the higher mass (filled in areas) is a step in the right direction.

It ought to; our part was used as the casting pattern and you can even see some of the original mold marks and flaws of the particular part they used.

This brings up a question, and I'm sure most here know the answer so forgive my ignorance - Are the Allparts bridge assemblies "ok" or blessed as far as Rickenbacker is concerned? or is it an unwelcome knockoff that is beyond the reach of Rickenbacker's control/copy/patent protection?

...and if so, what about the Hipshot bridges and tuners?

just curious, don't mean to bring up any sore subjects if they happen to be.

We consider both to be "knock-offs", although Hipshot's at least shows some creativity. The Allparts bridge is a definitive example of the term.

For the moment both are beyond our cost-effective control, however, that will likely change dramatically in light of a wide range of filings- and investments- we've been making around the world over the last year.