Rickenbacker bass

[Bassman]

Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass? I'm trying to figure out
if older models are worth buying. They still seem to be quite
expensive but I'm wondering if it makes more sense to just buy a new
one for quality reasons.

[Angus]

"Bassman" wrote:
> Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass?

I looked at several during my last GAS attack, but it passed before I found
one I wanted.

I was told by the bass guy at my local guitar shop that Rickenbackers
originally came with flatwound strings, but people started putting
roundwounds on them. This (apparently) caused neck problems. Later
Rickenbackers (post 1980 or so) compensated. The experts in a.g.b. might
know better.

Buying a new one might be good quality-wise, but they're scarce. I was told
the wait time was a couple months.

David

[5 String]

Angus wrote:
> "Bassman" wrote:
>> Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass?
>
> I looked at several during my last GAS attack, but it passed before I found
> one I wanted.
>
> I was told by the bass guy at my local guitar shop that Rickenbackers
> originally came with flatwound strings, but people started putting
> roundwounds on them. This (apparently) caused neck problems. Later
> Rickenbackers (post 1980 or so) compensated. The experts in a.g.b. might
> know better.
>
> Buying a new one might be good quality-wise, but they're scarce. I was told
> the wait time was a couple months.
>
> David
>
>
New ones are hard to get. Furthermore there are a limited number of
dealers, and they don't look to be expanding that number anytime soon.
MI know of a local shop would *love* to become a Rick dealer but they
won't take him on, due to the production lagtime and they also wanted a
substantial upfront order. Instead there are no Ricks available in Utah
(that I'm aware of..) and the nearest dealer is in Vegas.

--
> www.google.com <enter> <
> search<insert query here> <enter> <
> <
> avoiding newsgroup wiseasses.... PRICELESS. <
> <
> For some things there is usenet <
> For everything else there is google............. <

[Bassman]

On May 6, 12:45?pm, "Angus" <angusporri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bassman" wrote:
> > Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass?
>
> I looked at several during my last GAS attack, but it passed before I found
> one I wanted.
>
> I was told by the bass guy at my local guitar shop that Rickenbackers
> originally came with flatwound strings, but people started putting
> roundwounds on them. This (apparently) caused neck problems. Later
> Rickenbackers (post 1980 or so) compensated. The experts in a.g.b. might
> know better.
>
> Buying a new one might be good quality-wise, but they're scarce. I was told
> the wait time was a couple months.
>
> David

Thanks for the input. I'm not really sure about wait times for them,
but I do know there's a Rickenbacker dealer right down the street from
me. They sell retail though so I'm sure they'd charge an arm and a leg
for one, even if they had new ones in the store.

[SheaNC]

I bought a used Rickenbacker bass in the early 90's for about $400 bucks. It
was AMAZING. It became my main bass (and I mean it replaced a '76 Gibson
Thunderbird). I used roundwounds on it and the neck was so consistently
perfect it never required adjustment. It's the only bass I ever had that
never needed adjustment, in fact. The sound was tremendous. I had a
Rick-O-Sound box too, but I actually ran it in mono to a Blue Tube II
preamp, and it sounded like the wrath of god. Like thunder and lightning in
my hands. Man, buy that used Rickenbacker!

[Tomcatz]

"Bassman" <Civikman@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178465177.345768.62250@u30g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
> Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass? I'm trying to figure out
> if older models are worth buying. They still seem to be quite
> expensive but I'm wondering if it makes more sense to just buy a new
> one for quality reasons.
>

I bought a new Jetglo 4003 last year ...just happened to be in the store and
there it was...so out came the GAS card .
My advice is to play one before you commit, for example, to an online
purchase. Make sure you like the feel, playability etc (as well as the looks
and sound). Like most of us we *believe* they are great. I had tried a
couple before I bought and thought it would be easy to settle down with it.
My experience is that it is a great bass, it came with roundwounds...I
changed to flats and back again. I didn't notice any changes in the neck
etc.
My main point is that, almost one year later, I'm still having troubles
getting use to right hand position for playing. This seems related to
pickup height, string clearances and, of course the pickup cover which is
still on. Depending upon how I adjust these, the strings either hit the
pickups, the cover or even the last frets. I guess that's why the p'up
covers come off - to make some space.

Anyway, I still love it and play it ...just try before you buy ...to me, it
is a different animal.

Steve

[SheaNC]

Here is another thing to consider about the Ric: if you are into palm-muting
at the bridge, it is difficult on a Rickenbacker... but the bridge can be
replaced. :)

[col.starbuck@gmail.com]

Ewwwwwwwwwwww.....I hated the 4003S/5 I had, so I traded it in. (I
wanted a 6-string anyway.) I hope anyone who got it at the Guitar
Center on Halsted St. Chicago a) didn't pay TOO much for it and b) is
giving it a good home. (Hell, I should assume any of you would.)

Starbuck

[Kloka-mo']

That's about consistent with what I remember. As I recall, before 1980,
their truss rods only moved the necks in one direction. If you wanted the
neck to bend the other direction, you loosened the nut, then pulled the neck
in that direction.

