Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

God this is terrible. is the year right?

http://cgi.ebay.com/1971-Rickenbacker-B ... dZViewItem

Possibly...

That paint job makes it looks like a set neck!

The serial number looks like JO, (unless that's a very poor "D") which wouldn't be right, unless of course instead of numbers at the bottom, there's 'KE"...

looks like he may have guuted this beauty to finish the '72 why???

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... =p3907.m29

I'm tempted to have a go at the 71. If it is in fact a 71. Might be JD which makes it a 70.The BIN price seems high but, I would give a shot at the reserve.

Sold!!!

anyone from the forum get this?

jazzstick

The supposed-71 is NOT! There is a shedua stripe in the neck , which makes at least a late-72. That stripe did not exist in 1971, period.

Second, the tailpiece does not have the notch. That means the tailpiece was manufactured at least after early-1973, if not later.

If those are full-width sparklies, and they are not aftermarket-installed, then it is a carcass dating to no earlier than 1972 and possible much later into early 1973. The wavy Grovers confirm this - all Grovers from 1971 were flat and not wavy. The Grovers themselves could be non-original, and if not this is a late-1972 bass carcass.

Holy disco, Batman! That poor bass!

I could swear we've seen this bass before. I remember a conversation about how the finish seems to have come off in a "flake" along the bottom of the front of the body. Interesting case -- lots of non-original parts, but it has all of the goodies as far as I can tell. I think I would have hit the BIN if I'd seen it in time; the worst-case scenario (assuming it's real, that is) is that you end up with a pretty desirable carcass. Or heck, play it like it is. It's bold, for sure.

I'ts up again...!

http://cgi.ebay.com/1972-Rickenbacker-B ... dZViewItem

The jackplate must be non-original. Doesn't look like a K or an L first. Actually to me, looks like OD which would be 75, but that's impossible

I guess I was wrong, because it's up now, and I'm not hitting the BIN. Interesting bass, but I want to figure out what the deal is (for example, with the serial number) before committing anything.

See text of ad:

"... and the jack plate is from a 90's model."

IMO, $2295.00 is too much for a butchered and mutilated late '72/early'73 carcass with a hodge-podge of mis-matched parts.

rickaddict wrote:See text of ad:

"... and the jack plate is from a 90's model."

Yeah, it looks like he gave a better description of the bass this time around. I still have interest but, the jackplate kinda kills me because it's a missing piece of the history. That, and the correct tailpiece is hard to find.

Good grab, Elys. You nipped it from me at the last second. I had gone to $1777. What's your plan to restore it?