Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Caution: not for the faint hearted!

http://williamyoungguitars.com/rutherforddoubleneck.htm

Amazing.............but why?

Wow.........that's some guitar
Should we ask for the serial nos & log them on tghe register as butchered?

That didn't turn out as bad as I had feared it would when reading the first page, but what I don't get is why he chopped up two Rics for this project.

He scrapped the entire body on the 12 and cut the bass in half, he obviously had the woodworking skills to fabricate the new body for the 12 side and merge it all together so why not just start from scratch? I imagine he could just buy all the hardware which is all standard Ric equipment.

I would guess that the person wanted it done the same way Mike Rutherford's real one was done - by combining a 620 and a 400x.

yawn, old news...

protip: the search function works wonders on this site.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=386458&start=0&hili ... doubleneck

For patent reasons, it may have been best to "buy" both guitars instead of buying just one and "copying" parts of the Ric design for the other.

coolhandjjl wrote:For patent reasons, it may have been best to "buy" both guitars instead of buying just one and "copying" parts of the Ric design for the other.

However he's made Ric copies from scratch on his website like the Lennon Capri. I just don't get why he hacked up two guitars for this.

Spike- wrote:However he's made Ric copies from scratch on his website like the Lennon Capri. I just don't get why he hacked up two guitars for this.

That's just it. Maybe he got called on it and has to do it this way from now on. BTW, no patent/trade dress regs interfere with anyone making look-a-like Tele's, Strat's etc, as Fender never pursued any from the beginning, hence gave up the right to do such now.

coolhandjjl wrote:That's just it. Maybe he got called on it and has to do it this way from now on. BTW, no patent/trade dress regs interfere with anyone making look-a-like Tele's, Strat's etc, as Fender never pursued any from the beginning, hence gave up the right to do such now.

So if i'm understanding that right, it's not a legal issue as long as you hack up a real one? Seems like a grey area.

Spike- wrote:So if i'm understanding that right, it's not a legal issue as long as you hack up a real one? Seems like a grey area.

I believe it's fine to modify your Rick(s) all you want. The legal issue is creating a copy in whole or part.

aceonbass wrote:Mike Rutherfords original double neck was actually made from a 360/12 and a 4001, although I think starting with a 620 was probably easier. The guy does obviously have skills, but some of the steps he took were just weird. It still ended up with the more modern inlays, molded truss rod covers and other parts, so I don't quite get some of the short cuts he took. Maybe the owner is in a Genesis tribute band, but I would have tried to improve on the original instead of copying it's short comings. The thing is way to big for shorter people like myself. Other than the 12 string on top, I don't think it was any better than what RIC eventually did. More compact stacked controls would have been a good idea instead of all the real estate dedicated to individual knobs. The two-way switch and ROS wiring on the RIC version were not very well though out either in my opinion.

agreed on all points!

Can't wait to join my 84 4003 and 79 450/12!

jdogric12 wrote:Can't wait to join my 84 4003 and 79 450/12!

PM on it's way, J!

Dane +1
Jdog - when you say ‘join’ do you mean as in arrive together in Alexandria or are you attempting to cross breed them or are you talking something like the grafting we say at the beginning of this thread??