--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^
"Angus" <angusporridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_YSdnQ5Y8sVPmKPbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@magma.ca...
>
> I was told by the bass guy at my local guitar shop that Rickenbackers
> originally came with flatwound strings, but people started putting
> roundwounds on them. This (apparently) caused neck problems. Later
> Rickenbackers (post 1980 or so) compensated. The experts in a.g.b. might
> know better.
>
> Buying a new one might be good quality-wise, but they're scarce. I was
> told the wait time was a couple months.
>
> David
>
>

[Bassman]

On May 7, 1:30 am, "SheaNC" <scomerf...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Here is another thing to consider about the Ric: if you are into palm-muting
> at the bridge, it is difficult on a Rickenbacker... but the bridge can be
> replaced. :)

You mean all the way down at the bridge, or near the pickups too? I
sometimes use my right palm to mute the strings but I don't go all the
way down to the bridge, I do it somewhere around the pickups on the
guitar I have.

[Fletch]

On May 6, 8:26 am, Bassman <Civik...@aol.com> wrote:
> Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass? I'm trying to figure out
> if older models are worth buying. They still seem to be quite
> expensive but I'm wondering if it makes more sense to just buy a new
> one for quality reasons.


The problem with all Ricenbacker instruments is that while they are
generally a good idea, their execution is very poor. The bridges are
all out of position by at least an eighth of an inch, the bass bridge
is a piece of crap (but can be tweaked to work right), the pickups are
a good idea, but terribly built (and can also be tweaked to be
adjustable and better sounding) and the 12 string electrics are a
disaster if you've ever played one out of the box. The scale on the
Bass is 32 inches, just a bit short for my taste -- though I do like
the sound of a Rick when it is set up properly, which brings us to the
following...

The owner of the Rickenbacker product line, John Hall, is
unfortunately beyond reluctant to acknowledge these problems and
refuses to listen to genuine expert luthiers and guitar techs who know
about the problems and the KNOWN issues that he will not address. Yes,
Mr. Hall KNOWS WHAT'S WRONG with his instruments and will not fix
them.

That said, if you really gotta have a Rickenbacker, you need -- not
should -- need to send it to Mark Arnquist to have him set it up and
make it what it should be. You will be glad for the added expense of
this step and your Ricky will play like it should because it will
literally be a different instrument than you bought. New or used, if
Mark has not worked on it, you need to have him work on it.

Just go into any Ricky newsgroup and ask them. You'll learn the facts
from many satisfied customers who gave Mark their instrument to fix
all the problems John will not address. And then google Mark. He gets
upwards of five Rickys a week from people who want their instrument to
play and sound right.

And John Hall is furious about this -- but refuses to deal with it and
solve the problems. Not an opinion, just the facts.

I am in no way slanderng John Hall, but his Ricky products stink out
of the factory -- with rare exception. I do not know him, but I know
the products he sells under the Rickenbacker name. I know Mark, too. I
have played many Rickys, and I have played them after Mark has done
his fix on them. They are better for his work, they are what they
should have been out of the factory.

I would like to see Mr. Hall overcome his reluctance and start
producing instruments worthy of the prices he charges.

--Fletch

[Benj]

Fletch wrote:

> I am in no way slanderng John Hall, but his Ricky products stink out
> of the factory -- with rare exception. I do not know him, but I know
> the products he sells under the Rickenbacker name. I know Mark, too. I
> have played many Rickys, and I have played them after Mark has done
> his fix on them. They are better for his work, they are what they
> should have been out of the factory.
>
> I would like to see Mr. Hall overcome his reluctance and start
> producing instruments worthy of the prices he charges.

A while back I was taken with the sound of Ricks but I gave up on the
idea of owning one. The reason can be summed up in two words: John
Hall. The problem is not just workmanship but a company attitude
that has to be experienced to be believed. For fun, go review the old
discussions here about the guy who tried to get a replacement label
for his Rick which he could PROVE was not a knock-off but that wasn't
good enough for John. I really can't understand where so many guitar
makers get these attitudes.

[Llarry]

Sorry to interrupt your rant, but the scale length of a Rickenbacker bass is
33.5 inches, not 32.

I own two.



