skankdelvar

Tape over the pick-ups before letting wire wool within six feet of one's instrument. 

(Someone always mentions it and this time it was my turn).

Hi Emile and welcome to the forum 

Hi fretlessman71 and   to the forum

9 minutes ago, Maude said:

You can have it if it's any use to you. 

Top bloke! I love this forum.

@Stub Mandrel here's a pic of a Tulip bass with a logo still in place - probably / possibly one of the solid metal badges with two pins in the back, can't tell from here.

IMO, £75 is a very fair price for one of these. I've seen similar stuff selling at £150 or more. 

Enjoy your new toy 

Bloke selling a (supposedly) short-scale, 1970s Avon 'Jazz' on eBay, opening at £130, collection NE London or nearby. Rout it for Jazz pups?

15 minutes ago, RhysP said:

He's not shacked up with John Hall is he?

I suppose it's possible. Unlikely, but possible.

For myself, I like the idea of John Hall amending his Twitter profile to 'Ret'd musical instrument maker, hellacious scourge of counterfeiters, learning Welsh'

2 hours ago, fleabag said:

I bet BBC ate it.  Am i right your Skankness ?

I'm not sure what happened to the Vantage because it was not long after our in-person transaction that the Bbc shed the bonds of BassChat and went far away, possibly to a farm in Wales.

He seemed to be a very nice, polite young man so I don't think he ate it.

If the OP is paddling in the waters of 70's-80's Jap basses it might be worth thinking about the Vantage brand (Matsumoku?). They were around for a fair length of time, came with various pick-up configs and they tend to cost less than their better known contemporaries.

There's a single pup Vantage on UK eBay right now for £295 or make an offer: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/255201400775?hash=item3b6b3057c7:g:9NMAAOSwpjBhe8sk

I had a double P Vantage (like the one below) for a few years. Really well constructed, played nice, sounded good. Sold it to the BigBeefChief for about £100-£150 ten years ago.

Vantage: Nice

Through-neck Maple-Glo Ibanez faker. Bought it in 1979, Sold it in 1980.

It was lovely. I was skint. 

A bit like this but w/o the tug-bar

For a change, here's the boring technical stuff ↓

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? 

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.

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. 

Simplest and quickest thing to do would be to email RIC and ask them if they continue to maintain their previous policy in respect of web forums hosting ads for Fakers (instant demands for take-downs, threats of legal action for non-compliance, brutal cavity searches, etc).

If they say Yes, that's still our position, then keep the ban in place. If they say 'no problem' then lift the ban.

18 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

If people reach for the Cheesestrings when there is Roquefort and aged cheddar on the platter

Tru dat.

1 hour ago, tegs07 said:

If it was left to the likes of the Mary Whitehouse brigade the world would be a different place. Max Bigraves would top the charts and Turner and Constable would adorn the Art galleries whilst Dali was banned.

Indeed so. If those fuddy-duddy censors of yesteryear had triumphed we'd now be living in a bland world of inoffensiveness. Instead, Ed Sheeran tops the charts and Banksy rules the world of visual art.
 

What a long, strange journey it's been...
 

1 minute ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It's here!

1 hour ago, TimR said:

"(1)For the purposes of this Act a person discriminates against another if on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins..."

"(1)For the purposes of this Act a person discriminates against another if on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins..." isn't exactly the same thing as xenophobia.

Xenophobia might motivate someone to discriminate against someone else but it's the discrimination which The Act addresses. Indeed, being of a certain age, I can remember back when 'racial discrimination' was the thing that everyone was (rightly) exercised about rather than the animus which motivates the discrimination. 

I mean, you're not wrong but you're not exactly right, either. Happy New year, old chum! 

4 minutes ago, TimR said:

For anyone who still thinks being xenophobic isn't being racist, here's the legislation (from some random website):

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/71/enacted

While I am in agreement that racism and xenophobia* tend to overlap I note that the word 'xenophobia' is used precisely zero times in the 1968 legislation. 

* As the word is defined nowadays rather than in its original sense

What's wrong with being Racey?

3 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Have one on me.

Thanks Steve! 👍

2 minutes ago, Bean9seventy said:

Nope ,, ;D

 

tho we accept the rabbit hole ,, insomuch as

Mark King worked in a top shop so "like you say" noticed

no pick up on fender sales ,, "all" the alternatives were checked "seriously out instead

 

the basic reason Guys,, ""Drum roll"" ,,  was cosmetic ,,,

 

its why i spent at lot of time chasing the marcus miller spate to its origin

Interesting... I'd drop you a Thanks reaction but I'm ↓

9 minutes ago, Bean9seventy said:

Q why Fenders were never the gear of choice for the early funk boppers

Was it because this was the period when lots of players were switching to Arias and Yamahas and other non-Fender stuff?