Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I did post a PM to Rickenbrother first before posting this but got no yes or no.. (so apologies if its completely inappropriate)

I recently received a 76-79 (not entirely sure of the year) 'Heerby' Japanese Ric bass copy (it was hella cheap, makes a great beater to take to my lessons, cheaper than a Mexi Fender).
While most oft he fakers are easy to spot being bolt ons, this one is a neck through and stereo and in its day cost about the same as a real Ric (not sure why they bothered.. but hey).

Last night I totally took it apart and document in photos as much detail as I could, I figure some guys on here would be interested in seeing the photos, I've never had my hands on a 70s Ric bass so can't really point out the differences, hopefully some of you guys can and educates with what to look for with them being sold off as fakes (seriously, its better this is my hands than someone likely to sell it on).. Its not for sale, I'm not playing the 'oh the copies are as good/better' (I own Gibsons dammit, not Japanese copies, I know the difference!), this was a 'historic oddity' to me, almost the same age as me and just a little bit rare!

I'm not trying to start a debate (Rics are Rics man, no substitute at all..)
As it is, it plays great and sounds phenomenal (again, haven't had my hands on a 70s ric, so can't tell compare)..

The biggest notable easy to spot differences..
Maple fret board (no brainer that really, some of these did come with bubinga though)
Single truss rod (with allen key nut)
Totally opaque pickguard
Saddles (hey, but has genuine bridge lift!!)

Anyway.. peek away.. http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/M ... y%20RB800/

Hey, good pics, thanks for posting them. I think it's good, for educational purposes to be able to see the fakers and learn to identify them. If I still had my '74 4001 MG, I'd get some pics and try to set up a comparison, perhaps Rickenbrother will add them to his already great pages on that subject. Alas, I've only got a '76 4001 in Azureglo, so some of the comp shots would be harder to show.

The question still remains, though it seems to have been answered elsewhere, are those REALLY wavy Grovers, or are they just good copies?

cjj wrote:Hey, good pics, thanks for posting them. I think it's good, for educational purposes to be able to see the fakers and learn to identify them. If I still had my '74 4001 MG, I'd get some pics and try to set up a comparison, perhaps Rickenbrother will add them to his already great pages on that subject. Alas, I've only got a '76 4001 in Azureglo, so some of the comp shots would be harder to show.

The question still remains, though it seems to have been answered elsewhere, are those REALLY wavy Grovers, or are they just good copies?

I'd be guessing they are real, they say Grover USA and Pat Pend, the old catalogues specify USA Grovers too, can't imagine they would have bothered copying them back then..

Cool, if the catalog listed them, then they probably are real. I wish my '76 had 'em, but I've got 'em on my '84 4003MG, so that's probably enough Grovers...

I own an 82 4001 MG you have mentioned the obvious ones single truss rod, mable fretboard althougth Ric did make some spc models, tuxcedo, Blackstar, etc which were maple and painted to match body color. The majority of 4001 and 4003 are African Rosewood (bulbinga). However,there are some striking similarities, The Neck thru Body, I played a univox copy back in the 70's neck thru body quite nice but not a RIC. the skunk stripe (shedua), the wavy grovers. Checkerboatrd Binding that stops at the tailpiece. A very nice copy and if a Heerby Custom bass were made today Ric would start litigation immediately!!

but a very nice copy none the less!

I won't take mine apart but I will post some photos to compare

Hmmmmmm..........That's the best copy I've ever seen. Impressive !

What I've noticed:

Metal is pitted under the chrome and chrome not as "quality" as Ricks.
The clearcoat finish is ripply and not glass smooth.
The bridge surround has holes on both sides that are in alignment - Ricks are closer together on the neck side.
Bridge pickup coil material is different and the wires come out the end instead of under the coil form.
Jackplate is stamped and with wrong terminology - Ricks are screened black paint and say Ric-O-Sound - also no serial #.
Strap buttons mounted with woodscrews and not the bolts like the mute pad adjusts with as a RIck has.
"Skunk" stripe looks like bubinga and not walnut. (iffy)
Routs do not have CV on them.
Where the back of the headstock blends into the neck Ricks are more smooth and rounded, not the defined line the Heerby has.
The neck heel protrudes more down the neck on a Rick.
The body wings meeting the neck is not as nicely mated as a Rick.
The small horn looks fatter and not quite right from the back on this one.
Rick tailpiece rout is a two level rout.
Mute pad metal plate is threaded and a bit thicker and not zinc goldish, and the ground is soldered to it on a Rick.
Ricks didn't have foil on pickguard where the pots mount - also pots are CTS brand on a Rick.
Pup switch insulator material is more honey colored, not the dark brown phenolic color.
Control rout is one smooth area on a Rick and closer to the jackplate.
The channel rout to the neck pup is a series of fostner bit holes on a Rick.
Neck pup rout one smooth rout on a Rick, though I like this idea of less material being removed.
Bridge pup magnet is bigger by a lot, thicker and bigger footprint than the coil.
Mount plate for the bridge pup is plastic on a Rick - earlier Ricks had the aluminum plates.
Bridge pup rout is wider and shallower on a Rick.
Different wire for wiring loom and ground wires are covered on a Rick.
Headstock rout for rods is wider on a Rick - duh, obvious.
Rick body wings not a 2-layer sandwich. Solid maple piece.
Tailpiece holes to string anchor points are more square/oblong on a Rick.
TRC is all wrong!