--
--Llarry Amrose

"I did not go to his funeral, but I wrote a nice letter saying I approved of
it." -- Mark Twain




"Fletch" <geoffarnold@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179159576.624182.306880@p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On May 6, 8:26 am, Bassman <Civik...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass? I'm trying to figure out
> > if older models are worth buying. They still seem to be quite
> > expensive but I'm wondering if it makes more sense to just buy a new
> > one for quality reasons.
>
>
> The problem with all Ricenbacker instruments is that while they are
> generally a good idea, their execution is very poor. The bridges are
> all out of position by at least an eighth of an inch, the bass bridge
> is a piece of crap (but can be tweaked to work right), the pickups are
> a good idea, but terribly built (and can also be tweaked to be
> adjustable and better sounding) and the 12 string electrics are a
> disaster if you've ever played one out of the box. The scale on the
> Bass is 32 inches, just a bit short for my taste -- though I do like
> the sound of a Rick when it is set up properly, which brings us to the
> following...
>
> The owner of the Rickenbacker product line, John Hall, is
> unfortunately beyond reluctant to acknowledge these problems and
> refuses to listen to genuine expert luthiers and guitar techs who know
> about the problems and the KNOWN issues that he will not address. Yes,
> Mr. Hall KNOWS WHAT'S WRONG with his instruments and will not fix
> them.
>
> That said, if you really gotta have a Rickenbacker, you need -- not
> should -- need to send it to Mark Arnquist to have him set it up and
> make it what it should be. You will be glad for the added expense of
> this step and your Ricky will play like it should because it will
> literally be a different instrument than you bought. New or used, if
> Mark has not worked on it, you need to have him work on it.
>
> Just go into any Ricky newsgroup and ask them. You'll learn the facts
> from many satisfied customers who gave Mark their instrument to fix
> all the problems John will not address. And then google Mark. He gets
> upwards of five Rickys a week from people who want their instrument to
> play and sound right.
>
> And John Hall is furious about this -- but refuses to deal with it and
> solve the problems. Not an opinion, just the facts.
>
> I am in no way slanderng John Hall, but his Ricky products stink out
> of the factory -- with rare exception. I do not know him, but I know
> the products he sells under the Rickenbacker name. I know Mark, too. I
> have played many Rickys, and I have played them after Mark has done
> his fix on them. They are better for his work, they are what they
> should have been out of the factory.
>
> I would like to see Mr. Hall overcome his reluctance and start
> producing instruments worthy of the prices he charges.
>
> --Fletch
>

[Stronger Than Dirt (John)]

On May 14, 3:55?pm, "Llarry" <tghll...@msn.com> wrote:
> Sorry to interrupt your rant, but the scale length of a Rickenbacker bass is
> 33.5 inches, not 32.
>
> I own two.
>
> --
> --Llarry Amrose

Actually, it's 32.25 inches, but what's 1/4 inch between friends?

[Ultra Man]

Stronger Than Dirt (John) wrote:
> On May 14, 3:55?pm, "Llarry" <tghll...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Sorry to interrupt your rant, but the scale length of a Rickenbacker bass is
>> 33.5 inches, not 32.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, it's 32.25 inches, but what's 1/4 inch between friends?

According to their site it's thirty THREE.25

[Stronger Than Dirt (John)]

On May 14, 4:52�pm, Ultra Man <no_m...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> Stronger Than Dirt (John) wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 3:55?pm, "Llarry" <tghll...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Sorry to interrupt your rant, but the scale length of a Rickenbacker bass is
> >> 33.5 inches, not 32.
>
> > Actually, it's 32.25 inches, but what's 1/4 inch between friends?
>
> * * * * According to their site it's thirty THREE.25

Whoops. I read that on their site yet typed 32.25.
Brain: one - Finger: zero.

[Fletch]

On May 14, 12:55 pm, "Llarry" <tghll...@msn.com> wrote:
> Sorry to interrupt your rant, but the scale length of a Rickenbacker bass is
> 33.5 inches, not 32.
>
> I own two.
>
> --
> --Llarry Amrose
>
> "I did not go to his funeral, but I wrote a nice letter saying I approved of
> it." -- Mark Twain
>
> "Fletch" <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179159576.624182.306880@p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > On May 6, 8:26 am, Bassman <Civik...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass? I'm trying to figure out
> > > if older models are worth buying. They still seem to be quite
> > > expensive but I'm wondering if it makes more sense to just buy a new
> > > one for quality reasons.
>
> > The problem with all Ricenbacker instruments is that while they are
> > generally a good idea, their execution is very poor. The bridges are
> > all out of position by at least an eighth of an inch, the bass bridge
> > is a piece of crap (but can be tweaked to work right), the pickups are
> > a good idea, but terribly built (and can also be tweaked to be
> > adjustable and better sounding) and the 12 string electrics are a
> > disaster if you've ever played one out of the box. The scale on the
> > Bass is 32 inches, just a bit short for my taste -- though I do like
> > the sound of a Rick when it is set up properly, which brings us to the
> > following...
>
> > The owner of the Rickenbacker product line, John Hall, is
> > unfortunately beyond reluctant to acknowledge these problems and
> > refuses to listen to genuine expert luthiers and guitar techs who know
> > about the problems and the KNOWN issues that he will not address. Yes,
> > Mr. Hall KNOWS WHAT'S WRONG with his instruments and will not fix
> > them.
>
> > That said, if you really gotta have a Rickenbacker, you need -- not
> > should -- need to send it to Mark Arnquist to have him set it up and
> > make it what it should be. You will be glad for the added expense of
> > this step and your Ricky will play like it should because it will
> > literally be a different instrument than you bought. New or used, if
> > Mark has not worked on it, you need to have him work on it.
>
> > Just go into any Ricky newsgroup and ask them. You'll learn the facts
> > from many satisfied customers who gave Mark their instrument to fix
> > all the problems John will not address. And then google Mark. He gets
> > upwards of five Rickys a week from people who want their instrument to
> > play and sound right.
>
> > And John Hall is furious about this -- but refuses to deal with it and
> > solve the problems. Not an opinion, just the facts.
>
> > I am in no way slanderng John Hall, but his Ricky products stink out
> > of the factory -- with rare exception. I do not know him, but I know
> > the products he sells under the Rickenbacker name. I know Mark, too. I
> > have played many Rickys, and I have played them after Mark has done
> > his fix on them. They are better for his work, they are what they
> > should have been out of the factory.
>
> > I would like to see Mr. Hall overcome his reluctance and start
> > producing instruments worthy of the prices he charges.
>
> > --Fletch


