Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

He only got 660$ for the 330 body and and neck. The only overly expensive parts are the truss rod covers, which makes me wonder if the Rickenbacker policy is a good idea, especially since I haven't seen any really convincing copies of Ricks, except for some of the copy basses from the 1970s. You can tell the modern fakes just by looking at the fretboard.

I don't understand how you can sell the body seperately without the jackplate. Well, I do, but.....Wouldn't selling the serial number for a guitar amount to fraud anyway, because whoever bought it couldn't possibly fit it to the original, so they would effectively be suggesting the guitar they fitted it to was something it wasn't, if you see what I mean. So whoever buys or sells a jackplate from another guitar with the serial number on is committing fraud.

Still, too many people seem to not care very much about being dishonest these days. Can RIC do anything about serial numbers being sold seperately? Surely they should not be sold on ebay.

I hope I am not missing something

They have a butchered 350V63 on the Bay right now...

rickenmetal wrote:He only got 660$ for the 330 body and and neck. The only overly expensive parts are the truss rod covers, which makes me wonder if the Rickenbacker policy is a good idea, especially since I haven't seen any really convincing copies of Ricks, except for some of the copy basses from the 1970s. You can tell the modern fakes just by looking at the fretboard.

For now.

Rickygirl wrote:Wouldn't selling the serial number for a guitar amount to fraud anyway, because whoever bought it couldn't possibly fit it to the original, so they would effectively be suggesting the guitar they fitted it to was something it wasn't, if you see what I mean. So whoever buys or sells a jackplate from another guitar with the serial number on is committing fraud.

Only if they were selling it as misrepresented in some way which increased its value - ie either to make a new instrument appear vintage (not possible in this case since the serial number is recent) or to make a non-Rickenbacker instrument appear genuine (more likely), or to disguise the identity of a stolen instrument (also possible). Simply selling a numbered plate or selling something with an incorrect serial number is not illegal by itself.

It really does make me wonder why Rickenbacker continues to place the only easily identifiable (to a lay person, anyway) brand and date information on such easily removable parts. Surely it would be better to stamp the serial number into the body wood somewhere - I would have thought the back of the headstock where it's clearly visible, like Gibson... or if for some reason that wasn't desirable, somewhere hidden but easily accessible, eg in the control cavity.

Particularly as RIC are so concerned with trademarks - and especially knowing how easy it is to fit a copy with both parts (which are themselves easily and commonly faked) that could make it pass as the real thing to someone inexperienced. It's certainly true that a professional fake manufacturer could still duplicate a stamped-into-the-wood serial number, but if it was under the finish it would be beyond the ability of an amateur. At present anyone with a screwdriver can do it.

BlueAngel wrote: It really does make me wonder why Rickenbacker continues to place the only easily identifiable (to a lay person, anyway) brand and date information on such easily removable parts. Surely it would be better to stamp the serial number into the body wood somewhere - I would have thought the back of the headstock where it's clearly visible, like Gibson... or if for some reason that wasn't desirable, somewhere hidden but easily accessible, eg in the control cavity.

Particularly as RIC are so concerned with trademarks - and especially knowing how easy it is to fit a copy with both parts (which are themselves easily and commonly faked) that could make it pass as the real thing to someone inexperienced. It's certainly true that a professional fake manufacturer could still duplicate a stamped-into-the-wood serial number, but if it was under the finish it would be beyond the ability of an amateur. At present anyone with a screwdriver can do it.

[/quote]

I agree, I think they should print/stamp the serial inside the guitar in addition to the jackplate. If they put a conversion varnish clearcoat over it, it might be a lot harder to duplicate/alter, because very few people have equipment to use CV.

BlueAngel wrote:
Particularly as RIC are so concerned with trademarks - and especially knowing how easy it is to fit a copy with both parts (which are themselves easily and commonly faked) that could make it pass as the real thing to someone inexperienced. It's certainly true that a professional fake manufacturer could still duplicate a stamped-into-the-wood serial number, but if it was under the finish it would be beyond the ability of an amateur. At present anyone with a screwdriver can do it.

Not meaning to be ornery, John, but it's not quite there, yet.

TRUSS ROD COVERS:

Oddly, the "vintage" style ones, which would be simplest to counterfeit, haven't turned up in any big numbers, thanks to RIC's diligence in this matter.

I have right in front of me as I write this, a real molded TRC and one of them Eye-Talian fakeroos that were recently being flogged on the Bay. (Nope, I didn't buy it; it came through a customer who sent it for his restoration, and it will be given to RIC next week.)

This fake is the real deal in terms of manufacture--it's injection-molded and has a correct footprint. EVERYTHING else about it is wrong. It was obviously done by a contract house that didn't understand the finer points; and looks to me to be Chinese in every way, judging from mold finish and lack of sensitivity for Western typography. I won't go into details for reasons that should be obvious. Suffice to say that if the typeface looks a bit too thin, stay away from it. There are another half-dozen errors. This is why the guy in Italy was using a photo of the real item to sell these fakes. No return address on the mailing envelope, either...

The molded TRCs are not easy to get right, and I think the real reason we don't see them is simply the expense of doing a mold, coupled with RIC's aggressive prosecution, makes it not worthwhile as the demand is low.

JACKPLATES:

Not easy to make by any stretch; again, there's punch-press tooling, polishing and/or plating. But the real issue here is the numbering. Not easy to get right, and the machinery to do this simple detail is not garden-variety. This, coupled again with low demand, aggressive policing and low profit margins, makes it tough to make any ral money doing this.

Far as I can see, there's no reason to modify the status quo. It's a thorn and a pain, but not the sort of threat that can wreck a business--RIC is well-protected and does their due diligence as far as policing the matter goes.