Other than that I didn't notice much. I will say this faker has pretty nice maple as copies go. I also like the maple fretboard on the MG bass, and the fretwork is really nicely finished off. Is that a RIC toaster?? Nice documentation of an (unfortunately) nicely made faker.

johnallg wrote:What I've noticed:

Snip big list of stuff!!

Other than that I didn't notice much. I will say this faker has pretty nice maple as copies go. I also like the maple fretboard on the MG bass, and the fretwork is really nicely finished off. Is that a RIC toaster?? Nice documentation of an (unfortunately) nicely made faker.

No need to worry man, this is staying with me!

See.. I knew one of you guys would spot the small differences!! Thats what worries me with copies like this, most of those 'not quite right' things are subtle and only noticeable to guys who really know what they are looking at.. the average guy would get fooled..

As for the Ric toaster.. I dunno, I'm surprised someone went to the sort of trouble they did to copy the pickup like they did.. It sounds good, not like I'd expect a copy to sound generic and bland (as most of them do)..

Russ, I had to go picture by picture and look at pics of my late '75 4001 to really get that persnickity. I was surprised at how many I ended up with though.

The bridge pup is a faker, and I kinda suspect the toaster is too as it doesn't look like how the wiring on a Rick toaster comes out of the coil area, but I'm not really sure with 60s-early 70s toasters about yours.

Yours is a more faithful ( ) copy from most I've seen. All but us anal types around here or someone who has owned or sold Ricks for years could easily be fooled by this bass especially with a RIC TRC on it. One good reason why RIC is so diligent in enforcement.

Another question about the truss rod - is it a foldback type or does it have a nut at the body end? I can't tell from the pics but the rout for the rod looks like a larger square one like the folded rods RIC used needed.

I forgot the inlays - Rick and some fakers have nicer looking material for the inlays.

johnallg wrote:Russ, I had to go picture by picture and look at pics of my late '75 4001 to really get that persnickity. I was surprised at how many I ended up with though.

The bridge pup is a faker, and I kinda suspect the toaster is too as it doesn't look like how the wiring on a Rick toaster comes out of the coil area, but I'm not really sure with 60s-early 70s toasters about yours.

Yours is a more faithful ( ) copy from most I've seen. All but us anal types around here or someone who has owned or sold Ricks for years could easily be fooled by this bass especially with a RIC TRC on it. One good reason why RIC is so diligent in enforcement.

Another question about the truss rod - is it a foldback type or does it have a nut at the body end? I can't tell from the pics but the rout for the rod looks like a larger square one like the folded rods RIC used needed.

I forgot the inlays - Rick and some fakers have nicer looking material for the inlays.

Yeah, the inlays are just MOP cut outs.. Both the pups have the same uluminium plates with the same number printed on them.. Truss rod.. I'll have to have a look tonight.

Well, then both pups are Heerby as I suspected but wasn't sure. Rods are just a curiosity item; just wondering if they copied the folded rod or not.

johnallg wrote:What I've noticed:.......The channel rout to the neck pup is a series of fostner bit holes on a Rick.....

This is true but they stopped using the Forstner bits sometime in the 80s.
Look at my avatar.......
Also the pole pieces on a Rick don't have philips heads....
The saddles on a Rick are not chrome plated and the nylon washers used on the mute screws aren't as thick on a Rick.
The bottom side of the inlays (looking at them with the neck straight up)on a Rick seem to be closer to the frets than the top side and are not centered.
The Toaster cover on a Rick isn't as rounded along the top edges and has a smaller radius around the top edge.

ben_brown wrote:

johnallg wrote:What I've noticed:.......The channel rout to the neck pup is a series of fostner bit holes on a Rick.....

This is true but they stopped using the Forstner bits sometime in the 80s.
Look at my avatar.......

True, Steve, but he was asking about 70's 4001 Ricks.

johnallg wrote:Well, then both pups are Heerby as I suspected but wasn't sure. Rods are just a curiosity item; just wondering if they copied the folded rod or not.

John I took a pic of the truss rod this morning, it should be the first pic in that gallery I linked to.

Cheers!