Ed Roman rates Rickenbacker, et al

philco · Post by **philco** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:03 am

It's been getting a little dull around here. Not many people have been "typing with their middle finger" lately. Ed Roman has updated his website, and he now has a page with the basses he carries that rates each brand according to a 7 star system. Modest man that he is, he gives the brands he produces only 6 stars. It would be interesting to know how he arrived at the Rickenbacker rating. On his old design website, he gave Rickenbacker his highest recommendation.

http://www.edromanguitars.com/avail/bass/main.htm

He doesn't have a toll free number, so you will have to spend a few cents to find out how these ratings came about. Personally, I would have rated a Rickenbacker quite a bit higher than a KISS axe bass. I actually agree with the rating he gave Tacoma, since I own that brand.

howdyjeff · Post by **howdyjeff** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:59 am

Wow! He really must hate Ricks.

I wish he had written the reasons behind his ratings.

Heck, Jay Tursor did better.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:37 am

Ed Roman is mistaken ... he rates J turser higher than warwick ...

Maybe he rates them according to how much profit he makes ... he sure can't be rating them as to how good of a bass they are ... a beginning bass player could do a better job at rating than he did ...

philco · Post by **philco** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:53 am

If he hates Ricks, why does he keep about 125 in stock at all times? A year ago he couldn't rate Rickenbacker high enough it seems. He commented on how the RIC factory was a model of efficiency and how he wished his shop was as organized. The Rickenbacker rating could be a typo mistake, as it would be extremely rare to go from one extreme to the other in only 1 year's time. Any observer would have to conclude that he either rated Ricks too high last time and/or too low this time.

Spectors are also rated a bit low as they build basses at all price levels and they excell at all price levels. They should be rated at least as highly as any of Ed's basses. Ed does not seem to push the lower end Spector models (might hurt the high end sales?), but he carries inferior Jay Turser basses. I would lead a customer toward the import versions of Warwick, Spector, even Fender or Gibson, before I would hawk a Jay Turser on him. He obviously derated Spector because of the extremely high prices of the USA models. Rickenbackers cost a lot less than several of the basses he rated higher. For a brand that he has downgraded before, Fender rates rather highly at 4 stars. Fender's best stuff costs just as much as Rickenbacker's, so there is no way of explaining the 3 point difference unless the LONG WAITING PERIOD entered into the equation, but Ed orders ahead and keeps around a dozen Rick basses in stock, so the customer usually sees no wait. Ed once complained that a dealer (or customer) has to front a considerable amount of money to RIC when he places an order, and that money is tied up and doing nothing for up to a year while awaiting delivery. That will rile up a customer or dealer for sure.

ken_james · Post by **ken_james** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:57 am

Well since he's so public about his opinion that Ricenbacker sucks, I wish that John Hall would cut his sorry *** off from being a dealer. I'm sure that there's others who would gladly take his place as a dealer.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:34 am

Who cares what Ed thinks or says? Not me.

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:15 am

Has to be a typo....only a bitter person would give RIC a single star rating.....

ricnbacker · Post by **ricnbacker** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:41 am

i have always been one to say its not the bass but the player. quality of the bass aside. but rating ric`s lower than everything else on that site??? he must be ...

rickengrowl · Post by **rickengrowl** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:52 am

I wonder who will be able to give him credit, according to his rating. 1 star for RIC, 1 star for F-Bass too (great basses), and 4 for... Washburn. Klong.

Cheers,
JL

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:59 am

....and besides Rick, they only gave one star to other very nice basses like Lakland and F Bass ?!?
Seems like the guy typing up the page got the star system backwards. If 7 is best, Rick basses should be 10.
Fender got 4 stars? Fender should have gotten one star.

philco · Post by **philco** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:00 am

This star rating system just showed up within the last few days. I'm giving it a few days and then I'll check back. Somebody else besides Ed may have done it and screwed it up royally. If some of those ratings stay where they are, Ed might lose credibility and sales. Ed's website was full of praise for Rickenbacker quality when I called and ordered a guitar last year. Custom shop quality at a mass production price was how he described it. That 1 star rating seems really radical even for a ranter as opinionated as Ed. He will definitely be hearing from numerous people next week about his ratings. I know a very good neuropsychologist that is expert in spotting hidden brain damage, if Ed should ever want to really know why he rates things the way he has.

