Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Rickenbackers for sale?


prowla

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Bassassin said:

I don't see that they could openly agree to letting BC advertise copies for sale without abandoning the trademarks they've protected for years.

 

Maintaining ownership of their trademarked designs means that under US law they have to visibly take action against infringements. Doesn't matter if it's a 50 year old copy which pre-dates the registration of the trademarks, or if it's being sold on a little UK forum.

 

They will be perfectly happy with genuine Ricks being advertised here, and it's not hard to make sure that's all that gets listed.

 

Do you think you'd have time to assemble a little group of Rickenwaffen to keep an eye on the ads and weed out anything Faker? We'd be crazy not to take advantage of your expertise and it would certainly help keep things on a level in the eyes of the company.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ped said:

 

Do you think you'd have time to assemble a little group of Rickenwaffen to keep an eye on the ads and weed out anything Faker? We'd be crazy not to take advantage of your expertise and it would certainly help keep things on a level in the eyes of the company.

 

It would actually add value to the buying process if you know that a fake was going to be reported fairly quickly, so you could tell what you were looking at was genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bassassin said:

I don't see that they could openly agree to letting BC advertise copies for sale without abandoning the trademarks they've protected for years.

 

Maintaining ownership of their trademarked designs means that under US law they have to visibly take action against infringements. Doesn't matter if it's a 50 year old copy which pre-dates the registration of the trademarks, or if it's being sold on a little UK forum.

 

They will be perfectly happy with genuine Ricks being advertised here, and it's not hard to make sure that's all that gets listed.

Is Trademark infringement retrospective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, the original controversy centred not so much around removing Faker ads - which BC was happy to do - but around the speed with which the forum was expected to remove them.

 

IIRC, Mr Hall senior wanted stuff taken down the second he notified the forum of a Faker ad. I think our posish was that this wasn't always possible. Mr Hall demurred, BC drew itself up to its full height, toys exited prams and an Iron Curtain fell on the sale of Rics. The problem wasn't Faker ads in themselves; it was RIC's desire they be removed pronto, my way or the highway.

 

It seems a bit odd that after a nasty bust-up which resonated across more than one forum we should contemplate re-introducing Ric sales without formally instating the most stringent filters against Fakers and / or entering into a preliminary friendly dialogue with a widely respected if slightly cranky instrument manufacturer.

 

Some suggest that we should recline on RIC's perceived inertia or that we should just do it and hope for the best. To do so would make the forum a hostage to fortune and would be commercially amateurish.

 

For myself, I don't give a flying f__k whether or not people can sell Rics on BC but if we're going to re-open this historic can of worms we should do so based on more than the hope that it will be alright on the night. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ped said:

 

Do you think you'd have time to assemble a little group of Rickenwaffen to keep an eye on the ads and weed out anything Faker? We'd be crazy not to take advantage of your expertise and it would certainly help keep things on a level in the eyes of the company.

 

Simplest way to weed out copies would be to have a requirement that every ad for a Rick should have a shot under the truss cover. Only two types of 4001 copy had dual truss rods & neither used Rickenbacker types. I'm confident there are no dual-rod 4003 copies.

 

9 hours ago, ped said:

And any legal ramifications could be shunted onto @Bassassin

 

I was expecting that the moment I opened my stupid trap... :ph34r:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bassassin said:

 

Simplest way to weed out copies would be to have a requirement that every ad for a Rick should have a shot under the truss cover. Only two types of 4001 copy had dual truss rods & neither used Rickenbacker types. I'm confident there are no dual-rod 4003 copies.

 

 

I was expecting that the moment I opened my stupid trap... :ph34r:

unfortunately, RIC are now making single truss-rod basses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, skankdelvar said:

If I recall correctly, the original controversy centred not so much around removing Faker ads - which BC was happy to do - but around the speed with which the forum was expected to remove them.

 

IIRC, Mr Hall senior wanted stuff taken down the second he notified the forum of a Faker ad. I think our posish was that this wasn't always possible. Mr Hall demurred, BC drew itself up to its full height, toys exited prams and an Iron Curtain fell on the sale of Rics. The problem wasn't Faker ads in themselves; it was RIC's desire they be removed pronto, my way or the highway.

 

It seems a bit odd that after a nasty bust-up which resonated across more than one forum we should contemplate re-introducing Ric sales without formally instating the most stringent filters against Fakers and / or entering into a preliminary friendly dialogue with a widely respected if slightly cranky instrument manufacturer.

 

Some suggest that we should recline on RIC's perceived inertia or that we should just do it and hope for the best. To do so would make the forum a hostage to fortune and would be commercially amateurish.

 

For myself, I don't give a flying f__k whether or not people can sell Rics on BC but if we're going to re-open this historic can of worms we should do so based on more than the hope that it will be alright on the night. 

Plenty of other forums, groups, and sites carry genuine and faker ads; apart from some staunch RIC-only SIGs, BC is the only one to ban sales for either.
 

Indeed, I started this thread to point out the irony of BC banning Ric sales but carrying ads for other site(s) showing them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prowla said:

unfortunately, RIC are now making single truss-rod basses. 

 

Indeed, finally dragged kicking & screaming into the mid 20th century.

 

2 hours ago, Happy Jack said:

Looking at the bright side @Bassassin, you'd get first dibs on all fakers people tried to list on Basschat. Just saying ...