Okay, oops, I got the scale length wrong. But that does not diminish
the deeper point of my missive.

However, that does give rise to a curious rhetorical question... why
did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else was/is
doing a 34 inch scale?

The answer "because they could" comes to mind. ;)

--Fletch

[blahx3@earthlink.net]

On May 15, 8:55 am, Fletch <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 12:55 pm, "Llarry" <tghll...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Sorry to interrupt your rant, but the scale length of a Rickenbacker bass is
> > 33.5 inches, not 32.
> > I own two.
> > --Llarry Amrose
> > "Fletch" <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > The problem with all Ricenbacker instruments is that while they are
> > > generally a good idea, their execution is very poor....
> > > Bass is 32 inches, just a bit short for my taste -- though I do like
> > > the sound of a Rick when it is set up properly, which brings us to the
> > > following...
>
> > > The owner of the Rickenbacker product line, John Hall, is
> > > unfortunately beyond reluctant to acknowledge these problems and
> > > refuses to listen to genuine expert luthiers and guitar techs who know
> > > about the problems and the KNOWN issues that he will not address. Yes,
> > > Mr. Hall KNOWS WHAT'S WRONG with his instruments and will not fix
> > > them.
>
> > > That said, if you really gotta have a Rickenbacker, you need -- not
> > > should -- need to send it to Mark Arnquist to have him set it up and
> > > make it what it should be. ....
> > > And John Hall is furious about this -- but refuses to deal with it and
> > > solve the problems. Not an opinion, just the facts.
>
> > > I am in no way slanderng John Hall, but his Ricky products stink out
> > > of the factory -- with rare exception. I do not know him, but I know
> > > the products he sells under the Rickenbacker name. I know Mark, too. I
> > > have played many Rickys, and I have played them after Mark has done
> > > his fix on them. They are better for his work, they are what they
> > > should have been out of the factory.
>
> > > I would like to see Mr. Hall overcome his reluctance and start
> > > producing instruments worthy of the prices he charges.
>
> > > --Fletch
>
> Okay, oops, I got the scale length wrong. But that does not diminish
> the deeper point of my missive.
>
> However, that does give rise to a curious rhetorical question... why
> did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else was/is
> doing a 34 inch scale?
>
> The answer "because they could" comes to mind. ;)

I don't know John Hall, or anybody in the Rickenbacker company,
but...here goes nuthing:

It's hardly unusual for an instrument maker to choose a different
scale length than a competitor's. Les Paul vs. Strat is a typical
example. PRS differs yet, but nobody complains.

On the other hand, First Act's bass' scale length is EXACTLY 34"
long. Available at Walmart.

I played a 4001 for a while because of my small hands. I liked it,
straight out of the box. It was not a defective piece of junk. It was
quirky, different from my previous bass (an Ibanez Jazz copy). It was
ugly to my eyes, but it felt right, and sounded right. Then I
discovered the Fender Mustang, which seems to be made just for me.

IMO, in this modern world of globalization and layoffs, a decision to
remain a US only production for consumer goods is usually both brave
and foolhardy. I know, I live it everyday because it's my line of
work. But in the world of musical instrument, that means a little bit
of uniqueness and can bring a sense of personality among the 6.02 x
10^23 Fender copies being marketed out there. The truth is that the
company sells all the instruments it make, even a premium price.
There's a waiting list a mile long, so it's doing something right.

As a business owner, you would find that there's always at least one
customer who thinks he/she can do a better job than you; but from both
a business and product value stand point, Rickenbacker is already
doing a good job of survival in a very competitive world.

Tho

[handgunner@webtv.net]

--Fletch wrote;
... why did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else
was/is doing a 34 inch scale?
The answer "because they could" comes to mind. ;)
--Fletch

What you've got to remember is when Ric brought out their first Bass
they were only the Second successful electric Bass to come out after the
P. The 34" scale length was not the "standard" yet, just an arbitrary
number Leo had pulled out of his hat. Since then 34" has become the norm
due to Fenders position in the industry and all it's clones.

