Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I was thinking this may be a future RIC-Outlet "one-off" but we will see. My guess is that since the warranty period on the 4004 LK models has expired, RIC may have some leftover carved walnut body wings that they no longer need to keep.

I also mentioned this guitar in an earlier post.

viewtopic.php?p=755105#p755105

It just goes to show you how easily RIC could reissue something like a Capri, which is really just a minor tweak of the current design.

johncorth wrote:It just goes to show you how easily RIC could reissue something like a Capri, which is really just a minor tweak of the current design.

a.) That's not really true. (Thicker body = thicker wood stock, wider body dimensions = different case, plus different internal bracing, CNC programming etc.)

b.) How would this photo "show" you anything about how easily RIC could reissue the Capri? Curious, as I'm not seeing the connection.


That said, I can think of a couple instruments that truly could be "easily" reissued (1993, anyone?) with only a tweak of the current design...but the Capri isn't one of them.

6-string LK model - cool!

collin wrote:6-string LK model - cool!

A baritone or super short scale bass.

Old body wings on an old neck. Nothing new there. It was intended for a member of the Motorhead organization but . . . circumstances made me reconsider accomodating them.

johnhall wrote:Old body wings on an old neck. Nothing new there. It was intended for a member of the Motorhead organization but . . . circumstances made me reconsider accomodating them.

What about that bass? It looks like a 325 body.

Grey wrote:... What about that bass? It looks like a 325 body.

IMO, it looks a little thin for a 325, but it could be a solid-body in the shape of a 325.

collin wrote:

johncorth wrote:It just goes to show you how easily RIC could reissue something like a Capri, which is really just a minor tweak of the current design.

a.) That's not really true. (Thicker body = thicker wood stock, wider body dimensions = different case, plus different internal bracing, CNC programming etc.)

Well, I'd say it is very true. That's a minor tweak in my book. Something like a Combo 850 would be a significant undertaking involving entirely different construction and hardware. A Capri on the other hand involves not a single new part (although a 365 with an Ac'cent by Paul would be a nice touch). They already use thicker stock on the 381, so obviously that's not a big deal. Rickenbacker's case supplier will custom make you a (non-branded non-silver) deeper case for the about the same price as the standard case so that's obviously not a problem, not to mention that they already make a deep case for the 381. The internal bracing is a single bar that couldn't possibly be any simpler. We're not talking about scalloped fan bracing on a flat top. It's a single crude piece. As for CNC, it shouldn't take more than a couple of hours for some guy with a tech school degree. I've had custom parts made by CNC and considering how little I've paid, it must be a pretty simple affair. And did you notice the one-off 1997/12 with a 1/2" smaller body width? Apparently a change to body size/shape isn't a huge issue. So yeah, I'd say a slightly deeper body, a one-piece rectangular brace and different shape is a minor tweak on the current design.

collin wrote:b.) How would this photo "show" you anything about how easily RIC could reissue the Capri? Curious, as I'm not seeing the connection.

The connection is that if somebody goes to the trouble of putting this thing together, a comparable amount of effort could yield a Capri reissue. Obviously RIC has their reasons for not doing a Capri. But it bugs me when some people claim that the reason is that it would be a monumental and overwhelmingly expensive proposition. I don't buy that for a second. I presume that the reason is that there isn't a market for a Capri reissue, and they're already selling all the guitars that they can make. I have a hard time believing that there isn't a market for Capris, but my judgment must be clouded by how much I like them myself. I'm sure RIC would have reissued them long ago if they thought they'd sell well, and I'm sure they know much better than I what will sell.
And I'm with you on the 1993. That's an extremely minor tweak. A dot neck and F-hole 360/12C63 seems like a no-brainer.

No offense but you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

johnhall wrote:No offense but you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

Where's the like button for this post?

No offense taken. Always happy to be enlightened. And I do have some tangential background in musical instrument manufacturing, although not guitars.
But there are a few things about which I'm pretty confident. There would be no new hardware needed, deeper cases aren't an issue, and RIC already uses thicker stock for 381's. There wouldn't be any new construction methods. It's a 3-piece body, 3 piece neck with wings, same neck joint. That leaves CNC programming and the brace. I have a hard time believing either of those are monumental undertakings.
Like I said, I'm sure RIC has its reasons for never reissuing a Capri. I'm guessing either they don't believe there's enough of a market, or they don't want to divert resources from cranking out the existing line of guitars, which seem to be selling as fast they can make them, which makes perfect sense. My only point is that I don't believe that some astronomical cost to develop a Capri reissue is the barrier, and I've seen some gigantic numbers bandied about in previous discussions on this topic (although not by anyone at RIC).

johncorth wrote:My only point is that I don't believe that some astronomical cost to develop a Capri reissue is the barrier, and I've seen some gigantic numbers bandied about in previous discussions on this topic (although not by anyone at RIC).

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. Without getting into too much detail, the 3 dimensional modelling necessary at a production precision level, the tool pathing for numerous tools, and the similar processes once again for hold-down vacuum fixturing would be quite significant.

It's one thing to just knock off a few custom units with basic clamping but another thing entirely to build actual production fixtures which are rapid to load, provide a repeatable product, and safe for operators.

It's not insurmountable, just expensive, and given the amount of business we already have, unnecessary. Rough estimate: 3 man-months of engineering labor, 20 hours of machine time to test, $3000 of materials (billet aluminum, phenolic, wood, various hardware).

johnhall wrote:

johncorth wrote:My only point is that I don't believe that some astronomical cost to develop a Capri reissue is the barrier, and I've seen some gigantic numbers bandied about in previous discussions on this topic (although not by anyone at RIC).

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. Without getting into too much detail, the 3 dimensional modelling necessary at a production precision level, the tool pathing for numerous tools, and the similar processes once again for hold-down vacuum fixturing would be quite significant.

It's one thing to just knock off a few custom units with basic clamping but another thing entirely to build actual production fixtures which are rapid to load, provide a repeatable product, and safe for operators.

It's not insurmountable, just expensive, and given the amount of business we already have, unnecessary. Rough estimate: 3 man-months of engineering labor, 20 hours of machine time to test, $3000 of materials (billet aluminum, phenolic, wood, various hardware).

See, he said it wasn't impossible. Let the rumors fly!!

I just want to see pix of the finished bass.