Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

nukebass wrote:

Grey wrote:... New Rickenbackers are better than the Vintage ones. Yeah, i've gone and said it. They're made better, and the quality control is extremely consistent...

I think experience varies on this statement.

Definitely. I think perhaps what many here are saying, in different ways, is that the methods of construction have improved, but that does not necessarily translate directly to quality control. Several examples from the past decade have been discussed and rehashed ad nauseum on this very forum, so there is no need to get into those specifics, but the point has definitely been made. In fairness, I'll also consider that when we extol the virtues of "vintage" guitars, we are only discussing the ones that SURVIVED!

I believe that had internet guitar forums existed in 1968 there would be a lot more threads about QC or lack thereof. How in the world would anybody know that a guitar built in 1968 that they now own didn't have any problems then when the first customer got it, unless he actually told you? The pool of Rick owners back then was much smaller and much less able to communicate their opinions to the world at large, so let's compare apples to apples here.

The only thing we can debate is whether or not the actual construction method is better in 2012 than 40 years ago, which it is for a lot of reasons.

And, if nothing else, because communications are so much easier these days, any sort of QC issue that might crop up in the field will get back to RIC far faster. This gives them the ability to take care of possible QC issues far better than at any time in the past...

imo, I don't think there's anything to debate. Quality control is more consistent now then it was 30-40 years ago due to more automated methods of construction.
Lemons will still slip by QC from time to time, but that is now much less common. I also have my doubts about the MF deal after all the stories about them selling customer returns as 'new' emerged.

RIC_FACTORY wrote:I believe that had internet guitar forums existed in 1968 there would be a lot more threads about QC or lack thereof. How in the world would anybody know that a guitar built in 1968 that they now own didn't have any problems then when the first customer got it, unless he actually told you? The pool of Rick owners back then was much smaller and much less able to communicate their opinions to the world at large, so let's compare apples to apples here.

The only thing we can debate is whether or not the actual construction method is better in 2012 than 40 years ago, which it is for a lot of reasons.

Tis very true Ben, but the world has become a lot "smaller" since then.

It's almost like RIC is a victim of it's own success in a way.

I've heard it said: "Gibson, Fender, etc makes thousands of guitars a day, sure some bad ones will get through", "but a RIC is hand made, they should have ZERO problems."
I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

Every company will have some bad ones get through, it's inevitable. But to me its how the seller, dealer, company deals with the customer after the sale that makes the company.

My 2004 Monty Brown was a bit of a 'duffer'. Slightly twisted neck, wood compression, a few build quality issues. Very dark sounding. And it was brand new.
I bought a 2011 Jetglo, and the difference is astounding.
I still love the Monty, but the new one is how a RIC bass should be. The Monty has now been retired. I'll be keeping the old girl, but I probably won't play it again.

All companies, big and small, suffer with QC issues from time to time. It is to be expected. With the new manufacturing processes and designs, I think RIC have really 'upped their game', improving on already great instruments.

marc61 wrote:I guess in different forms of collecting vintage can mean different things however, I've always opined that a generation removed makes it a vintage collectible. In that case and using 25 years as a generation benchmark, any Ric prior to 1987 can be called vintage.

My opinion only though

I consider vintage Ricks Pre-74. Thats obviously not correct, its just how I classify them in my head.

geddeeee wrote:My 2004 Monty Brown was a bit of a 'duffer'. Slightly twisted neck, wood compression, a few build quality issues. Very dark sounding. And it was brand new.
I bought a 2011 Jetglo, and the difference is astounding.
I still love the Monty, but the new one is how a RIC bass should be. The Monty has now been retired. I'll be keeping the old girl, but I probably won't play it again.

All companies, big and small, suffer with QC issues from time to time. It is to be expected. With the new manufacturing processes and designs, I think RIC have really 'upped their game', improving on already great instruments.

Interesting to note. We have made more changes to the 4003 between 2005-2010 than the ten years prior to that. The neck on your 2004 MB was shaped completely by hand in the same fashion every other bass was before that. It also had a one-piece neck that would be more prone to twisting.

The control pockets were routed by hand on a large, and dangerous, overhead router using handmade jigs that had been in use for decades.

Also, I think pretty much everybody will agree that the finish is way better and more consistent than before.

IvanMunoz wrote:in my head.

Let's not go there! My insurance doesn't cover it when I get an accident there !

RIC_FACTORY wrote:The control pockets were routed by hand on a large, and dangerous, overhead router using handmade jigs that had been in use for decades.

Always fascinates me how old industrial machines, no matter which industry, had been designed with the safety of the operator as of no concern. Was this machine custom made or an adjusted furniture/wood working machine?

The jigs were made special, by our guys, but the machine wasn't anything special. It was actually a good, heavy duty machine that was great for woodworking otherwise. It was just too unwieldy for our purposes. Now, our guys put a guitar in a machine after the handwork is done, close the door, and let the machine do the dangerous work more accurately, faster, and obviously safer than they could.

I’m really glad Rickenbacker practices safe fabrication… makes the product even better. I have never had an issue with Ric quality since I bought my first in ’74. Regardless if they are new or old, when I get them and get them set up to my liking and cleaned up – well it really doesn’t matter what came before… we make beee-U-tee-full music together!

IvanMunoz wrote: I consider vintage Ricks Pre-74. Thats obviously not correct, its just how I classify them in my head.

That's funny!

My transition date is 1983 when John took over the company from his dad... The guitars started to change.

IMHO there is not much difference between a 1972 360 and a 1983 one... The same can't be said of the 4001's though

Ontario_RIC_fan wrote:My transition date is 1983 when John took over the company from his dad...

September 1, 1984 actually.

RIC_FACTORY wrote: Also, I think pretty much everybody will agree that the finish is way better and more consistent than before.

I have to say so far I'm quite happy with not just the finish but also everything underneath it on my new 4003 JG!

I think it's interesting. I've owned a 4001 a 4000 & now a 4003s. No matter how much I might have praised or complained about them they are all works of art from the factory.