Page 1 of 2
Does RIC have a " Dark Era"
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:49 pm
by jamie
Curious as to whether Rickenbacker has an era that one would call a dark era such as Gibson's Norlin Era or Fender's 70s?
Is there any more desireable time frame than others? I figure the 60s would be desireable but how the the 70s, 80s, 90's and 00's compare in quality?
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:00 pm
by rictified
They are all good, different maybe, and some people like different periods but not because any period was inferior or better, just a little different, the quality has always been there. No three bolt necks, haha! No CBS either. No Korea, no mexico, etc.
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:21 pm
by qmoder
I've never heard of a era of undesirable models and I'm glad to hear this confirmed.
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:33 pm
by rickde
Fender's 70's a dark era? I've got a 70's Jazz that is one of the best instruments I've every played.
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:10 pm
by 8mileshigh
Fender's only have a dark period - a kit guitar bolted together, more often than not badly. I remember a visit to the factory when the guy putting the final touches to the strat before it went out, said to his manager 'hey the neck's a little loose ' - 'don't worry' said the manager 'once the strings are up to pitch, It'll be fine' - need I say more......Rickenbacker have by far the best build quality of any manufacturer.......my '59'69'79'89'99 share all the same great build quality.......no dark periods here......there I'm off my soap box now....
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:46 am
by admin
While Rickenbacker has not had a "dark" era, they had had some models that did not do well. It will be remembered that for a period of time they offered the "Astro" which did not catch on.
Unless I am mistaken, John Hall still has a couple of Astro kits kicking about at the factory. I have always thought of this as a novelty model and I do not mean to suggest that it was considered to be a serious production model. It was a chance, however, to build your own Rickenbacker at home.
I don't think we can expect a Rickenbacker Astro Reissue any time soon.
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:37 am
by bbobb24
I've always considered Rickenbacker as one of the elite Mfg's of guitars out there, the quality from guitar to guitar is darn near perfect!
One of the reasons that I bought mine site unseen and didn't worry
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:43 am
by shamustwin
Funny thing about F*****, the Strat seemed to suffer most. I know folks with '70's Strats, Teles and Jazz and Precisions, and the strats are the only ones that are consistantly ****.
The only thing about Rick I can say is the circumference of the bass neck varied, I had an '82 and didn't like the neck, thought it too chunky. It's gone.
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:06 am
by 8mileshigh
That's a good point Bob, I'd never really thought of that before - but I'm always happy to buy a Rick sight unseen. I wouldn't consider that with any other manufacturer. As for variations in models, my personal preference is for the super slim neck on '60's 360F's. Other Ricks are good - but these are exceptional in my opinion.
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:43 am
by bbobb24
Thanks Graham, most of the mfg's out there are so iffy from guitar to guitar. Rickenbacker and Hamer are the only ones I'd buy site unseen.
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:42 am
by beefandbones
What they said. I've played Ricks from the 60s through the 00s, and they've all had a similar build quality.
Desirability usually depends on the models or features you like. A collector might want a late 60s 4001 with horseshoe and toaster pickups, and checkerboard binding, but that doesn't make it a 'better quality' bass than a 4003.
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:50 am
by longhouse
I tried out a pair of Rick 330/12s at the Columbus guitar show last year, one Jetglo, one white; They were early/mid eighties instruments and felt unusually lightweight and the bodies were strangely thin. My first thought was 'FAKE!', but the 5-ply laminate on the peghead was visible beneath the paint... Then again, I'm sure they sounded fine plugged in (if they were Rics). I've never played a Ric 'dog'. cheers, Noel
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:40 am
by admin
My post regarding the "Astro" was innacurate in several respects and hence misleading. Fortunately, I have additional information to set the matter straight. An apology is in order.
The Astro guitar had no association with the Rickenbacker brand whatsoever, entirely by design. There was no mention of the word "Rickenbacker" on thepackaging or the instrument, it wasn't sold through any "Rickenbacker" sources, and was handled as if it were a separate company entirely. The only commonality was that the wood parts were produced in the same shop but you could say that about a number of brands, both familiar and unfamiliar, as we did plenty of contract work back then.
I wouldn't even call it unsuccessful- the department stores that handled it
during the Christmas season sold them out immediately. They weren't much as guitars, although you could argue that was directly proportional to the efforts and/or skill of the builder, but then they were pretty inexpensive
too, as I recall $49 retail.
Cheers,
John Hall
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:20 am
by loendmaestro
I have a 1974 4001, a 1978 3001 & a 2003 4003.
The only difference is the amount of love I show them on a week to week basis!
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:48 am
by jwr2
there are some years that were very good for Ric basses ...
73, 76, 86, 90, and of course the 60's ...
every ric is unique ... but there were some years they seem to make them a little better ...