Rickenbacker and trademarks

[simon1964]

[quote name='vax2002' timestamp='1334660829' post='1619210']
Why does your Warwick and fenders have a middle pick up that looks like a chromed tobacco tin attacked with tin snips.....
[/quote]

Does your Fender have a through neck, twin truss rods, and stereo output?

Edited April 17, 2012 by simon1964

[charic]

I have to say that wouldn't quite put rick build quality up there with Warwicks tbh, but that's just IME

[charic]

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1334587631' post='1618056']
I nearly just dropped the results of not pulling out laughing at that
[/quote]

Sorry baby Johnston

[4000]

[quote name='GregBass' timestamp='1334645681' post='1618920']


I find it strange that you guys keep saying this. I have had two Ricks - I still have one, in fact - and they are the best made basses I have ever had. They certainly kick my Fender and Warwicks into the long grass in terms of build quality!!
[/quote]

Have never understood this either and I've owned 13 or 14. The most problems I've had were with Fenders (2 necks needed replacing from new) and my Wal (which had apparently had the fingerboard incorrectly levelled at build). Oh, and I've always had problems with the elctronics on all my used Statuses, but then they were used so I wouldn't expect them to be perfect. I think most brands have their share of duffers, it's just how many you stumble across personally.

[GregBass]

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1334663816' post='1619290']
I have to say that wouldn't quite put rick build quality up there with Warwicks tbh, but that's just IME
[/quote]

I have a pair or Warwicks - a 1997 and a 2005. The 97 plays like a dream, but I can quite clearly feel where the joins are on the 3-piece neck. Not something I have ever seen on a Rick. I still love the way the 'wick plays though

The 2005 is whole other matter. The truss rod is twisted and the adjuster is knackered. I am in the process of having a new rod fitted. When I raised this, Warwick actually have a procedure for changing a truss rod - so I'm apparently not the only one with this problem. Neither of my Ricks (both 70s) have ever had any quality issues at all.

[charic]

[quote name='GregBass' timestamp='1334665426' post='1619329']
I have a pair or Warwicks - a 1997 and a 2005. The 97 plays like a dream, but I can quite clearly feel where the joins are on the 3-piece neck. Not something I have ever seen on a Rick. I still love the way the 'wick plays though

The 2005 is whole other matter. The truss rod is twisted and the adjuster is knackered. I am in the process of having a new rod fitted. When I raised this, Warwick actually have a procedure for changing a truss rod - so I'm apparently not the only one with this problem. Neither of my Ricks (both 70s) have ever had any quality issues at all.
[/quote]

Warwicks are German, they'll have a procedure for bloody everything!

"Your bass has caught fire during a blizzard? Please send it back sir, there's a procedure for that"

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='GregBass' timestamp='1334645681' post='1618920']
I find it strange that you guys keep saying this. I have had two Ricks - I still have one, in fact - and they are the best made basses I have ever had. They certainly kick my Fender and Warwicks into the long grass in terms of build quality!!
[/quote]

But that is comparing them to other mass produced basses from massive production line factories. The 'its a small family owned business' thing has already been said, that is supposed to give a high degree over oversight and quality control. Being as good as something knocked out by a bunch of production line numpties isn't a boast.

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1334662010' post='1619241']
Does your Fender have a through neck, twin truss rods, and stereo output?
[/quote]

Twin truss rods isn't a win, it is down to poor engineering. Through neck is a taste call, an can be implemented better, like in suck a way you don't have to route a hole for the bridge to float over. My £70 Johnson has stereo output.

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='vax2002' timestamp='1334483195' post='1616612']
Not a lot of what they claim would stand up in court, hence why they use threats so harshly.
They put the wind in to people, even groups like this.
Which has lead a lot of folk to question if that is the sort of company you want to buy products from, one that thinks it owns the words out of peoples mouths now !
[/quote]
Well said! If it was up to companies like rick, fender, gibson etc, nobody would be allowed to sell guitars but them.

[vax2002]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1334662010' post='1619241']
Does your Fender have a through neck, twin truss rods, and stereo output?
[/quote]

No, But a few of My Ricks do...

[lettsguitars]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334669874' post='1619424']
But that is comparing them to other mass produced basses from massive production line factories. The 'its a small family owned business' thing has already been said, that is supposed to give a high degree over oversight and quality control. Being as good as something knocked out by a bunch of production line numpties isn't a boast.



Twin truss rods isn't a win, it is down to poor engineering. Through neck is a taste call, an can be implemented better, like in suck a way you don't have to route a hole for the bridge to float over. My £70 Johnson has stereo output.
[/quote]hazaah

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334669874' post='1619424']
The 'its a small family owned business' thing has already been said, that is supposed to give a high degree over oversight and quality control.
[/quote]

+1

Mr Shuker is a 1 man operation, and I've never heard of anybody being sold a faulty instrument by him.

[4000]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334669874' post='1619424']
Twin truss rods isn't a win, it is down to poor engineering. [/quote]

Yet 2 of my 3 favourite types of basses have twin truss rods (Alembic being the other).