Paul, I get what you're saying regarding manufacture of jackplates. However, the fact remains that anybody with a screwdriver can remove the jackplate and screw it onto a fake Rickenbacker (especially with the recent sales of Rics chopped up for parts).

Though I'd bet most of the people on this forum know the difference between real and fake guitars, people are still being scammed every day. With a stamped-into-wood serial number, there would be an extra degree of protection.

jingle_jangle wrote:Not meaning to be ornery, John, but it's not quite there, yet.

TRUSS ROD COVERS:

Oddly, the "vintage" style ones, which would be simplest to counterfeit, haven't turned up in any big numbers, thanks to RIC's diligence in this matter.

I have right in front of me as I write this, a real molded TRC and one of them Eye-Talian fakeroos that were recently being flogged on the Bay. (Nope, I didn't buy it; it came through a customer who sent it for his restoration, and it will be given to RIC next week.)

This fake is the real deal in terms of manufacture--it's injection-molded and has a correct footprint. EVERYTHING else about it is wrong. It was obviously done by a contract house that didn't understand the finer points; and looks to me to be Chinese in every way, judging from mold finish and lack of sensitivity for Western typography. I won't go into details for reasons that should be obvious. Suffice to say that if the typeface looks a bit too thin, stay away from it. There are another half-dozen errors. This is why the guy in Italy was using a photo of the real item to sell these fakes. No return address on the mailing envelope, either...

The molded TRCs are not easy to get right, and I think the real reason we don't see them is simply the expense of doing a mold, coupled with RIC's aggressive prosecution, makes it not worthwhile as the demand is low.

JACKPLATES:

Not easy to make by any stretch; again, there's punch-press tooling, polishing and/or plating. But the real issue here is the numbering. Not easy to get right, and the machinery to do this simple detail is not garden-variety. This, coupled again with low demand, aggressive policing and low profit margins, makes it tough to make any ral money doing this.

Far as I can see, there's no reason to modify the status quo. It's a thorn and a pain, but not the sort of threat that can wreck a business--RIC is well-protected and does their due diligence as far as policing the matter goes.

With respect! - I completely agree that the fakes are not close in terms of detail accuracy, and easy for an expert to spot, but that's not the point... it's that they are easily good enough to fool someone who has never seen a real one, or a real Rickenbacker, and who is simply going by the description of what these parts should look like, or average photos of them. ANY jackplate with a (correctly decodable) serial number stamped into it is sufficient to fool someone who only knows to check that there IS a number for the purpose of dating the instrument - the precise type style doesn't matter... I could easily make one with a generic jackplate and a set of hand letter punches. Likewise any TRC which bears a passing resemblance to a real one will also do. It's not about fooling people who DO know the difference, as they will easily spot the errors in the rest of the instrument too.

I don't think there is a need for changing the status quo regarding the non-availablity of these parts from RIC, as the situation would be even worse if REAL items were used to 'authenticate' a fake - it's just that I think RIC should take the very simple step of marking the instrument itself (ie the wood) properly too, since it would actually remove the point of even buying the fake parts to fit to one if it could be very easily shown to be a fake due to lack of the proper stamp - so I think it would strongly help RIC in the policing of fakes and cut at least one of the legs from under the makers of them.

How much time and cost would it really incur to stamp the back of the headstock or the floor of the control cavity with the company logo and a serial number before finishing?

How much time and cost would it really incur to stamp the back of the headstock or the floor of the control cavity with the company logo and a serial number before finishing?

It would be pretty easy, but: if someone can really fake a Rick with all the details, which as far as I know no one has, they could easily fake that too. If you want to do something like that to your guitar to identify it if stolen, you certainly can do it yourself, even in more hidden places. Although it might deter thieves if they put a serial number in the wood somewhere like on the back of the headstock.

I don't see why it would be hard to pirate the raised name truss rod covers, it's probably one of the easiest things to do if someone can work with plastics, you simply make a mold from an original. To make a whole guitar would require a lot of skills though.

rickenmetal wrote:

if someone can work with plastics, you simply make a mold from an original.

And there, as I said before, lies the rub.

"Working with plastics" covers a lot of turf; the most sophisticated and costly in terms of investment in time and tooling is, of course, injection-molding. Hence my previous comment:

The molded TRCs are not easy to get right, and I think the real reason we don't see them is simply the expense of doing a mold, coupled with RIC's aggressive prosecution, makes it not worthwhile as the demand is low.

Believe me, there's nothing "simple" or inexpensive about making an injection mold.

I think it would be a good idea to have the serial number stamped into the wood somewhere, but not like Gibson do. I have been perusing 50's and early 60s Les Paul Juniors, and the ones that have been refinished have had the serial number removed in the refinish (who would do that????). Or at least it cannot be seen on photos. In the control cavity sounds good. It would be obvious then if someone had removed it. It just might help identify stolen guitars. Just a thought.

Rickygirl wrote:I think it would be a good idea to have the serial number stamped into the wood somewhere, but not like Gibson do. I have been perusing 50's and early 60s Les Paul Juniors, and the ones that have been refinished have had the serial number removed in the refinish (who would do that????). Or at least it cannot be seen on photos.

50s Gibsons don't have an impressed number - it was painted on, so it always gets lost in a full refinish unless someone deliberately re-does it. From the early 60s onwards they started stamping it into the wood, although a heavy refin can still remove it since it's not all that deep.

Beware also of "60s" guitars with refinished necks since it's possible to take an early 70s one, shave off the volute behind the nut and sand out the 'Made In USA' stamp, which is usually shallower than the serial number, without removing the number itself - and which then makes it look like a 60s guitar. Gibson's 6-figure serial numbers are so erratic and often duplicated (sometimes more than once) that it's often possible to create a 'correct' 60s number from a 70s one.