Relic'd Rics

[lucky]

My 1992 Fireglo 4003 has started to show signs of wear & tear,from both myself and it's previous owner. I know that a load of bassists like the worn/relic look on old basses, I loved the look of Jaco's beaten Jazz BUT no so on Rickenbacker's. I love the glass like shine on them does anyone have a Ric bass that is showing signs of wear,& what are your thoughts on it does it matter.

[JM82]

I have a 1992 4003S, fireglo too! It was second hand and came with a few dings and a spot behind the 2nd and 3rd frets where the previous owners thumb had worn away the finish. Fast forward to today and it has more dings and that spot has worn a bit more - all my fault. I don't mind though, I like a bit of character in my instruments and should it ever get stolen I would be able to identify more easily by the different marks. I don't ever plan to sell it, so the diminished value is not an issue to me. I am against the whole "non player - collection only" attitude towards instruments but can appreciate that some people see their Rics as investments and would want to keep them in mint condition.

[antonius]

My attitude is that I love the look of a brand new shiny guitar, especially a Rickenbacker, but I don't mind the worn look either, so long as it has earned it

My 1975 mapleglo 4001 was already in a very worn condition when I acquired it in 1990. There were numerous dings, scratches and worn patches, and the back of the neck was largely bare wood. I bought it really cheap as the truss rods were broken (soon got those fixed), but I was so elated to actually own a Rickenbacker - THE REAL THING - that the signs of wear really didn't bother me. It still doesn't bother me, although I have always taken good care of it and it's condition hasn't noticeably deterioriated in the 21 years I've had it! If anything it looks better now as I've replaced the cracked pickguard and had the fretboard refretted and refinished.

I would jump at the chance of acquiring a brand new 4003, but I would still love my old 4001 as it has a great sound, plays pretty well, and it has tons of character. A well seasoned bass, a real players instrument and I'm proud of it!

[lucky]

I love mine and bar for a family emergency I can't see me ever getting rid of it. But some of the older basses on here look as good as the day they were made,and I have really tried my best to look after my 4003.

[coolhandjjl]

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=400398

[jps]

...some of the older basses on here look as good as the day they were made...

Many wear issues on Ricks seem to get past the camera well, I think if you looked at them in person, you would find many blemishes.

[libratune]

Here's a nicely worn-in 4000: http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... hp?id=8478

[08 Ric 4003]

A well worn bass or guitar can look very cool. Jaco, Rory Gallager, Andy Summers, Joe Strummer, Willie's Acoustic, SRV, ect. Not road worn but made to look insane Eddie's Bumble Bee to Frankenstrat. I hate when my guitars get a scratch or ding on them but it goes with the territory. What I don't get is buying a brand new guitar and having it look beat up. I new guitar that looks old that cost more than a used guitar and sometimes more that a new one. I have an idea buy a new car come over to my house, I will hit it with a hammer and tell me how cool it looks. You wont even have to pay extra I will do it for free.

[weemac]

Here is another well worn one..
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... K:MEWAX:IT

emac.

[doctorwho]

... what are your thoughts on it does it matter.

IMO, it's a personal choice and what someone does with his/her own instrument is up to him/her (the owner should do what he/she feels is right)

That said, I personally would consider the age of the instrument and any 'unique' aspects (along with the cost, of course) when considering refinishing/restoring. As an example, if I were to have my 331LS restored, it not only would look better, the value would likely increase.

On the other hand, although I don't really like the wear on my RM3261 bass, its uniqueness edges it into the 'leave the relic alone' category.

[berth]

My most relic'T Rickenbacker's.

[dbriggy]

IMHO its all part of the character and history of the instrument, each ding tells a story!

Here is the front and back of my Oct '73 BG 4001, I think it might be one of the early plain binding non toaster 4001's (maybe someone can help?)
The front is nearly mint, just a couple of dings here and there but the back suffers from the usual rash. Sometime in the past someones made a terrible go at touching it up. I thought about trying to sand it back to 'raw' rash but like I say, its part of the bass and it still sounds fantastic!

phpn7tClBAM.jpg (10.4 KiB) Viewed 2278 times

[johnallg]

Here's a nicely worn-in 4000: http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... hp?id=8478

2-3.jpg

4-5.jpg

You just know that is a killer bass because of all the honest wear on it. She has been PLAYED.

[lucky]

After looking at the 4000 I don't feel so bad about mine now.

[woodyng]

i've 2 ric basses,a 4004 cii which looks totally new,and a 74 4000 that is actually in overall nice condition,but with a lot of edge nicks all over,and the white finish is kind of splotchy and very yellowed,but it looks cooly vintage. i used to think i would like to refinish it and make it flawless,but i have really come to love it for what it is,and i have my cii when i need to see perfection.....