[4000]

[quote name='chrismuzz' timestamp='1334673902' post='1619506']
+1

Mr Shuker is a 1 man operation, and I've never heard of anybody being sold a faulty instrument by him.
[/quote]

I know small luthiers who have tried to expand have said that they've started to lose control over quality (Jaydee in the '80s springs to mind), so I suspect there's a point of no return.

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1334681095' post='1619687']


I know small luthiers who have tried to expand have said that they've started to lose control over quality (Jaydee in the '80s springs to mind), so I suspect there's a point of no return.
[/quote]


That totally makes sense. I was more comparing the QC issues with Rickenbacker as a small firm, and pretty much any other company who mass produces instruments

[Musky]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334669874' post='1619424']
Twin truss rods isn't a win, it is down to poor engineering.
[/quote]
Not really. It does allow for a small amount of correction should a twist develop, and allows dead spots to be moved or eradicated in a way that single truss rods can't. Not that these are problems that should really be occurring at the price point of a Rick anyway.

Ricks do have QC issues, though probably not to the extent of many other high profile brands. The issues with the recent blue finish is a case in point, as is (or was - maybe they've finally sorted it out) the bridge/pickup alignment. There are a ridiculous amount of 4000 series basses I've seen with either strings not passing directly over the pole pieces or extra grooves in the saddles. Small thing perhaps, but these aren't cheap basses.

I think the QC issue is usually mentioned because for JH and the faithful they don't appear to exist. Which can lead to a lot of disappointment when even minor issues emerge.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1334687727' post='1619850']
Not really. It does allow for a small amount of correction should a twist develop, and allows dead spots to be moved or eradicated in a way that single truss rods can't. Not that these are problems that should really be occurring at the price point of a Rick anyway.
[/quote]

Twists occurring is the engineering issue. The little block of lead inside some Rick necks is for dead spots.

[simon1964]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334688157' post='1619856']
Twists occurring is the engineering issue. [/quote]

Twists occurring is surely an issue arising from using wood to make necks? The most twisted neck I've come across was on a Mexican Fender Jazz - nasty "S" type twist which a respected luthier was unable to do anything with. Which is presumably why Alembic, Dean, and Ibanez have all used twin trussrods, and Fender use graphite rods on their US range?

Edited April 17, 2012 by simon1964

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1334688732' post='1619866']
Twists occurring is surely an issue arising from using wood to make necks? The most twisted neck I've come across was on a Mexican Fender Jazz - nasty "S" type twist which a respected luthier was unable to do anything with. Which is presumably why Alembic, Dean, and Ibanez have all used twin trussrods, and Fender use graphite rods on their US range?
[/quote]

If it is twisting, there is an engineering issue. That's all there is to it. Use wood right, and the chance of twisting is pretty well minimised, couple of quarter sawn pieces, laminated, and well seasoned, graphite will sort it too, but if it is twisting, then it has been done wrong. Not twisting = good engineering, twisting = bad engineering. Fender necks are made in such a way to be disposable replaceable items, plan being once the frets wear out, bin it, put a new neck on. The obsession with name over everything is the only thing wrong with that concept. All ways of bodging round the original issue is going to be inferior to correcting the issue.

Edit: also relevant to note: Fender putting graphite in to sort the issue is an example of development, which is something that keeps their continued production valid.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Mr. Foxen

[simon1964]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334689215' post='1619877']
Edit: also relevant to note: Fender putting graphite in to sort the issue is an example of development, which is something that keeps their continued production valid.
[/quote]

Why is Fender using graphite "development", but Rickenbacker using twin truss rods an "engineering issue"?

Edited April 17, 2012 by simon1964

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1334689794' post='1619889']
Why is Fender using graphite "development", but Rickenbacker using twin truss rods an "engineering issue"?
[/quote]

Rickenbacker have been using twin truss rods for what, 60 years? Fender have moved on from disposable necks to reinforced necks.

Edit: Also, prevention vs. possibility of cure.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Mr. Foxen

[simon1964]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334690472' post='1619904']
Rickenbacker have been using twin truss rods for what, 60 years? Fender have moved on from disposable necks to reinforced necks.
[/quote]


Fender use graphite on only a handful of models. Are you really suggesting that if I spend £800+ on, say, one of these: [url="http://www.gak.co.uk/en/fender-american-special-jazz-bass-olympic-white-rosewood/44078"]http://www.gak.co.uk/en/fender-american-special-jazz-bass-olympic-white-rosewood/44078[/url] , I should regard the neck as "disposable" and expect to replace it when it twists?!

And that's not a design flaw, whereas Ric addressing the issue 50 years earlier is?!

