Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Stupid...some people only care about money. When I see Strats on there parted out I just shake my head. Didn't know it was happening to Ricks but nothing is sacred.

artisan4 wrote:Stupid...some people only care about money. When I see Strats on there parted out I just shake my head. Didn't know it was happening to Ricks but nothing is sacred.

Least the Strat was literally designed to be pulled apart.

Just sayin...

collin wrote: Least the Strat was literally designed to be pulled apart.

Just sayin...

Yeah, people forget that this was part of Leo's vision; he wanted the guitar to be cheap to produce, cheap to manufacture, and cheap for which to get new parts so that it would be accessible to more people. I think it's ridiculous that some people can pay around $50,000 for a Strat when they are essentially made from the same design with (mostly) the same materials today.

DriftSpace wrote:

collin wrote: Least the Strat was literally designed to be pulled apart.

Just sayin...

Yeah, people forget that this was part of Leo's vision; he wanted the guitar to be cheap to produce, cheap to manufacture, and cheap for which to get new parts so that it would be accessible to more people. I think it's ridiculous that some people can pay around $50,000 for a Strat when they are essentially made from the same design with (mostly) the same materials today.

You really truly don't understand vintage guitars one bit, do you?

I have to admit , I'm one of those that doesn't get the vintage thing. I understand that people like them for the vibe,the rarity,the collector value & such but other than the vibe I'm not interested. I prefer a modern recreation with the look but modern fretboard radius, frets & electronics. I have a 50's vibe bass that captures enough of the vibe for me but at a fraction of the cost of the bass it's modeled after. Considering the tuners, fretboard radius & bridge of the original it probably functions better. Still to each his own.

Right on, Rock---that's great. It's customers like yourself who keep guitar companies in business.

Different strokes for different folks, and even more to the point, I don't think most vintage guitar buyers these days purchase them solely for sound or playability. They're not the "tools" that most players consider them to be. For sound, decent modern guitars get about 90% of the way there and I don't think most people's playing ability is even using all of that 90% anyways.

I think old guitars are just cool.....'nuff said.

Every time I see the vintage v. modern guitar debate retreaded, this is the only image I see in my head!

Ben: Exactly, it is enough to drive us to drink. Not that we need any encouragement.

RIC_FACTORY wrote:Every time I see the vintage v. modern guitar debate retreaded, this is the only image I see in my head!

admin wrote:Ben: Exactly, it is enough to drive us to drink. Not that we need any encouragement.

collin wrote:Right on, Rock---that's great. It's customers like yourself who keep guitar companies in business.

Different strokes for different folks, and even more to the point, I don't think most vintage guitar buyers these days purchase them solely for sound or playability. They're not the "tools" that most players consider them to be. For sound, decent modern guitars get about 90% of the way there and I don't think most people's playing ability is even using all of that 90% anyways.

I think old guitars are just cool.....'nuff said.

I think a guitar "seasons" (whatever that really means) a lot in the first 15 years of it's life regardless if you play it or not, it has nothing to do with "They made them better in the old days"
Leo Fender had a sign in the old Fender factory that said "We don't make them like we used to, but then again we never did"
Iv'e been guilty of ditching guitars that would have come good just by keeping them a bit longer (my us telecaster comes to mind)

I have kept my old guitars as they were players then as they are now and with the "seasoning effect" they just get better. I like old(ish) slightly knocked around guitars as they are usually seasoned and cheaper than new or real vintage...

New Rickenbackers are far superior in quality to the old ones and sound great now. I wonder how they will sound when they reach 20? (scary good I suspect)

Opinionated ramble mode off:

Eden.

RIC_FACTORY wrote:Every time I see the vintage v. modern guitar debate retreaded, this is the only image I see in my head!

Ben, when I first saw that picture (without my glasses) I thought he was sniffing a chip... Strangely enough the analogy still works!

Eden.

I have to admit that I like vintage guitars... but I also have to admit that I love vintage everything-else: Paintings, plates, forks, flutes, violins - you name it -everything old sh...

The interesting thing about vintage guitars in particular is - that many people want these expensive monsters to be able to recreate the original sound of the 50's and the 60's etc. But the fact is that the guitars recorded those days were all BRAND NEW instruments of course - as vintage guitars was non-existant. So the rule is: If you really wan't to sound like it used to and getting it real original and genuine - record it with a brand new guitar thru a tube driven desk.

George's Rickenbacker 360/12 was a year old when he recorded A Hard Days Night, Clapton's "Fool" SG was maybe three years old when he recorded Disraëli Gears Jimi's Strats were all bought brand new - many bought at Mannys in N.Y. in bunches... and well... I think you get it it

Many Australian vintners are using screw-on tops now. Not sure what to do. Maybe pour a thimble full in the top and have a swig? I also appreciate a nice, vintage axe. But for RICs I like they way they are being made now and enjoy actually playing the newer models more. Still, if a '60s RIC dropped in my lap, I'd cherish it.