Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

antipodean wrote: IMHO RIC has chosen to maintain the current spec on their "volume" ranges as this is where they see the bulk of demand, which makes the most sense economically.

I hope that RIC brings checked binding to the 4003. But I don't believe that plain white binding is used right now because RIC has decided that that's where the current demand is. I think it's more likely that, since they're producing at capacity, RIC would need to see a really compelling reason to change that detail before doing so. Or maybe the question has just never come up.

bluewhale

deaconblues wrote:All I was saying was that both models are very successful.

I have no doubt you are correct about that but there are costs associated with diversifying and RIC is not FMIC. They're already doing two fairly disparate bass designs as standard models as it is (with little variations within if you count Cii vs. L 4004, and when they still existed, the C Series relative to the 4003).

Again, my position is pretty simple: I think it would be neat if whatever energy RIC had to spend on bass guitar diversification and branching out were to go to things a little more interesting than the C Series was (to me). If RIC purchasers are still feverishly consumed with chasing the RM1999, I think it would be easier and ultimately better for the consumer if RIC were to re-release the 4003S with the current 4003 specs and let players who want the RM1999 look take the handful of extra steps to get there. This would not be an RM1999 of course but it would just as close to one as a factory C64 bass was, if not a little more thanks to the headstock being the normal orientation, and at around the same cost as a C Series bass with RIC taking in the money directly through the OEM sales instead of built into the price of the RI model.

But I'm pretty sure whatever horse there was left for me to beat on is quite dead so I'll bow out of the discussion. And everything I say should come with disclaimer, "That was just this one guy on the innernetz's opinion, so, like, whatever." I have no idea what the best business move for RIC is, I will happily leave that to them.

cassius987 wrote:...I'm pretty sure whatever horse there was left for me to beat on is quite dead so I'll bow out of the discussion. And everything I say should come with disclaimer, "That was just this one guy on the innernetz's opinion, so, like, whatever." I have no idea what the best business move for RIC is, I will happily leave that to them.

Joshua, I think the fact that I was coming to this from a guitar player's perspective, while you were coming from a bass player's perspective has colored the discussion somewhat. But anyway, just a difference of opinion when it comes down to it.

cassius987 wrote:And everything I say should come with disclaimer, "That was just this one guy on the innernetz's opinion, so, like, whatever." I have no idea what the best business move for RIC is, I will happily leave that to them.

+1!

jps wrote:

Duty Calls On The Internet!.png

So true! I actually quit a different forum because of that phenomenon happening way too often.

deaconblues wrote:But anyway, just a difference of opinion when it comes down to it.

Yep! No worries Dan.

bluewhale wrote:

antipodean wrote: IMHO RIC has chosen to maintain the current spec on their "volume" ranges as this is where they see the bulk of demand, which makes the most sense economically.

I hope that RIC brings checked binding to the 4003. But I don't believe that plain white binding is used right now because RIC has decided that that's where the current demand is. I think it's more likely that, since they're producing at capacity, RIC would need to see a really compelling reason to change that detail before doing so. Or maybe the question has just never come up.

bluewhale

Isn't it also a possibility that CB could be really wanted but since it is not offered yet people still want a Rick, they buy because there is no possibility for CB?

johnallg wrote: Isn't it also a possibility that CB could be really wanted but since it is not offered yet people still want a Rick, they buy because there is no possibility for CB?

I think that's likely the case. I was just trying to speculate on why it's not offered. And I'd say the same for other details, some that don't seem like they'd be too difficult to change.

bluewhale wrote:I hope that RIC brings checked binding to the 4003. But I don't believe that plain white binding is used right now because RIC has decided that that's where the current demand is. I think it's more likely that, since they're producing at capacity, RIC would need to see a really compelling reason to change that detail before doing so. Or maybe the question has just never come up.

None of us doubts the market for checked binding. It's elegant and rather unique to Rickenbacker.

What no one wants to do is pay the cost of it. Not only is the material an order of magnitude greater than plain, each instrument using it essentially has to be bound twice and it's a time consuming and exacting job to do it right.

Everyone wants a boutique grade product at an entry level, student price it seems, and the checked binding simply doesn't fit into that equation. It's another one of those conundrums like the Model 4005- everyone wants it but no one wants to pay for it.

johnhall wrote:Everyone wants a boutique grade product at an entry level, student price it seems, and the checked binding simply doesn't fit into that equation. It's another one of those conundrums like the Model 4005- everyone wants it but no one wants to pay for it.

Exactly why Rickenbacker needs a Custom Shop. Everyone may not want to pay the price of admission for these instruments, but there are certainly some who do, given the resale figures on the instruments that do possess these features.

Custom Shop may not be the right word since it implies instruments that are made-to-order. How about "small production run" shop?

Rickenbacker does the outlet thing occasionally so it dosen't seem like a stretch, and don't those always find a buyer?

Grey wrote:Rickenbacker does the outlet thing occasionally so it dosen't seem like a stretch, and don't those always find a buyer?

Building small runs of instruments or even singles is doable but the hand-holding during the shopping, pricing and ordering processes to support this would be labor intensive.

I flowcharted and mocked-up an online automated system back during the early days of the World Wide Web to allow configuration of custom options- now that would be the way to go. (Let's see; whose guitar are we NOT going to make while we work on this instead?)

johnhall wrote:

Grey wrote:Rickenbacker does the outlet thing occasionally so it dosen't seem like a stretch, and don't those always find a buyer?

Building small runs of instruments or even singles is doable but the hand-holding during the shopping, pricing and ordering processes to support this would be labor intensive.

I flowcharted and mocked-up an online automated system back during the early days of the World Wide Web to allow configuration of custom options- now that would be the way to go. (Let's see; whose guitar are we NOT going to make while we work on this instead?)

I actually envisioned an automated system too thinking about this idea last year; something that would be able to constrain people to several approved choices from multiple decision trees instead of sending Rickenbacker a Christmas list of every inane detail ("...and I want anodized gold pickguard screws, but the TRC screws MUST BE ZINC!!").

johnhall wrote:Building small runs of instruments or even singles is doable but the hand-holding during the shopping, pricing and ordering processes to support this would be labor intensive.

The eBay format takes care of most of that, dosen't it? The Outlet mostly has special colors and features for existing models and stuff like that, but I know you guys made that crazy 481/12 a while back. I'm sure one or two special 4003's or 4005's would make a lot of people happy, if Rickenbacker still has the ability to make the 4005. I'd imagine the factory is a very difference place now and you arn't exactly churning out semi hollow basses, so perhaps its unreasonable.

I imagine there's a lot of logistic issues, still, Rickenbacker has a clear stance on the production of current instruments and the unlikely inclusion of any major changes to that lineup, a few special builds could strike a middle ground.

johnhall wrote:I flowcharted and mocked-up an online automated system back during the early days of the World Wide Web to allow configuration of custom options- now that would be the way to go. (Let's see; whose guitar are we NOT going to make while we work on this instead?)

I'm available for freelancing.

A custom shop will be a dream come true too!! But I wish RIC would have a selection of different 4003. For example, bring back the 4003S and 4003 5-string instead of a normal 4003 that we can find in most music stores and repeat itself every year. I hate the fact that many of us have to go to ebay for something like this to pop up. It would be sweet to go to Samash.com and see that I have the option to buy a 4003, 4003s, and 4003 5-strings. I quess this will attract more musicians to buy a Rickenbacker.

Casiraghi22 wrote:It would be sweet to go to Samash.com and see that I have the option to select a 4003, 4003s, and 4003 5-strings.

That's all well and good, but heres the kicker -- are you browsing or buying?