4000

I don't agree with this as a general rule. There is so much variation in tone between examples of the "real thing" (and I've played many hundreds - possibly thousands - over the past almost 4 decades) that it just isn't logical. And of course people's ideas about "great tone" vary so much. None of my other 15 or so Rics have sounded anywhere near as good as the two I still have, to my ears. But a friend who bought my '76 much prefers that. All of mine have sounded different to each other. It's perfectly possible that a faker could sound just as good, if not better than, an example of the real thing, depending on your personal tastes.

That's my main bass. Feb '72, pre-skunk, walnut headstock wings. Cost me £490 in 1993.

One thing people seem to forget (or not be aware of) is that there is huge variation between Rickenbackers from different eras (or indeed sometimes in the same year). And I don't mean in terms of build quality or sound, but in terms of body shape, headstock shape, neck shape, features (e.g. checkered binding/lack of same, full width crushed pearl inlays against poured etc), pickups, pots, etc etc. Even my 2 x'72s, only a few months apart, are constructed differently and have a different headstock shape, although many wouldn't notice unless it was pointed out. So referring to "a Rickenbacker" is really a huge generalisation. My basses aren't exactly the same shape as anything post early '73 - except to the casual eye - and don't have the same neck shape, features or pickups, although again a casual viewer may not notice. They are different basses to later ones. In terms of fakers, I've never seen anything that accurately replicates my favourite basses from my favourite era, which is really the only era that interests me. And unfortunately the tiniest details are important to me. For instance most of the copies posted have incorrect body and/or headstock shapes, by my measurement and for my tastes.

My Rics haven't budged at all.

Me too, I could buy several things I actually wanted. It's the only reason I entered. ;-)

What converted me was a 65 P in the Gallery. Best P I ever played and looked great.

To be fair, that’s pretty much how Rick Turner got Stanley Clarke to play Alembics. 😉

+1.

I rather doubt it! I suspect that also applies to fakes only.

Absolutely they can sound different. My old ‘73 P sounded totally different with the BBOT compared to the Schaller that replaced it. FWIW a preferred the sound of the BBOT, but it was bloody uncomfortable. A lot depends on your ears though. Many people I know can’t tell my 2 basses apart sonically and to me they’re quite different.

Interesting. I always prefer the old screw-tops (after the true horsie, up until early ‘73), which are generally relatively weedy.

I believe Lollar won the case though, or it was thrown out.

14K? Crikey. The treble pickups on my '72 are probably under 8! Ric pickups varied enormously in output over the years. Certainly very interesting though!

They’re actually generally very good at the deep smooth thing. Although personally I just turn the tones down/off, then I have the best of both worlds.

Of course Geddy has used his Jazz for many years (although it may or may not have escaped your attention that he has been using the odd Ric live again on occasion). However he used his Rics almost exclusively (bar his ultimately butchered P teardrop thingy) for the whole of the 70s and most of their best (IMO) albums. Moving Pictures also has some Ric. Signals is Ric. So to imply that he didn’t use them for recording is simply wrong, and that’s what I objected to. It’s an argument that is often bandied about regarding Geddy and other famous Ric users, and I find it really annoying, in the same way I would if people kept insisting JJB or Jaco actually used a Ric. FWIW I actually think Geddy’s Ric and Jazz sound are, for the most part - Moving Pictures being arguably the most contentious - somewhat different. In fact live I don’t think they’re that alike at all. My favourite Geddy sound is probably A Farewell to Kings, which doesn’t really sound anything like his Jazz. Foxton did indeed use a P, amongst others (no idea if he recorded with the Ibby), but his P sound was nothing like his Ric sound. I never liked his P sound to be honest, and I do like a good P, be it John Deacon or JJB. It is indeed a nice place to be, and I’m glad that you’re lucky enough to feel the same. The ‘72s are different than the later ones but it’s horses for courses. A friend who bought my old ‘76 prefers that to my main bass, whereas I don’t think it’s even in the ballpark. FWIW my least favourite Rics, on average, are probably those built between around ‘75 and the late ‘90s. On average I’m not that keen on those. Build quality wise my old 4004 was on a par with pretty much anything I’ve ever owned, bar my custom Alembic. It was far better built than either of my Wals. One thing I should add is that because an artist changes instruments doesn’t mean that the new one is better, it just means that it’s better in terms of what they’re looking for. Roger Glover is on record as saying he never really cared for his Machinehead Ric sound, but I (and many others) think it’s one of the greatest bass sounds ever recorded. Whereas anything he’s used since leaves me pretty cold, and I think the Vigiers just sound bland.

I love multi-string basses, although I find that somewhat aesthetically challenged.

Not this again. I think you’ll find that both those players most definitely recorded with Rics, Geddy on a good many of their albums. You need to stop listening to (and spreading) the misinformation. Many Ric players did move on, but IMO none of them ever sounded as good afterwards. YMMV. FWIW, and as I’ve said many times before, I still have my 2 x ‘72 4001s after all the Wals, Alembics, Warwicks, Seis, Jaydees, Fenders, Pedullas etc etc (and to be fair a good many other Rics) have gone. They will never, ever be sold, unless to save a life, or maybe if I can no longer play.

I've often considered doing the opposite, a la Lemmy. The taper-less neck profile is the thing I love most. I love it on most Alembics too. Never understood why you'd want it to taper, but I also prefer very narrow string spacing.

I've played funk on mine. In fact I've played pretty much everything on mine. They don't have to do "that" sound. Having said that I love "that" sound (although there are actually many variations on it; Squire doesn't sound like Foxton, who doesn't sound like Lemmy, who doesn't sound like Glover etc). Most of my favourite bass players are Ric players, or have been in the period where I most liked their sound. I also love how they look and feel (although some years more than others). I've never really understood why people get so worked up about instrument (a) or instrument (b), as if the instrument has somehow offended them by existing. They're tools, and if the tool works for you, great, if it doesn't, find another.

My 2 x '72 4001s are about 8 and a half pounds each. Rics can vary a fair bit in weight. For instance my first CS was way heavier than my 2nd CS.

EDIT - Oops - note to self, read the original post properly! Sorry, tried an MB Fusion 500, not the Fusion 550. Doh!

My go to sound is in Machinehead-era Roger Glover or Chris Squire territory (although typically a little less trebly than Chris). It’s great for that sort of thing and, at least for me, does it far better than anything else I’ve heard/tried. I don’t use full-on distortion at all.

Just love the sound of the early Trace 4x10s and have never heard any lightweight cabs (or any other for that matter) that match them. It's a moot point though because I can only use lightweight cabs now.