HOWEVER, don't forget the need to downplay "custom shop quality at mass production prices" if Ed really intends to sell all those expensive boutique basses he is stocking up on. Did anybody catch the apparent relationships between really high quality production line basses (Warwick, Rickenbacker, etc.) and their lowered ratings. These stand to knock holes in boutique bass sales from very small manufacturers. Ed does not even list a Spector Performer 4, probably because he feels it would cost a higher level sale that he makes more profit on. Bass Player Magazine gave it a Best Buy Award recently, so if he wanted to get the best bass into the hands of a beginning bassist, he would be advertising that fact to high heaven. Spector only got reduced to a 5 star rating because of their very expensive USA boutique basses that Ed pushes the hardest (and few other dealers have in stock). Ed is probably not interested in the Warwick RockBass line either, as it kills high end sales, so Warwick gets slagged along with RIC. If this is the case, then RIC gets the highest honor as they seem to have been slagged the most. Again, there seems to be a pattern here if you care to think about it. Warwick probably upset a lot of boutique bass dealers when their economical RockBass line was introduced. People like Mike Parks and Jim Rhoads have really cut into Ed's profits on Ricks, even moreso than Musician's Friend.

If those ratings stay the same for long, I think it is definitely from a profit motive perspective. A little reverse psychology might be in order, so the ratings could still be useful for a person that can figure out Ed's motives. Think about it.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:56 pm

I think it is in poor taste for a dealer to rate the basses like that on a website !
I had a music store back in the Bronx, NY where I sold musical intruments, Rickenbackers being one of the name brands. It was no secret to everyone who came in to my shop that I was a big fan of Ricks especially the basses.
Should I have put up a sign in the store about which guitars I have that suck or are good?!?
I would explain an instrument to a customer, it pros, cons and features, and why I preferred one over another, then let them make a choice.
I would also think anyone that looks there knows what want. That turned me off, I was thinking about ordering my 4004Cii5 there. Now I'm glad I went with Pick Of The Ricks

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:08 pm

Hi-larious!

RIC gets one star, the phony Mosrite he keeps promising but not delivering gets two stars (there is no real Mosrite), PBC went bankrupt a few years back but gets four stars, I could go on but why bother?

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:46 pm

There's a lot of money to be made in selling cheap basses ... the dealer gets a quick sale ... then after a while the bass player gets better and wants a better bass ... the dealer gets another sale from a better bass ...

the dealer makes more money this way ... the good players know Ricks and Waricks are vastly superior to a Jay Turser ... they don't need to consult Ed Roman's ratings.

philco · Post by **philco** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:56 pm

Joey, since you owned a music store, you know all the markups and pressure from competition. Why would Ed list cheap Dillion and Jay Turser basses, while not listing the Asian built ranges of Warwick and Spector? I say it's because he wants to sell customers another bass after they tire of the cheapo, and he doesn't want them to get hold of the nicer introductory units from premium manufacturers because it might ruin a future sale. Also, the mass marketers sell the lower ranges of those quality manufacturers. Jay Turser, Dillion, and Hohner are not listed in a Musician's Friend catalog, but Warwick RockBass is, and Spector Performance and Professional series are sold on the MF website. Real professionals use the cheaper RockBass, Performer, and Professional series on stage, but when was the last time you saw somebody with a "3-star" Jay Turser? A lot more show up with 1-star Ricks and 3-star Warwicks. I guarantee that Ed's in-store price on a Rickenbacker is more than you paid at Pick of the Ricks. Since he can't make a good profit on internet sales, he scares internet shoppers away from Ricks so he can sell them something else at a higher profit. He sells the Ricks to walk-ins, and charges them more (he admits his store prices are higher than mailorder prices). That way he has plenty of Ricks on hand for the walk-in customers. Yeah, I say he still likes Ricks just fine, and plans on making every penny he can off of them since they tend to stay in short supply.