Jolana D Bass

[wotsy]

This is a good looking copy imo, never heard of 'em but a quick Google reveals some decent reviews:
[url="http://www.gumtree.com/p/for-sale/jolana-d-bass-ric-ish-80s/1068370974#photo-content"]http://www.gumtree.c...4#photo-content[/url]

Edited June 16, 2014 by wotsy

[Happy Jack]

Something very odd about the arrangement of those tuners ...

[chriswareham]

Yep, replacement tuners - the originals are closed back. It's the same colour as my D Bass, which is the best bass I've ever owned. I'd be buying this one if it wasn't for the duff tuners, as I would love to have a spare.

[Happy Jack]

How heavy do/did they tend to be?

[hubrad]

Don't you just love those automatic Sponsored Links.. 'Super Cheap Jolana Bass' and 'Buy Rick Bass At Amazon'
It's tempting to go on Gumtree advertising genital warts or somesuch.

[chriswareham]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1402924962' post='2477910']
How heavy do/did they tend to be?
[/quote]

Quite light, with a 33.5" scale and I haven't noticed any neck dive on my one. I actually contacted the seller of this one, on the basis that if he's prepared to ship to London I'll get some more appropriate tuners put onto it. There looks to be a fair few scrapes on it, but that's not surprising as the finish is quite thin and brittle on mine. If I do end up with it then I'll probably ask the Gallery if they can strip it down and refinish it in black.

[Bassassin]

I've had serious GAS for one of these for years - even looked for one when the band was playing in Prague a few years back, to no avail! Although we did play with a band whose bassist had a gorgeous Ibanez 2388B/DX, early one with full-width glitter inlays...

Anyway I should remind everyone that we can't discuss sales of instruments of this nature here on BC, otherwise certain CEOs of California-based instrument manufacturers will materialise & start screeching and throwing poo at us, sort of like a demented 23-stone chimpanzee. Or something.

Jon.

[chriswareham]

I did wonder how this thread didn't get removed considering the ban. Although having read the email correspondence between a certain CEO and Basschat (it's up on his company website) it appears it was pictures of a faker that he wanted removed.

On a related note I've just had my eBay listing for a faker pulled at the request of RIC. I've sent an email to RICs UK solicitors asking them to justify the request under UK and European laws since no mention was made of the R word and I didn't even include shots of the supposedly infringing headstock ...

Edited June 17, 2014 by chriswareham

[tauzero]

I think that the JH/BC correspondence is a little misleading - IIRC, the only part that's mentioned in that is the headstock and TRC, but there are also trademarks on the body shape which aren't mentioned in that. I make no comments on the rights and wrongs of the situation or the vigour of RIC's pursuit of infringements.

[Bassassin]

This is correct - all design elements of the 4000 series basses are registered trademarks - oddly apart from the scratchplate, unless that's changed now. Even the footprint of the tailpiece got Hipshot into trouble when they decided to make an aftermarket Rick bridge that intonated correctly & didn't bend in half under string tension.

J.

[chriswareham]

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1403093403' post='2479650']
Even the footprint of the tailpiece got Hipshot into trouble when they decided to make an aftermarket Rick bridge that intonated correctly & didn't bend in half under string tension.
[/quote]

I thought RIC lost that case? Meanwhile, it looks like Jason Lollar is fighting RIC's claims that he infringed their rights by producing a real horseshoe pickup as he's filed a motion to dismiss. He should have pretty good grounds, since the patent expired many years ago, RIC don't make a functional horseshoe pickup, and as form is part of the function they cannot register the design for their non-functional look-a-likes. I wonder if he could also cite Hall's claim on a public forum that RIC will release their own functional horseshoe pickup once the market has been [url="http://www.rickresource.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=409206&start=15#p800439"]"cleaned up"[/url] as trying to restrict competition.

[chriswareham]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1403091597' post='2479618']
I think that the JH/BC correspondence is a little misleading - IIRC, the only part that's mentioned in that is the headstock and TRC, but there are also trademarks on the body shape which aren't mentioned in that. I make no comments on the rights and wrongs of the situation or the vigour of RIC's pursuit of infringements.
[/quote]

What's interesting in the correspondence is that Hall wont state what design aspects are registered. That's very similar to what happens in my industry, where big players threaten lawsuits over patents but wont state what those patents are. As a result competition, and arguably innovation, are stifled.

[Bassassin]

You might be right about the bridge - haven't been on RickResource for about 4 years so I'm not exactly up to speed! I suspect the "official" redesigned tailpiece is still in limbo though & likely to remain there. Wonder if it ever existed in the first place...

There's actually a searchable database of US trademarks - I remember seeing all the RIC TMs, including images, dates of registration etc. This was a few years back though & I have no idea of the address. I'll try & dig up the link again.

J.