Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

We all know about Fender's sale to CBS, Gibson to Norlin, and Gretsch to Baldwin in the mid-'60's. These resulted in cost cutting and a general decline in quality, sound, and playability that had fully set in by the early '70's. Martin remained a family owned company, but post-69 they were cut of from some tonewoods and they just made quite a lot of guitars and their quality is considered to be of a lesser degree. Did Rickenbacker ever go through a period of decline? If so, why? I know that at some point the decision was made to discontinue the toaster p'up for the Hi Gain, but was anything else done that purist might object to?

Also, I am amazed when I look at the guitars pictured in this subject heading by the incredible condition of 40+ year old instruments. Why are there so many near mint Rickenbacker vintage guitars?

it is a matter of opinion. did really gretsch declined? did fender declined? isn't it just snobs who spread that? there are some 60's fenders that bring a lot of $$ and are not such a great guitars and there are seventies gretsches that are imho very good and bring very little $$.
few years ago nobody cared for 70's lp deluxe and today they are going over 2k without anybody even thinking about it. the snobs will have to have what is being considered "holly grail". some say that rickenbacker had dark period around 1980 and most would reference huge headstocks on 360 and whatever. i will oppose the opinion - i think it was great period. some will say what they think and some will just repeat what someone else said and finally there are not *that* many vintage (pre 1980) rickenbackers in excellent condition but as with any other label there are always owners who buy it with the expectation to learn on it and it ends up in a closet, some owners take great care for their instruments and most of the owners are just hobbyists so there is far less potential for the damage to happen with those.

I don't know whether Rickenbacker was in a decline in the seventies, but I believe that their guitars were less popular - However the 4001 became more popular. This is probably due to the artists that used Rickenbacker guitars being less popular (The Beatles split up in 1970, CCR split in 1972, the Byrds and the Beach Boys weren't as popular in the seventies as they were in the sixties). Bassists in popular bands of the seventies played 4001s (Paul McCartney and Chris Squire, for example).

Dusan - I don't think that it's snobbery at all to say that Fender, Gretsch, and Gibson suffered in the years when corporate bean counters called the shots instead of real guitar guys. Look at the bracing in a '70's Gibson acoustic - they look like broomsticks! Fender went to kiln dried instead of air dried woods and three bolt necks (were they trying to save the price of a screw?), finishes became thick skinned. The Gibson "Fretless Wonders" are pretty much despised although a re=fret fixes a lot of the complaints. But then you have to be a weight lifter to hoist one up. And Gretsch's's got just plain weird! That's not to say that you can't find a great guitar from that era. I am in love with a '72 Thinline Tele that I saw recently but can't afford at $5K. I've heard that Guild's stayed pretty good during that era.

Not being a bass player, I had forgotten about the great 4000 series of the '70's. They are the coolest looking bass that I can think of.

If there's an embarrassing design for Rickenbacker, it has to be the B-Series. They were released during the interim before John Hall took over the company and he always said he hated them.

Quality-wise, I think they've always been top-notch. You'll find a lot less guitars in the '70s, but a lot more basses. The 480 was developed specifically to take advantage of the huge sales of 4001s.

The period typically considered the "holy grail" period for Rickenbacker guitars goes from the late '50s to the late '60s, when they switched to hi-gains, then 24 frets.


On a side note, it's not snobbery to say Gretsch, Fender, and Gibson sucked in the '70s, because it's true. "Pancake" 3-piece bodies on Les Pauls? Strats with polyester finishes? How about the quality control issues?

I don't know, personally I think my old '74 4001 (which I still kick myself for selling, but I needed the money) and my '76 4001 sound a LOT better than my "new" '84 4003. Of course, I just got the 4003, so I really need to do a setup and probably adjust the pickups (I never did that to either of the 4001's, they just sounded great).

So, from my personal experience with Rick basses, at present, I'd say the 70's were better. When my new 4003 shows up (ordered March 2007), I'll have another data point to use, but until then...

-cj

ha i guess i pushed some buttons that may be what i am good at.
now really people i do have some seventies guitars and they are as ok as any other period and some are from japan on top of that. there is nothing wrong with 3 bolt strat or pancake body les paul . i was blessed in my life that i owned many fine guitars and one of them was late 50's black beauty - that was real fretless wonder -and- it was as heavy as 77 les paul deluxe i owned just couple years later. and talking about corporate bean counters - who is not one today? now, please look at leo designs when he did musicmans - aren't those 3 bolt as well it is just another approach that's all. i don't know of any major manufacturer today who uses air dried wood. it is just another myth that it makes big difference. there is this sentiment in every guitar player that old guitars are better but it is just that - a sentiment. i am not saying i am not victim of it as well but please let's use some logic....and yes the quality goes up and down and it can happen to any company any day. i have two modern ric guitars that i would say needed as much work as said fretless wonders to be playable at all, i got them in mint conditon both shortly after the owners gave up on them and i can't blame them - it took a lot of work. has anybody seen jetglo rickenbacker guitars with some chips in the laqueer around tuners? now check the wood, i had more than one that was supposed to have walnut wings on the headstock - surprise surprise - when the paint is missing you often find yourself looking at maple there instead. nobody is immune from this. it comes and goes and what matters - at least to me - is how does it sound with all those "shortcuts" - if *that* is ok than all is ok.

