Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

s4001 wrote:

RIC_FACTORY wrote: As far as the changes to the "horns" or scoops on some models, that is by design. I happen to prefer the current look of those instruments, ....

+1!

To change the subject a bit, a luthier I worked with many years ago in England swore that to use any power tool when creating an instrument changed the sonic qualities of the wood. He did pretty much everything by hand, though he may have used a bandsaw to rough out bodies before hand finishing them.

rickenbrother wrote:

s4001 wrote:

RIC_FACTORY wrote: As far as the changes to the "horns" or scoops on some models, that is by design. I happen to prefer the current look of those instruments, ....

+1!

+2

aceonbass wrote:Imagine if the 4005 were in production and the ramp at the rear were de-emphasized....

Like this one?

gareth wrote:To change the subject a bit, a luthier I worked with many years ago in England swore that to use any power tool when creating an instrument changed the sonic qualities of the wood. He did pretty much everything by hand, though he may have used a bandsaw to rough out bodies before hand finishing them.

If that were true, is he falling the tree with a two man buck saw, squaring up the log with a broad axe, cutting and planing the slabs by hand?

It is true that some materials can be affected by the heat that high speed cutting heads create, I have a hard time buying into his theory.

aceonbass wrote:With the exception of the 4004 and 650 models, Ricks are "vintage" instruments" cosmetically, regardless of the unseen structural or production changes that have been made. They are all about "plexiglass and chrome and bling". They have a cool that other marques can only reach back to, while Ricks have always had it. We always slam the copies for what's not "right" about them, yet some of these changes would be pointed out as distininguishing features between copies and the real deal if they were on the copies first.

I think you're onto something Dane.

aceonbass wrote:If these changes had happened to basses, you wouldn't like them Joey. Imagine if the 4005 were in production and the ramp at the rear were de-emphasized in the way it is on the guitars with a lack of continuity with the guard...or the upper horn on the 4003's & 4004's were rounded in a similar fashion to the 600 series. The funky double-hump 4003 guard can be fixed, but these other features can't be.

What's with this fiction that the ramp is supposed to follow the pickguard? On most of the guitars in the museum it would be quite a stretch to say that this is the case. Just look around at images online and you will see what I'm talking about.

We always slam the copies for what's not "right" about them, yet some of these changes would be pointed out as distininguishing features between copies and the real deal if they were on the copies first.

Right, so in other words, we shouldn't have a lot those other changes over the last decade (some of which you actually like) because it potentially eliminates distinguishing features between genuine Ricks and fakes? Does that go for the 12 string headstocks as well? What about the polyester finish? I heard from so-called "experts" that only cheap Asian knockoffs use polyester because it dampens the tone (although virtually EVERY high-end maker in the US uses it). Now that I think about it, a lot of Ricks copies come out of Asia, maybe you are on to something, Dane! Bottom line, if you would still confuse a new Rick for a fake even today, you oughta have your head examined.

RIC_FACTORY wrote:

aceonbass wrote:If these changes had happened to basses, you wouldn't like them Joey. Imagine if the 4005 were in production and the ramp at the rear were de-emphasized in the way it is on the guitars with a lack of continuity with the guard...or the upper horn on the 4003's & 4004's were rounded in a similar fashion to the 600 series. The funky double-hump 4003 guard can be fixed, but these other features can't be.

What's with this fiction that the ramp is supposed to follow the pickguard? On most of the guitars in the museum it would be quite a stretch to say that this is the case. Just look around at images online and you will see what I'm talking about.

Ben, you're right about that - as, I already pointed out in one thread or another about this subject (possibly the one covering the ramp topic), somewhere in 2000 you guys stopped making them parallel to the pickguard, and ended with that in 2007. Nobody ever said anything about the non-parallel shape, until the width actually went down quite a bit with the present shape. Unlike the 2000-2007 shape, apparantly the current width is something that IS noticed and not liked by part of your customers. How big the percentage of possible buyers is that will not like it, is something that I would want to know if I were the builder of the instruments, no matter how far the backlog is... unless you actually want to reduce backlog by scaring away customers with an unappealing ramp.

