Now, all Ric-snobiness aside please (which we all have to varying degrees!) what do you think?
I think he's done a remarkable job of it. Not perfect, and I don't think I'd name it like that, but not bad for DIY IMHO.
Sure, he broke John Hall's rule (and I'm sure this posting will disappear eventually), but I'm at least impressed.
Looks like he covered his backside with the disclaimer. That's all I'm going to say.
JimK
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:32 am
by Colonel Sanders
Fantastic reproduction!
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:49 am
by Seans
Dexterity on the hand saw
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:37 pm
by aceonbass
The headstock is an ugly approximation of the real thing. You'd think since he pretty much nailed the rest of it, he'd have copied this too. He should have glued the neck into the body before he painted it. This just doesn't make sense. Overall, I'd say he did a good job. I particularly like the "M" tailpiece. Yet another example of someone with a talent for building a guitar and no talent for designing his own. There are better ways of paying tribute to this particular design without copying it.
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:04 pm
by Hotzenplotz
Nice look and sound!
This "fake" discussion is very odd, IMHO. As long as there is no harm to the factory by selling/ duplication it for earning money - so what! The man already made his decision. And he had a reason for that.
What if You want to play an alder bodied capri 330 with a neck through construction and some other structural changes? - Not buyable, right. But thinking about DIY: suddenly possible!
- Guess what I have in mind...
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:05 pm
by chefothefuture
Hotzenplotz wrote:Nice look and sound!
This "fake" discussion is very odd, IMHO. As long as there is no harm to the factory by selling/ duplication it for earning money - so what! The man already made his decision. And he had a reason for that.
Well put!
What if You want to play an alder bodied capri 330 with a neck through construction and some other structural changes? - Not buyable, right. But thinking about DIY: suddenly possible!
- Guess what I have in mind...
Go for it!
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:13 pm
by chefothefuture
aceonbass wrote:The headstock is an ugly approximation of the real thing. You'd think since he pretty much nailed the rest of it, he'd have copied this too. He should have glued the neck into the body before he painted it. This just doesn't make sense. Overall, I'd say he did a good job. I particularly like the "M" tailpiece. Yet another example of someone with a talent for building a guitar and no talent for designing his own. There are better ways of paying tribute to this particular design without copying it.
Well, what if he wanted a 4005 but did not want to cough up the $4500++++++(year depending) for a real one?
Or, maybe he felt that the basic design is perfect for his needs so why alter it?
Yes, he could have done a better copy of the headstock (the soundhole too) but that's just our opinion.
Bottom line is, if this guy's happy with his creation and the work is good, I certainly applaud it, imperfections and all.
It is for his own amusement, and he's not trying to pass it off for anything other than what it is.
I do hope that there are no ruffled feathers in Santa Ana....
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:15 pm
by chefothefuture
When I hear "Mickenbacker" this first thing that comes to mind is that thing Mike Parks has is his "hall of shame".....
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:23 pm
by geddeeee
As he said, "A one off, and he won't be selling it... ever!!!"
I think the guy did a good job. It took him 6 years to build. Shows a real level of commitment. Yeah, it's not perfect, but so what??
Also, he did get genuine RIC pickups and harness, so this goes into the RIC coffers. I would hope that John Hall and the rest of the Santa Ana 'crew' might see this as a tribute to the excellent instruments that RIC make.
As a 4003 owner, this sort of thing makes me proud to own a Rickenbacker.
If the guy was pumping out copies to make a profit, then I wouldn't look at it in such a good light.
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:34 pm
by coolingitdown
aceonbass wrote:The headstock is an ugly approximation of the real thing.
Yeah, it kinda looks like he just gave up when it came to the headstock. I'm not sure why. He absolutely nailed the rest of the bass.
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:41 pm
by Hotzenplotz
chefothefuture wrote:
Hotzenplotz wrote:Nice look and sound!
This "fake" discussion is very odd, IMHO. As long as there is no harm to the factory by selling/ duplication it for earning money - so what! The man already made his decision. And he had a reason for that.
Well put!
What if You want to play an alder bodied capri 330 with a neck through construction and some other structural changes? - Not buyable, right. But thinking about DIY: suddenly possible!
- Guess what I have in mind...
Go for it!
The first drawings are already on the wall...
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:02 am
by soundmasterg
Hotzenplotz wrote:Nice look and sound!
This "fake" discussion is very odd, IMHO. As long as there is no harm to the factory by selling/ duplication it for earning money - so what! The man already made his decision. And he had a reason for that.
What if You want to play an alder bodied capri 330 with a neck through construction and some other structural changes? - Not buyable, right. But thinking about DIY: suddenly possible!
- Guess what I have in mind...
That guy did do a nice job on the bass clone.
If people want to build RIC clones, then just have to be aware of the trademarks. Mr. Hall and company are required by law to enforce their trademarks by going after violators if they want to keep those trademarks, so people who copy and clone put RIC in a difficult position. If they don't try to sell it, or don't say it is a Rickenbacker, then they are most likely ok. If they try to sell it advertising as anything to do with a Rickenbacker, even if they say it is a clone of one, or if they use trademarked designs or shapes, then they are likely to get letters from lawyers. I built myself a 4001 clone years ago before I knew about any of that. It is a very close copy to a real one and an uneducated player may not be able to tell the difference. I will never sell it though, and there are enough differences that any educated player can spot them right off. At the time I had a real '73 RIC that needed a lot of work to play right, and I cloned it for less money than it would have cost me to buy another 4001. Nowadays (if I had time) if I was going to build instruments, I would just come up with my own designs. I've moved on to amps though, so between those and school and work I don't have time to build guitars.
Greg
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:29 am
by teb
Nicely done - but six years to build a guitar? I know people who have built 40' boats to that level of craftsmanship in six years. It's a bit misleading to imply that his time frame really had anything to do with the finished product.
Re: DIY 4005
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:46 am
by aceonbass
I was following the build of this bass on TalkBass. I think the builder got busy with life and just put it aside for awhile. The guy clearly has other Ricks, so he's not a builder trying to profit off of the ideas of others. I just wince at the amount of time spent copying something that could have been spent building a better mousetrap. What if it had been shaped like a swoopier version of a 4003, had 24 frets, active electronics, etc. Now that would get my interest. This is really nothing new. I really liked the tailpiece though! Any time someone says they'd never sell one of these "tributes" or that they'd be buried with it reminds me of what happened to Howie Epstein's "tribute bass" after he died. His widow/girlfriend had it listed with a major musical instrument auction site that put an ad for it in Guitar Player magazine. Once JH and RIC's lawyers saw this, it had to be dealt with to protect the company's trademarks. I'm sure that cost time and money that at least in some small way detracted from better things for Rickenbacker.