[Jim Carr]

<blahx3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1179248185.694570.78980@k79g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...

> IMO, in this modern world of globalization and layoffs, a decision to
> remain a US only production for consumer goods is usually both brave
> and foolhardy.

It's a shame, though, that there always seem to be wait of at least a few
months to get something from them. On the surface it seems kind of foolish
to tell someone willing to drop $1,100 on a bass that he will have to wait
three months or more since that money is probably burning a hole in his
pocket. But then again maybe they know something I don't.

[Brian Running]

> However, that does give rise to a curious rhetorical question... why
> did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else was/is
> doing a 34 inch scale?

It's a metric conversion. Originally, the scale length was 6.02
hectares, and when it's converted to imperial gallons, you get 33.25.
Or not.

[Derek Tearne]

Fletch <geoffarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

> However, that does give rise to a curious rhetorical question... why
> did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else was/is
> doing a 34 inch scale?

34 inches is the 'norm' now because the most popular Fender basses and
their derivatives, over the last 50 odd years were 34 inches.

However, in the early 50's, when Gibson, Rickenbacker and others were
designing their basses there really was no standard to follow.

Both Gibson and Rickenbacker were much better established instrument
makers, and their designers had a lot of experience to draw on. There's
no reason at all why they should copy Fenders design or scale length, in
fact they probably considered they knew better than the self taught
upstart.

As it turned out they both chose shorter scales than Leo, as did Paul
Tutmarc (who built the first horizontal electric bass 20 years before).

So, it's more of a case that Leo Fender's scale length was the unusual
choice in the 50's. The instrument makers who started business in the
late 50's/60's were much more strongly influenced by the Fender design,
which was clearly the market leader at that stage.

Looking back, it could so easily have gone differently - if Tutmarc had
been a better marketer we'd be thinking of 30 1/2 as 'standard' (and had
another 20 years of playing history, Mingus would have been Jaco etc),
if Leo had chosen a different scale length, or if any of Gibson's early
experiments had caught on, we could be using anything from 30 to 42
inches as 'standard'.

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/

[Kloka-mo']

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message news:OFp2i.105
>
> It's a metric conversion. Originally, the scale length was 6.02 hectares,
> and when it's converted to imperial gallons, you get 33.25. Or not.


I was once arrested for converting 6.02 Hectars into Californians..

--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^

[timbo]

On 2007-05-15, Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
>> However, that does give rise to a curious rhetorical question... why
>> did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else was/is
>> doing a 34 inch scale?
>
> It's a metric conversion. Originally, the scale length was 6.02
> hectares, and when it's converted to imperial gallons, you get 33.25.
> Or not.

damn, i doubt you'd make it to mars...

;)

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

[blahx3@earthlink.net]

On May 15, 2:07 pm, "Jim Carr" <newsgro...@azwebpages.com> wrote:
> <bla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1179248185.694570.78980@k79g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> > IMO, in this modern world of globalization and layoffs, a decision to
> > remain a US only production for consumer goods is usually both brave
> > and foolhardy.
>
> It's a shame, though, that there always seem to be wait of at least a few
> months to get something from them. On the surface it seems kind of foolish
> to tell someone willing to drop $1,100 on a bass that he will have to wait
> three months or more since that money is probably burning a hole in his
> pocket. But then again maybe they know something I don't.

I can't read their mind, but it isn't necessarily as dumb as it seems,
depending on what the ultimate goal for the business is. If you apply
standard big corporation rules, it is not good logic, but if you are
running a private company, eyeing for long term survival, it's not a
bad approach.

Considering the following:
1. limited market (not everybody is going to buy one)
2. doesn't need to answer to the boss regarding maximizing sales THIS
year/month/week.
3. preserve the brand identity (Made in USA!!!!) for the next few
decades
4. minimize capital expenditure (necessary to increase production to
meet today's demand).
5. minimize the risk for downsizing later ("who enjoys laying-off
people? Please raise your hand") when demand go down.
6. aim for long term control (not selling off the company and move to
Bermuda)
7. .....

The jist of it is that if all they want to do is focusing on a niche
bassist market, getting a healthy profit, and maintain control of the
company fate for the next few decades, then they are in a pretty good
position.

There is no need, in this particular case, to worry about balancing
the reputations of Rickenbacker-USA vs. Rickenbacker-Mexico, compete
against 120$ First Act copies, etc.

That's not a bad place to be for a company owner(s) who wants to
control its path for the next few decades. Sure, not everybody will
get to own a Ric because of this, but that's not the main purpose for
the company, is it?

I saw a "made in USA" segment for this company in the History Channel.
Their manufacturing set up is pretty much what I would expect from a
mid-sized private company's resources. It's not super lean, there
aren't a lot of robotic thingies, and they rely on a lot of "old
hands." But as long as the demand is there, they will survive because
they are managing their brand name integrity (and as long as the
owners enjoy doing what they're doing).