Anyway, we will clearly have to agree to differ on the merits of Rics. I love mine - but FWIW I do accept the heavy handed tactics of JH do detract from the brand

[Musky]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334689215' post='1619877']
If it is twisting, there is an engineering issue. That's all there is to it. Use wood right, and the chance of twisting is pretty well minimised, couple of quarter sawn pieces, laminated, and well seasoned, graphite will sort it too, but if it is twisting, then it has been done wrong. Not twisting = good engineering, twisting = bad engineering. Fender necks are made in such a way to be disposable replaceable items, plan being once the frets wear out, bin it, put a new neck on. The obsession with name over everything is the only thing wrong with that concept. All ways of bodging round the original issue is going to be inferior to correcting the issue.

Edit: also relevant to note: Fender putting graphite in to sort the issue is an example of development, which is something that keeps their continued production valid.
[/quote]
Sorry, I don't buy it. 4003s do use quarter sawn, laminated necks with well seasoned woods, so design isn't an issue in this regard (and it is [i]design[/i]). However wood is an organic product and nobody can accurately predict the behaviour of that wood, just minimise the effects of any differences. Or provide a means of correcting any changes. Twin rods do just that (to an extent).

Incidentally, RIC have changed the design of both the neck and truss rods over the years. Development, n'est ce pas?

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='simon1964' timestamp='1334691181' post='1619919']
Fender use graphite on only a handful of models. Are you really suggesting that if I spend £800+ on, say, one of these: [url="http://www.gak.co.uk/en/fender-american-special-jazz-bass-olympic-white-rosewood/44078"]http://www.gak.co.uk...-rosewood/44078[/url] , I should regard the neck as "disposable" and expect to replace it when it twists?!

And that's not a design flaw, whereas Ric addressing the issue 50 years earlier is?!

Anyway, we will clearly have to agree to differ on the merits of Rics. I love mine - but FWIW I do accept the heavy handed tactics of JH do detract from the brand
[/quote]

Again, development. When Fender basses came out, the disposable neck was the idea, they are engineered for mass production, all the routes on one side, modular construction, all minimal handling, hence being able to buy current equivalents for £60 or so. Now if you are into paying for a name on a headstock, that's a whole different thing. Nothing to do with engineering. Take this designed to be made for £60 bass, use it till it develops a flaw, replace flawed part, fine. Pay a bit more, get a less flawed part. Now, the part I think is stupid, is where someone spends maybe £1400 on a bass, and assumes it will develop an issue requiring correction, and accepts that, because it has a name written on it.

And if wood is the flawed material, using wood is an engineering flaw. Acceptable on a £60 wood bass. Pay £1400, you can have a graphite neck without the issue.

Have they changed the design to consider the known preventable flaw, if so, why retain the means to correct it?

Edit: Also, as far as I recall they are still single action truss rods (although I've only come across one with the truss rod out) an single action truss rods are the source of the S bend issue. double action truss rods are the solution, but are at a much higher unit cost.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Mr. Foxen

[vax2002]

On Ricks, bridges still bend up and fingerboards lift if you use heavy roundwounds on 4003, on 4001, it was a dead cert.
Also on a Fender if your neck has a bow, you can get a key and tighten it up, on a Rick touch the nuts on the Rod at your peril.

I do think Rickenbackers are a decent bass, bit of a one trick pony and a dog to play comfortably standing up, but the absolute ridiculous price for them is beyond a joke, as most find out, a quick look at e.bay will soon tell you that.
What has happened as well is they have stopped doing what Rickenbacker normally do, make different colours one year.
In the past you had black binding 4003, blood red, real midnight blue, natural with black binding, white with back binding and the gorgeous black with black binding.
What on earth has gone wrong at the factory for them to just stick to making one set of colours with one option on hardware and binding, so now if you do buy a Rick, you have to have what the guy in the next band has and so on.
hardly exclusive when they churn out all the same day in day out.
The brand has had a good revival, but it is over now, even JH knows this hence why he is on the offensive again, looking for people to blame for the downturn.
All I say, is go back to doing what you did best, making unusual and beautiful basses that can not be copied and they wont be copied, but continue churning out the same old same old and you are asking for them to be copied.
Its too easy, they never change.

[drTStingray]

[quote name='vax2002' timestamp='1334692688' post='1619950']
The brand has had a good revival, but it is over now, even JH knows this hence why he is on the offensive again, looking for people to blame for the downturn.[/quote]

Possibly the global economy is to blame? They aren't unique in the guitar selling world to see a downturn in sales - it usually happens in recessions.

I saw a guy the other day playing what I thought was a Ric (sounded and looked like it) but on closer inspection it had Hackenbacker or something similar on the headstock - it made me think if Brains (Hiram Hackenbacker) out of Thunderbirds played a bass it would definitely be something very quirky..........like a Ric perhaps ? I guess this is the sort of thing John Hall's upset about - I don't blame him really - it does devalue a design icon - but pratically I can't help thinking the people who do buy the copies would never have splashed out on a Ric anyway - and if they wanted one and could afford it, surely they would buy the real thing - so I don't really understand where he's coming from - does it really affect their sales? Chasing individuals selling 2nd hand ones smacks of clutching at straws and wiping out potential future customers at a stroke - all very strange!