Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

...and the nasty thing of it is:

Everyone who knows guitars, but not Rickenbackers very well (about 90% of the guitar and bass-playing population out there), will think that Rickenbacker makes hobbit basses with active pickups.

You bet the guy who built this wants to remain anonymous...he knew that making this would be illegal, yet he did it anyway, and took money for it. Now the guy who paid that money wants to get his money out of it...and so the cycle continues.

Yet the shape and trim details belong to a company that invented them and earned the right to own them.

It's a shame folks can't come up with their own outlines/headstocks... that is a pretty piece of wood. Not quite as bad as sticking a RIC TRC on it but almost...

Paul - I've never heard the phrase "hobbit basses" before. Perhaps you could illuminate me as to your meaning.

Short (scale) bass with hairy feet?!?

Sure. I made it up. It's a visual metaphor.

For instance, a Hobbit bass (or Hobbit guitar) would look right at home in this house:



...or perhaps in this outdoor clearing:



FYI: the term was inspired by a Hobbit-looking character playing an Alembic bass a couple of years ago. He looked as if he lived in a tree stump...

(signed)

Hambut Foxburr of Loamsdown

(which happens to be my own hobbit name, thanks to the Hobbit Name Generator!)

Thanks Paul - I had a feeling that's what you meant.

Man, you guys are really something, blowing such a wonderfully crafted bass completely to smithereens just because somebody built it with a Rickenbacker shape.

How many of you guys own a guitar or bass with a Fender shape but not actually made by Fender and how many of you own an accoustic guitar with a shape invented by Martin but not actually built by martin?

And do you guys feel guilty about owning an instrument built on the research and devellopment of somebody other than the brand it carries on the headstock?

Well, how many of you feel guilty about that?

Sorry, all Ricks, Fenders, and Martins here.

Fender has no ownership of the guitar and basses that Leo, Freddy, et. al. designed and engineered, Wouter. That's why you see so many knock-offs and copies. That's Fender's loss, and everyone takes advantage of their lack of foresight.

Rick does own the rights to the shapes and features of their instruments, yet others persist in thinking that the situation is the same for ALL manufacturers.

Very little on a Martin guitar is unique. Perhaps the headstock shape (I'd like to see THAT one defended in a court of law), and of course their logotype.

"...common old-school Rickenbacker bass shape..." Wow! Sales pitching at its most crass! The term "downplaying" also comes to my mind

No guilt whatsoever here, Wouter.

I have about 25 guitars and not one of them is a knock-off or copy - Rickenbacker, Fender, Gibson, Martin, etc. I prefer owning the 'real thing' and I guess that I'm fortunate in that I can afford to do so.

Why is it that some people just can't come up with anything original and resort to the designs of others?

Oh, guess you've seen Wouter's homebuilt Rick-copy too, Aitch?

It is pretty hard to come up with an original, aesthetically pleasing, classic design. That's why no one's done it in such a long time.

There have been lots of original designs (Steinberger, Parker Fly, Musicman Bongo for example), yet few are truly timeless, or have more than a niche appeal it seems.
Most borrow heavily or downright copy some aspect that's proven by one of the heavyweights.

I can't recall whether I have or not, John. I saw Telebob's "360", though......