Tho

[Bassman]

On May 14, 12:19?pm, Fletch <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 8:26 am, Bassman <Civik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass? I'm trying to figure out
> > if older models are worth buying. They still seem to be quite
> > expensive but I'm wondering if it makes more sense to just buy a new
> > one for quality reasons.
>
> The problem with all Ricenbacker instruments is that while they are
> generally a good idea, their execution is very poor. The bridges are
> all out of position by at least an eighth of an inch, the bass bridge
> is a piece of crap (but can be tweaked to work right), the pickups are
> a good idea, but terribly built (and can also be tweaked to be
> adjustable and better sounding) and the 12 string electrics are a
> disaster if you've ever played one out of the box. The scale on the
> Bass is 32 inches, just a bit short for my taste -- though I do like
> the sound of a Rick when it is set up properly, which brings us to the
> following...
>
> The owner of the Rickenbacker product line, John Hall, is
> unfortunately beyond reluctant to acknowledge these problems and
> refuses to listen to genuine expert luthiers and guitar techs who know
> about the problems and the KNOWN issues that he will not address. Yes,
> Mr. Hall KNOWS WHAT'S WRONG with his instruments and will not fix
> them.
>
> That said, if you really gotta have a Rickenbacker, you need -- not
> should -- need to send it to Mark Arnquist to have him set it up and
> make it what it should be. You will be glad for the added expense of
> this step and your Ricky will play like it should because it will
> literally be a different instrument than you bought. New or used, if
> Mark has not worked on it, you need to have him work on it.
>
> Just go into any Ricky newsgroup and ask them. You'll learn the facts
> from many satisfied customers who gave Mark their instrument to fix
> all the problems John will not address. And then google Mark. He gets
> upwards of five Rickys a week from people who want their instrument to
> play and sound right.
>
> And John Hall is furious about this -- but refuses to deal with it and
> solve the problems. Not an opinion, just the facts.
>
> I am in no way slanderng John Hall, but his Ricky products stink out
> of the factory -- with rare exception. I do not know him, but I know
> the products he sells under the Rickenbacker name. I know Mark, too. I
> have played many Rickys, and I have played them after Mark has done
> his fix on them. They are better for his work, they are what they
> should have been out of the factory.
>
> I would like to see Mr. Hall overcome his reluctance and start
> producing instruments worthy of the prices he charges.
>
> --Fletch

You sound very knowledgeable about guitars. I do love the sound of a
Rickenbacker bass, however. More so, I'd say, than other bass guitars
I've played or heard.

[Jim Carr]

<blahx3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1179276973.308134.151410@q23g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...

> I can't read their mind, but it isn't necessarily as dumb as it seems,
> depending on what the ultimate goal for the business is. If you apply
> standard big corporation rules, it is not good logic, but if you are
> running a private company, eyeing for long term survival, it's not a
> bad approach.

You make some excellent points. It is what it is. They are definitely losing
sales right now, but you are correct that it may not mean they are missing
out on profit. If they were publicly traded, you can bet they would be
meeting demand since stock price is often driven much more on revenue than
income. Obviously these guys have a definite plan in mind.

You can't get a Rick 360 12 string in Mapleglo until December 2007. Other
Rics aren't available until June (which was the date given a couple of
months ago) or August. I'm not sure any of the major online retailers has
any kind of Rics in stock right now. Hopefully someday my willingness to
splurge will coincide with their ability to provide me the product!

[Brian Running]

>> It's a metric conversion. Originally, the scale length was 6.02
>> hectares, and when it's converted to imperial gallons, you get 33.25.
>> Or not.
>
> damn, i doubt you'd make it to mars...

Mars?! I sure as hell hope not! You know something I don't?

[timbo]

On 2007-05-16, Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
>>> It's a metric conversion. Originally, the scale length was 6.02
>>> hectares, and when it's converted to imperial gallons, you get 33.25.
>>> Or not.
>>
>> damn, i doubt you'd make it to mars...
>
> Mars?! I sure as hell hope not! You know something I don't?

yeah, remember that spacecraft that crashed because someone couldn't convert
feet to millimetres a few years ago..? or was it chains to decalitres...?

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

[Brian Running]

>>> damn, i doubt you'd make it to mars...
>> Mars?! I sure as hell hope not! You know something I don't?
>
> yeah, remember that spacecraft that crashed because someone couldn't convert
> feet to millimetres a few years ago..? or was it chains to decalitres...?

Well, that's a relief. I don't think I could have fit a Mars trip into
my schedule today...

[Fletch]

On May 15, 1:53 pm, handgun...@webtv.net wrote:
> --Fletch wrote;
> .. why did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else
> was/is doing a 34 inch scale?
> The answer "because they could" comes to mind. ;)
> --Fletch
>
> What you've got to remember is when Ric brought out their first Bass
> they were only the Second successful electric Bass to come out after the
> P. The 34" scale length was not the "standard" yet, just an arbitrary
> number Leo had pulled out of his hat. Since then 34" has become the norm
> due to Fenders position in the industry and all it's clones.


