Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

rickenbrother wrote:Look at identical twins, guess what they are not perfectly alike.

I am the better looking one between my brother and I.

Joey, I think we are done here!

Go ahead, delete it.

jps wrote:

rickenbrother wrote:Look at identical twins, guess what they are not perfectly alike.

I am the better looking one between my brother and I.

I appreciate the levity, Jeff.
This thread has given me enough agita for the night.

I'll agree that I started this thread with a loaded title, and I apologize and would change it if this forum allowed.

Hi Wes,

I had the feeling that you may be having fun by seeing how much of a hornet's nest you can stir up!

Then I saw your pictures....

The RIC web-site states the following regarding the C-series which may prove helpful:

"The challenge was to precisely replicate decidedly imprecise guitars made in an earlier era, reconcile the numerous manufacturing variations, and conform them to modern methods of production and quality standards." (My italics)

As others have stated, there is probably a lot of statistical "noise" in respect of the shape of '60s 4001Ss and RM1999s. In addition, in order for RIC to run production smoothly, I would expect that there would need to be a high degree of commonality in tooling for the various 4000 series models, including the C64, which may well also contribute to some of those variations you perceive to be erroneous.

I'm sorry you're disappointed, and hope that you can still make great music with that fabulous bass...!

antipodean wrote:I had the feeling that you may be having fun by seeing how much of a hornet's nest you can stir up!

Then I saw your pictures....

The RIC web-site states the following regarding the C-series which may prove helpful:

"The challenge was to precisely replicate decidedly imprecise guitars made in an earlier era, reconcile the numerous manufacturing variations, and conform them to modern methods of production and quality standards." (My italics)

As others have stated, there is probably a lot of statistical "noise" in respect of the shape of '60s 4001Ss and RM1999s. In addition, in order for RIC to run production smoothly, I would expect that there would need to be a high degree of commonality in tooling for the various 4000 series models, including the C64, which may well also contribute to some of those variations you perceive to be erroneous.

I would agree with you except the C64 body shape is the exactly same as the 4003's minus binding, leading me to believe that not much effort was put into the design of this "vintage reproduction".

antipodean wrote:As others have stated, there is probably a lot of statistical "noise" in respect of the shape of '60s 4001Ss and RM1999s.

"Statistical Noise" Thats a great name for a band!

Eden.

While I may be disappointed with RIC for not making a more accurate reproduction of a '60s 4001s, the C64 is what it is. I'm sorry for starting this thread, and I can assure you that I did not start it just to raise a ruckus. Maybe it's just the fact that a '60s 4001s is virtually unobtainable for me, considering I'm a student, makes me dissatisfied with what I have. The bottom line is that I love how this bass sounds, and that's mostly what matters. My acute awareness of aesthetics though, is what drives me to want the real thing, and to most others this probably doesn't matter.

Why did you keep it if it wasn't exactly what you thought it should be? Since it is an approximation of an unavailable instrument, as well as a right handed version, I would think that someone like yourself would not be interested. Still, you keep it, and start an inflammatory thread about it for what reason? Are we all supposed to not buy these, (or any other Ricks that don't meet your standards), to show RIC that we don't appreciate them not putting any thought in to it?

I think not, and I don't think you will find many(if any)will either. It seems rather pointless to knock RIC on what you believe to be their "thoughtless inaccuracies" on this particular instrument when so many, far beyond your years, are quite satisfied with the ones they own. What's next, the screws in the pickguard have the wrong number of threads?

1965 wrote:While I may be disappointed with RIC for not making a more accurate reproduction of a '60s 4001s, the C64 is what it is. I'm sorry for starting this thread, and I can assure you that I did not start it just to raise a ruckus. Maybe it's just the fact that a '60s 4001s is virtually unobtainable for me, considering I'm a student, makes me dissatisfied with what I have. The bottom line is that I love how this bass sounds, and that's mostly what matters. My acute awareness of aesthetics though, is what drives me to want the real thing, and to most others this probably doesn't matter.

No worries Wes. I can't afford a '60s RM either unless I sell some of my beloved collection, or a kidney. I'm making do with my JG V63. I'm glad you love the C64. It sounds great!

whojamfan wrote: What's next, the screws in the pickguard have the wrong number of threads?

Right amount of threads just not enough rust!

Eden.

1965 wrote:Go ahead, delete it.

Wes even though I am able to, I will not delete this thread since you have made a half hearted attempt at an apology.

Joey will likely be padlocking this thread in the very near future.

whojamfan wrote:Why did you keep it if it wasn't exactly what you thought it should be?

The C64 will be up for trade soon.

whojamfan wrote:What's next, the screws in the pickguard have the wrong number of threads?

The old slippery slope arguement, eh? The shape of the bass is incredibly important, I don't care about the screws.

whojamfan wrote:It seems rather pointless to knock RIC on what you believe to be their "thoughtless inaccuracies" on this particular instrument when so many, far beyond your years, are quite satisfied with the ones they own.

What does age have to do with it? I do graphic design. My job is visual, I have an eye for proportion and aesthetics.

The C64/C64s isn't my cup of tea but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what RIC has attempted to do with the model.

Honestly, few of us here knows what the folks at RIC go through to make a model go from conceptual idea to reality.

I remember a similar debate years ago over the 4001CS. I also vaguely remember John Hall stating that it WASN'T meant to be an EXACT copy of Chris' RM1999. I can't remember the exact term he used, but to paraphrase, it was a tribute of sorts. A hat tip if you will to the man. Somehone with a better memory, help me out here. BUT, that doesn't mean I don't love my CS any less. As a matter of fact, what I love about the bass BESIDES it being a fantastic instrument, is when I pick it up, it makes me THINK of the fellow who is responsible for playing bass in the first place, a connection if you will. To me it is priceless. I've turned down a $10,000.00 offer for that bass YEARS ago becuase it is just a very special bass to me. I'd do it again today.

I'm sure there are some Macca fans out there who buy the C64 for some of the same reasons. Here in forumland, we tend to analyze every minute curve, horn, pickup placement etc. By in large I think the average player doesn't care for all the minute things we forumites obsess about. They just want to own & play the darn thing.

I'm glad the thread hasn't been locked yet, but honestly everyone, do we have to break the moderators Ba**s to get our points across and insult RIC in the process? Its this very kind of thread that turns many folks off. A good honest debate over differences is fine, that's how we can learn new stuff, but why does it always revert back to some kind of mud being slung at the people who make the very instruments we are all here to celebrate?