 

😂

 

The easiest way to deal with any Fakers listed, inadvertantly or otherwise, is that they automatically become forfeit. To me, of course. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2022 at 00:50, Clarky said:

I get the original faker ban (although you may be right Jack that times have moved on in regard of their litigiousness) but struggle to understand banning FS/FT posts involving demonstrably genuine R***s, with serial number etc to prove.

It's too much work for moderators and admin to run down every advert looking for clues that it's not a real one. The overriding factor is ''people are stupid'' so if you allow real ones it is inevitable 3/4 won't supply the necessary verification details upfront and 1/2 will be fakes anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prowla said:

Plenty of other forums, groups, and sites carry genuine and faker ads; apart from some staunch RIC-only SIGs, BC is the only one to ban sales for either.

 

In resp. of BC being unusual in banning RIC sales, I think BC also might be unusual among web forums in having had a hideous and protracted row with RIC during the course of which John Hall tried to bully a respected forum admin, issued blustering legal threats then scampered off to his adoring fan-boys on some poxy Rickenbacker forum where he selectively quoted his correspondence with said admin and - in my view - misrepresented what happened.

 

BC is also probably the only forum where the owners threw it open to members to decide whether or not to ban Ric sales and the majority consensus was to do so and, in effect, tell RIC to poke it. It was the nine days wonder, to be sure.

 

Anyway, those are two of the reasons why BC has - until now - banned RIC sales. I suppose the ban could have been lifted at any time but I always assumed nobody cared enough to do anything about it.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

They're everywhere. Trouble is a lot of the vintage Fakers are pretty good facsimiles.

There are numerous details they didn't get right - most obviously fretboard timber & inlay material. Never seen a Faker with those murky greyish inlays most Ricks have, and most of them used dark rosewood fretboards. Tuners are always wrong too.

11 hours ago, prowla said:

But I like the twin truss-rods!

There's always one, isn't there? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Basschat erm... so I work for an American company, so apploagies for how I will l write this... but I wonder if Basschat reached out to Rickenbacker and tried to come to some understanding... if the answer was about speed of take down of fakers there presumably could be agreements RE how quickly things happened that would suit everyone ... or something. 

anyway, hope you're on the mend @Kiwi 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LukeFRC said:

anyway, hope you're on the mend @Kiwi 

Thanks Luke, we're getting there.  Less wincing this morning.

 

19 minutes ago, LukeFRC said:

I wonder if Basschat reached out to Rickenbacker and tried to come to some understanding... if the answer was about speed of take down of fakers there presumably could be agreements RE how quickly things happened that would suit everyone ... or something. 

I believe the course of action is governed by legal process in the UK.  They'd have to notify us of any infringements first and defiance or a lack of action on our part before threatening legal action.  Beyond that point it could get a little tactical.  I'm not clear on whether they'd take a tactic of issuing a general notice covering all current and future infringements, which would pass the burden and responsibility of policing onto us if we accepted it.  And, whether we could legitimately turn that assertion down on the basis that we don't have in-depth knowledge of Rickenbacker products (which we don't). I'd like to think there's a halfway house where we do our reasonable best based on the general knowledge we have to hand but don't claim any expertise. I was also thinking about whether it might be an idea to set up a dedicated Rickenbacker only subforum to save having to scroll through loads of listings for other items.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kiwi said:

Thanks Luke, we're getting there.  Less wincing this morning.

 

I believe the course of action is governed by legal process in the UK.  They'd have to notify us of any infringements first and defiance or a lack of action on our part before threatening legal action.  Beyond that point it could get a little tactical.  I'm not clear on whether they'd take a tactic of issuing a general notice covering all current and future infringements, which would pass the burden and responsibility of policing onto us if we accepted it.  And, whether we could legitimately turn that assertion down on the basis that we don't have in-depth knowledge of Rickenbacker products (which we don't). I'd like to think there's a halfway house where we do our reasonable best based on the general knowledge we have to hand but don't claim any expertise. I was also thinking about whether it might be an idea to set up a dedicated Rickenbacker only subforum to save having to scroll through loads of listings for other items.  

 

That all sounds good.

 

Of course, one could take a firm, informed decision to return to the matter in, I dunno, twenty years? :lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/01/2022 at 14:09, Downunderwonder said:

They're everywhere. Trouble is a lot of the vintage Fakers are pretty good facsimiles.

 

18 hours ago, prowla said:

Nah - the has never been a factory bass you couldn't spot.

 

6 hours ago, Bassassin said:

There are numerous details they didn't get right - most obviously fretboard timber & inlay material. Never seen a Faker with those murky greyish inlays most Ricks have, and most of them used dark rosewood fretboards. Tuners are always wrong too.

There's always one, isn't there? :P

That's two volunteers for the Faker ( Greatest) Hitsquad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the main reason for keeping Ricks banned should be that that they are terrible, uncomfortable and badly made yet every time I see one I want one. I had one of the midnite blue ones from about 2006 that had the runny paint. It hadn't cured properly so ran under the varnish and turned the binding pale blue

 

The ban is the only reason I haven't bought another one recently despite knowing that as soon as I get it I'll hate it and sell it again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Delberthot said:

I think that the main reason for keeping Ricks banned should be that that they are terrible, uncomfortable and badly made yet every time I see one I want one. I had one of the midnite blue ones from about 2006 that had the runny paint. It hadn't cured properly so ran under the varnish and turned the binding pale blue

 

The ban is the only reason I haven't bought another one recently despite knowing that as soon as I get it I'll hate it and sell it again

They're the best basses money can buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...