I would argue that the number Leo pulled was arbitrary. I believe he
based his scale length on the stand up bass scale length, which is in
the neightbourhood of 34 inches.

--Fletch

[Fletch]

On May 15, 7:28 pm, Bassman <Civik...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 12:19?pm, Fletch <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 8:26 am, Bassman <Civik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Has anyone bought a used Rickenbacker bass? I'm trying to figure out
> > > if older models are worth buying. They still seem to be quite
> > > expensive but I'm wondering if it makes more sense to just buy a new
> > > one for quality reasons.
>
> > The problem with all Ricenbacker instruments is that while they are
> > generally a good idea, their execution is very poor. The bridges are
> > all out of position by at least an eighth of an inch, the bass bridge
> > is a piece of crap (but can be tweaked to work right), the pickups are
> > a good idea, but terribly built (and can also be tweaked to be
> > adjustable and better sounding) and the 12 string electrics are a
> > disaster if you've ever played one out of the box. The scale on the
> > Bass is 32 inches, just a bit short for my taste -- though I do like
> > the sound of a Rick when it is set up properly, which brings us to the
> > following...
>
> > The owner of the Rickenbacker product line, John Hall, is
> > unfortunately beyond reluctant to acknowledge these problems and
> > refuses to listen to genuine expert luthiers and guitar techs who know
> > about the problems and the KNOWN issues that he will not address. Yes,
> > Mr. Hall KNOWS WHAT'S WRONG with his instruments and will not fix
> > them.
>
> > That said, if you really gotta have a Rickenbacker, you need -- not
> > should -- need to send it to Mark Arnquist to have him set it up and
> > make it what it should be. You will be glad for the added expense of
> > this step and your Ricky will play like it should because it will
> > literally be a different instrument than you bought. New or used, if
> > Mark has not worked on it, you need to have him work on it.
>
> > Just go into any Ricky newsgroup and ask them. You'll learn the facts
> > from many satisfied customers who gave Mark their instrument to fix
> > all the problems John will not address. And then google Mark. He gets
> > upwards of five Rickys a week from people who want their instrument to
> > play and sound right.
>
> > And John Hall is furious about this -- but refuses to deal with it and
> > solve the problems. Not an opinion, just the facts.
>
> > I am in no way slanderng John Hall, but his Ricky products stink out
> > of the factory -- with rare exception. I do not know him, but I know
> > the products he sells under the Rickenbacker name. I know Mark, too. I
> > have played many Rickys, and I have played them after Mark has done
> > his fix on them. They are better for his work, they are what they
> > should have been out of the factory.
>
> > I would like to see Mr. Hall overcome his reluctance and start
> > producing instruments worthy of the prices he charges.
>
> > --Fletch
>
> You sound very knowledgeable about guitars. I do love the sound of a
> Rickenbacker bass, however. More so, I'd say, than other bass guitars
> I've played or heard.


The Sound of a Ric is great, that isn't the issue. I love them for
that. But should I ever get one, it goes to Mark Arnquist immediately
so that it will play like it should.

Play a Dingwall. By far one of the most interesting and playable
basses I've ever had the pleasure to hold. Can't yet afford one.

--Fletch

[timbo]

On 2007-05-16, Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
>>>> damn, i doubt you'd make it to mars...
>>> Mars?! I sure as hell hope not! You know something I don't?
>>
>> yeah, remember that spacecraft that crashed because someone couldn't convert
>> feet to millimetres a few years ago..? or was it chains to decalitres...?
>
> Well, that's a relief. I don't think I could have fit a Mars trip into
> my schedule today...

well, yeah, me neither. the australian space agency really hasn't got it's
shit together enough for that just quite yet.

really though, it was a dig at your imperial/AF/metric conversion post ;)

i'm sure you know where i am now...


some people say i have a bizarre sense of humour...

other people just call me a dickhead.

i tend not to care either way :)

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

[timbo]

On 2007-05-16, Fletch <geoffarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 1:53 pm, handgun...@webtv.net wrote:
>> --Fletch wrote;
>> .. why did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else
>> was/is doing a 34 inch scale?
>> The answer "because they could" comes to mind. ;)
>> --Fletch
>>
>> What you've got to remember is when Ric brought out their first Bass
>> they were only the Second successful electric Bass to come out after the
>> P. The 34" scale length was not the "standard" yet, just an arbitrary
>> number Leo had pulled out of his hat. Since then 34" has become the norm
>> due to Fenders position in the industry and all it's clones.
>
>
> I would argue that the number Leo pulled was arbitrary. I believe he
> based his scale length on the stand up bass scale length, which is in
> the neightbourhood of 34 inches.
>
> --Fletch
>

no doubt you'll get a few of these responses, but most 3/4 upright have a
scale length somewhere in the order of 42" or so. there is no standard
though, but that seems to be the average at the moment.

cue Bob:

<http://www.urbbob.com/FAQ-size.html>

i must say, i'd hate to have a 42" scale P-bass...

cheers,

timbo

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

[Brian Running]

> really though, it was a dig at your imperial/AF/metric conversion post ;)

A dig?! Are you suggesting, sir, that there was something assailable in
my calculations? ;-)

[timbo]

On 2007-05-16, Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
>> really though, it was a dig at your imperial/AF/metric conversion post ;)
>
> A dig?! Are you suggesting, sir, that there was something assailable in
> my calculations? ;-)

ooh, my bad, were there calculations involved?

i'm sorry, i just dropped my scrambled eggs on the keyboard...