I really didn't want to go into the "are vintage guitars better than new guitars" argument. I brought up the subject of "did Rickenbacker escape the general decline of guitar quality in the '70's" because I thought that everybody excepted the FACT that the acquisition on Fender, Gibson, and Gretsch by heartless, faceless corporate entities was indeed The Dark Period. Now sure, everybody has had or played an exceptional '70's guitar, but they are just that - exceptions.

As to the "are vintage guitars better than new guitars" I am of the opinion that the various custom shops are making the best guitars that there companies have ever made. But I would also like to quote Tom Murphy, who is the original guru of re-issues who said, "No one really knows why the genuine old pickups sound the way they do and that's the beauty of it. Mother Nature is going 'OK, have all the fun you want, but I'm going to keep this one thing because you're not supposed to have it all'".

jazzsmith wrote:I am of the opinion that the various custom shops are making the best guitars that there companies have ever made.

Along with the highest prices they've ever charged.

So true, Beatlefreak. But if I was in the market for a new custom shop guitar, I would buy it the same way I buy a car - certified pre-owned. Let somebody else pay the depreciation. Also, there are great guitars that are a bargain. The Bill Nash guitars that we talked about on another thread and the fabulous Blue Ridge acoustics. Eastman makes some pretty fun guitars that I have to think are better than the Airlines and Supros that they are copying. I've seen good prices on '80's Rics with Hi Gains. If you want a vintage Ric sound, just swap them out for Toasters.

But what about the other question posed in this thread - the abundance of decades old Rickenbackers that look near pristine. Is it the finish? Is it tougher? Are Rickenbacker players less "thrashers". Pete Townsend said that they are delicate, like violins. It didn't stop him from trashing them, but maybe it does others.

jazzsmith wrote:Fender went to........three bolt necks (were they trying to save the price of a screw?)

IIRC, there are still 4 screws, one for adjusting the neck angle plus three mounting screws.

I haven't owned Ricks from the '50s, but every other decade has been represented in my arsenal at some point. There's been guitars or basses that weren't to my taste but never a dog among them. For me it comes down to features that I prefer ('60s guitars with the classic appointments like 21 frets, crushed pearl inlay, smaller headstock, etc.). Still, I've had some great Ricks and one of the best was an '89.

I don't think quality declined in the 70s, more like specs. They declined IMO, in that they switched to hi gain, 24 frets, some electrical changes etc etc. But the core of the guitar- the wood, finish, and build quality have consistently been good since the late 50's at least.

Even late 70's-early 80's Rics have gone up in value big time, compared to 70s Fenders/Gibson. Fender 3-bolt strats and stuff were bad, but Gibson was downright terrible, anybody remember the S1, Les Paul Recording, Artist, etc.....yuck! Horrible designs, horrible build quality. Yet still collectible..?

I agree on the B-series comment. I'm sure they were built right, played well....but they were horribly off-spec from what they were Reissues of.

Ric production in the 70's is all about the 4001 bass. You'll see a few guitars, but generally the 4001 is the cornerstone of production. It's no surprise that you see few of these in excellent condition, as most have been practically played to death. The guitars however have a totally different niche, and given that the 60's were over, heavy rock and most other music paths at that time were not Ric 6 string friendly. That equates to low sales, and lower playing time, with basically a more more user friendly envoirnment. Result= Guitars in much better condition.

Many people say that post 73 quality drops. The 4001 lost those coveted features due to the economics of increased production, and perceived improvements in instruments. This too remains a subjective issue....

In the late 70's the guitars come back with new wave/punk, but the basses are still really what it's all about.

Whether there is a decline is really subjective. A 77 4002 bass with all that it had was certainly a step forward, as were the Lightshow/Slant Fret guitars seven years earlier. It really does depends on one's perspective.....

I'll chime in here because this question made me realize I've hardly ever seen any 1970s Rickenbackers, aside from 4001s, which definitely swept the nation, or at least my high school! The guitar sales must've gone into decline, but Rickenbacker quality really seems to be free of a bad period. They've made some iffy models... But I have never seen one which sort of gave me the creeps the way some, say, 1970s SGs do. Which is not to say that good guitars didn't come from the other manufacturers in that period, and I've played plenty of rare and vintage guitars that were... just creaky old guitars of no particular merit. It is safe to say things got erratic for most of the Big Boys in those years.

And there are many 'heretical" guitars which I love, along with some of Rickenbacker's changes over the years. I just really like Hi-Gains, for example, even though I know I am supposed to prefer Toasters! I'd agree that the guitar scene right now is unbelievable, in terms of what you can get.

There must be something about the look of Rickenbackers, or maybe the music that's associated with them, that makes people think they are delicate, but my experience is that they are really tough. I mean, they are maple and a lot stiffer than something like a 1960s SG. That Pete Townshend remark always mystified me! I'm impressed that his SG Specials didn't collapse under the stress of his massive strings, but surely his Rickenbackers were more rigid and stable than those very flexible mahogany SGs! The 70s SGs with the horrible massive neck joint almost seemed to be a response to Pete, long after he'd stopped playing them... And I suppose the late 60s Rickenbacker necks are pretty dainty, now that I think about it. But I've got a '68 365 which seems to have done some hard livin' and it is completely stable.

The existence of super-clean old Rickenbackers, their relatively low prices on the used market, their slightly mysterious image to most players, and their exceptionally consistent quality are all good reasons to play them! I recently took a 2006 330 to the guitar tech for a setup after I put heavier strings on it. Aside from minor adjustments to the bridge, he didn't touch the factory setup because he said it was just right, and the heavier strings hadn't budged anything. Impressive!