Just my 2 Eurocents... I've already made up my mind my 360/12 will be a 2008, second hand if need be. The new ramp just doesn't do it for me either.

This has been a very interesting thread with all kinds of stuff thrown up.
Being a bass guitarist I wont go into the realms of the six and twelve string guitar.
I also know nothing about factory mass production methods of modern instruments.
However I agree with Dane in that as it stands in the market (as I and other consumers see it at any rate) the 4003 is in essence a "vintage" style of bass in that it conjours up the look of the time it was invented ie; the 60s.

Computer wood carving means little to me but if CAD means you can take a scan of a true classic vintage RM1999 for instance then thats a good thing.
I love the pre-zinc cast tailpiece period of the 4001 and if this series of basses were Fender Strats for instance there would be a 4001s Custom Shop relic and also a 2011 4003 hot pickup and piezo output etc. version but Rickenbacker is a smaller operation than Fender so thats not really possible.
I think Rickenbacker should hold on to their stock in trade with the 4000 basses and produce a bass as close as possible to the mid 60s classics.
Anyone who needs a different bridge or pickups should be able to retro fit their choice or ideally order a bass from the factory with them fitted.

What I am saying is that vision of the iconic 4000 series shape bass brings all the retro mojo descriptions in shop adverts for the 4003 and all other 4000 basses.
They all describe their stock of Rick basses as having the vibe that gives you Macca Yes Rush and even early Pistols and New Order!
Honest!
That is what the guy who buys his Rick bass to join his EB3 and Jazz Bass is parting with money for.
So why change things for the sake of?
Why turn what is really a 60s bass into something its not?
There are so many custom parts and people willing to fit them that anyone needing a souped up version of their 4003 can do it at home.
One modernism I would like to see is Rickenbacker getting together with Line 6 Variax components for the bass.
Maybe the pickup could be located in the tailpiece instead of the mute.
Its a thought.................I would buy one.

How big the percentage of possible buyers is that will not like it, is something that I would want to know if I were the builder of the instruments, no matter how far the backlog is... unless you actually want to reduce backlog by scaring away customers with an unappealing ramp.

The only time this has been brought up is here, amongst a few people (some of whom are actually bass players). As for the witty comment, I would expect that those folks are just gonna go hang out with the crowd that can't stand the 12 string headstocks and swear they will never purchase a new Rick until that changes back!

For what it's worth, I love everthing I've seen that came out of one of Ric's CNC machines. Props to all involved and Thank you too!

RIC_FACTORY wrote: I would expect that those folks are just gonna go hang out with the crowd that can't stand the 12 string headstocks and swear they will never purchase a new Rick until that changes back!

They are a small but quite vocal minority!!

I've got four Ricks with ramps. The oldest is a Dec. '64 375NS. It's ramp is narrow, but shapely. It's pretty much the same size as the ramp on my '92 320! My '72 360-12S has a perfect ramp as does my '96 360-12WB. These last two have the curved shape that, while not perfectly parallel to the pickguard, does have the same curvature. It just looks right. My '96 650C, while not a classic design, does have the classic upper horn shape with the aggressive looking crest. Again, it just looks right to me. Of these guitars one has a tiny, narrow headstock (the '64), two are about perfect (the 12s), and two are the wide ones. Obviously there's been a lot of variation over the years.

While most of us buy and love these guitars for their sound, the beautiful aesthetics are surely high on the list as well. I have no problem with changes that make the guitar more stable/reliable or easier to manufacture so long as they do not affect the sound and the classic styling. I'm lucky enough to have five Rick guitars and one bass--far more than I have of any other brand. To me, Rickenbacker stands alone in several important ways: the sound, the look, made in the USA, small & privately owned company, among others. I guess my summary would be: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The human visual system is a funny thing. Even a seemingly small difference can stand out like a sore thumb.

Of course that's just one man's humble opinion.