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com

[Stronger Than Dirt (John)]

On May 16, 11:06?am, Fletch <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would argue that the number Leo pulled was arbitrary. I believe he
> based his scale length on the stand up bass scale length, which is in
> the neightbourhood of 34 inches.
>
> --Fletch

Upright bass scale lengths are in the neighborhood of 42 inches, not
34.

[blahx3@earthlink.net]

On May 16, 8:06 am, Fletch <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 1:53 pm, handgun...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > --Fletch wrote;
> > .. why did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else
> > was/is doing a 34 inch scale?
> > The answer "because they could" comes to mind. ;)
> > --Fletch
>
> > What you've got to remember is when Ric brought out their first Bass
> > they were only the Second successful electric Bass to come out after the
> > P. The 34" scale length was not the "standard" yet, just an arbitrary
> > number Leo had pulled out of his hat. Since then 34" has become the norm
> > due to Fenders position in the industry and all it's clones.
>
> I would argue that the number Leo pulled was arbitrary. I believe he
> based his scale length on the stand up bass scale length, which is in
> the neightbourhood of 34 inches.
>
> --Fletch

I beg to differ:

The normal double bass (aka, 3/4 bass) has a 41.3"-41.5" scale length.
The more unusual sizes (1/2, 1/4) are shorter, but nothing around 34"

Reference: http://www.urbbob.com/FAQ-size.html

This is one of the major reasons why an acoustic bass guitar with a
34" scale length, using 34" string tension will not sound like a 2x
bass, regardless of body size.

Tho

[Derek Tearne]

Fletch <geoffarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would argue that the number Leo pulled was arbitrary. I believe he
> based his scale length on the stand up bass scale length, which is in
> the neightbourhood of 34 inches.

Upright bass is more like 42" - and based on the sizes of other
instruments in the violin/viol family it should really be a lot longer -
obviously that would be quite tricky to play though so only a couple of
instruments have been made with that scale length.

Different Fender histories give different rationales for the scale
length, one suggests they used a physics text book to come up with the
length - that sounds bogus to me though - there's nothing special about
34". Another suggests trial and error starting at 30" and going as high
as 36" - with 34" being the most comfortable compromise.

Much longer than 34" becomes tricky for someone to play on a bass held
horizontally. They were aiming to encourage guitarists used to 25 1/2"
telecasters to take up the new instrument and didn't want to discourage
them with a longer scale.

So they pretty much picked the longest scale that was comfortable
especially for guitarists and which would work with the strings and
technology available at the time.

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/

[Les Cargill]

handgunner@webtv.net wrote:

> --Fletch wrote;
> .. why did they decide to go shorter than the norm when everyone else
> was/is doing a 34 inch scale?
> The answer "because they could" comes to mind. ;)
> --Fletch
>
> What you've got to remember is when Ric brought out their first Bass
> they were only the Second successful electric Bass to come out after the
> P. The 34" scale length was not the "standard" yet, just an arbitrary
> number Leo had pulled out of his hat.

It's pretty close to the scale of a middling sized URB.

Since then 34" has become the norm
> due to Fenders position in the industry and all it's clones.
>

--
Les Cargill

[Fletch]

On May 16, 9:57 am, "Stronger Than Dirt (John)" <skoki...@aol.com>
wrote:
> On May 16, 11:06?am, Fletch <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I would argue that the number Leo pulled was arbitrary. I believe he
> > based his scale length on the stand up bass scale length, which is in
> > the neightbourhood of 34 inches.
>
> > --Fletch
>
> Upright bass scale lengths are in the neighborhood of 42 inches, not
> 34.


I think I need anouther cup of coffee, then. My brain is clearly
malfunctioning. Sorry.

--Fletch

[timbo]

On 2007-05-17, Fletch <geoffarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 9:57 am, "Stronger Than Dirt (John)" <skoki...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> On May 16, 11:06?am, Fletch <geoffarn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I would argue that the number Leo pulled was arbitrary. I believe he
>> > based his scale length on the stand up bass scale length, which is in
>> > the neightbourhood of 34 inches.
>>
>> > --Fletch
>>
>> Upright bass scale lengths are in the neighborhood of 42 inches, not
>> 34.
>
>
> I think I need anouther cup of coffee, then. My brain is clearly
> malfunctioning. Sorry.
>
> --Fletch
>

heh, don't worry about it ;) you certainly were beaten down quite
comprehensively on that one though..

happens to the best of us!

cheers,

timbo.

--

http://www.skyrockats.com