Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I don't like the new full-width inlays at all. IMHO, compared to the poured-in ones, they look plain tacky.

That's it. Got that off my chest. If anyone wants me for rotten fruit target practice, I'm in the pub.

They should make them sparkle

Never mind "heretic" - call me a conspiracy theorist!

Y'see, the more I think about this change, the less I like it. As I understand it, these new inlays are made from a sheet material, glued in. Now, it strikes me that applying these has to be a simpler, faster (and hence cheaper) manufacturing process than pouring milky/sparkly stuff into holes, swirling it around and waiting for it to harden. So are we really looking at a cost-cutting/time-saving exercise that's been sold to us as a 'New design feature' ?

Discuss...

Meanwhile, I'll change my name and emigrate.

I think in the flesh they look good there is also a certain depth to the new inlays that i like.Everyones entitled to their opinion tho.Is it not also true that the new inlays in affect make the necks more stronger than the old ones because the new inlays do not require as deep a recess.

espidog wrote:I don't like the new full-width inlays at all. IMHO, compared to the poured-in ones, they look plain tacky.

I agree, i like the poured in look the best. the new inlays looks a little too, umm, fake for me.

scotty wrote:I think in the flesh they look good there is also a certain depth to the new inlays that i like.Everyones entitled to their opinion tho.Is it not also true that the new inlays in affect make the necks more stronger than the old ones because the new inlays do not require as deep a recess.

Possibly, but by also removing the two full-thickness strips of wood at both sides they also weaken it. I'm not sure which factor is greater, but if I had to guess I would say that the full-width inlays may weaken the neck more because the strength of a piece of material in resisting bending is very dependent on its depth and much less on its width, so those narrow little strips of wood probably add more strength than the slightly deeper but smaller hole in the middle takes away. I'm sure I read many years ago that this was one of the reasons for switching to the smaller inlays in the first place. Of course, since then the truss rod design has changed too so it may not matter as much now.

For what it's worth, I prefer the small inlays on the basses and the 'modern trim' guitars, and the full-width ones on the vintage-trim guitars (with the checker binding and plexi TRCs) - it's maybe what we're used to, but they just seem 'right' like that. And that 381 in my signature has poured full-width ones with an (original as far as I can tell) raised logo TRS, and that seems right too!

espidog wrote:So are we really looking at a cost-cutting/time-saving exercise that's been sold to us as a 'New design feature' ?

I don't think it's been any secret around here and discussed more than a few times that a major benefit to the new inlay is time and cost savings in production.

If the new inlays are shallower than the older ones surely that makes the neck more stronger.I think Paul W said he thought they were about 30% shallower which would be quite substantial.

RANT ON....

I don't believe I'm reading this!

After all those YEARS of asking for them, we get them and now, we acuse RIC of a ruse?

It's cool if someone doesn't like them, that's just a personal preference....but what isn't cool are the low blows.

No wonder JH blows a gasket every once in a while!

I haven't seen them in hand yet, and while I'm NOT a "full width inlay" kind of guy, they looked pretty cool to me, especially on a Jetglo....and I LOATHE Jetglo!

C'mon guys, the folks over at RIC share their "secrets' with us, how processes are made, how it helps cut the backlog, while giving us
what we've been asking for....let's not kick them in the teeth by saying "So are we really looking at a cost-cutting/time-saving exercise that's been sold to us as a 'New design feature' ?"

If they can give us what we want, and save money & time in the process....good for them.

RANT OFF.

ajish4 wrote:RANT ON....

I don't believe I'm reading this!

After all those YEARS of asking for them, we get them and now, we acuse RIC of a ruse?

It's cool if someone doesn't like them, that's just a personal preference....but what isn't cool are the low blows.

No wonder JH blows a gasket every once in a while!

I haven't seen them in hand yet, and while I'm NOT a "full width inlay" kind of guy, they looked pretty cool to me, especially on a Jetglo....and I LOATHE Jetglo!

C'mon guys, the folks over at RIC share their "secrets' with us, how processes are made, how it helps cut the backlog, while giving us
what we've been asking for....let's not kick them in the teeth by saying "So are we really looking at a cost-cutting/time-saving exercise that's been sold to us as a 'New design feature' ?"

If they can give us what we want, and save money & time in the process....good for them.

RANT OFF.

Right on Tony!

what's all the fuss? dot necks rule!

No matter what Ric does someone here won't like it.

I suppose that They have to just do what they think is best and let the chips fall where there will fall.

Me I just want a 4004 5 string with a 3 or 4 band active circuit.

jwr2 wrote:No matter what Ric does someone here won't like it.

Right!

Can't make everyone happy nor should they try. They have to do what's best for their bottom line.

ajish4 wrote: I don't believe I'm reading this!

After all those YEARS of asking for them, we get them and now, we accuse RIC of a ruse?

I can't believe I'm reading this either!! I have a 4003 on order. I look forward to having this 4003 with the new inlays.
RIC can't please everyone at same the time and like Tony said, for years we broke JH's chops about getting full width inlays on the guitars!

ajish4 wrote:It's cool if someone doesn't like them, that's just a personal preference....but what isn't cool are the low blows.

Really, if you don't like them that's fine, but the low blows are unnecessary.

scotty wrote:If the new inlays are shallower than the older ones surely that makes the neck more stronger.I think Paul W said he thought they were about 30% shallower which would be quite substantial.

But it also removes about 20% of the width of the full-depth part of the fingerboard, and since in engineering calculation the strength of a beam is proportional directly to its width but (I think) to the cube of its depth, the strength of those little full-depth side pieces is more important than that of the slightly shallower rout, and so the full-width inlay neck is probably weaker. It would be interesting to test it properly - it doesn't have to be to destruction, a simple force/deflection bend test would show it.

phlemmy wrote:Can't make everyone happy nor should they try. They have to do what's best for their bottom line.

Actually I think they should offer both: a "660-style" 4003 - ie a modern instrument but with many vintage features, not a reissue - with the full-width inlays, toaster pickup with 1/2" spacing, plexi logo, checker binding etc - and a "modern style" one basically as the 4003 was until this year. That way they COULD make everyone (or at least more of them) happy, because as already said there will always be someone who prefers it the other way round. Since they could certainly charge more money for the "660 style", I would think it would make financial sense too. That wouldn't take away from the 4001 reissue either since that still has a different combination of features.

Personally I would find it a hard choice! For a gigging instrument I'd probably pick the plain 'modern' 4003 (which is what I have anyway), but it would be nice to have the other one too .