Bassassin

Bloody hell, I go away for a day & you lot just fall to pieces! This look familiar? [url="http://www.matsumoku.org/models/aria/bass/a-100_200.html"]http://www.matsumoku.org/models/aria/bass/a-100_200.html[/url] Quite possible it wasn't marketed as an Aria in the UK - although the one in the scan is unbranded, so it may have been. No telling really (but I'll make an educated guess) where it was built - prior to 1975, there's no proven connection between Aria & Matsumoku, ands IMO this bass isn't Matsumoku. Aria probably sourced their instruments from a variety of different factories prior to settling with "Uncle Mat" around 1975 - and this Burns-wannabe will have been from one of them. A factory called Moridaira were known for using that 6-screw neckplate (ever wondered where MusicMan pinched the idea? ) so I'd speculate it was from there. Moridaira was one of the less well-known builders, and probably best-known for their own Morris brand. They're still going now, building high-end acoustics. As far as brands are concerned, I've seen this sort of thing with Audition & Top Twenty (Woolies own brand! ) on the head - I don't think any of the names Adee listed (apart from Kawai & Aria) were UK brands. Kay is also a possibility - I have a Moridaira - built Kay Precision copy (anyone want to buy it ?), which suggests Kay may have sourced other models from there. I really wouldn't want to stick my neck out about value - but this is identical to the Aria on the Matsumoku site, and looks original and complete, which is really unusual for an instrument of this ilk/era. Vintage Arias don't attract the Ebay idiots the way Ibanez do, but they're getting there. A good ad, with all the searchable buzzwords in the title, good photos & a well-timed listing would probably see this thing into 3 figures. [i]Probably[/i]. Jon.

Jihemt - once again, you're right (& your English is fine - don't worry! ) - the price of copies being pushed up was one of the issues I wanted to discuss with John Hall & the RIC forum people - I joined up there, and asked all these questions very politely. Hall removed my post within about 10 minutes, and banned me from the board! He is accessible & I did have an email discussion with him about some of these things - the prices & demand for copies is an unfortunate side-effect of what he says he [i]has[/i] to do to retain his trademark. I do actually have quite a lot of respect for his integrity - Gibson & Fender etc have taken the easy option & licensed their designs to overseas builders - hence Squier & Epiphone, etc. Rickenbacker refuse to do this - they are a small, family-run (owned entirely by Hall & his wife) business, and as such maintain an exceptionally high quality standard for a mass-produced instrument. Hall is committed to keeping it this way - he's not interested in making more money by building cheaper, imported branded copies, Rickenbacker's reputation is based on its quality & exclusivity. Although this annoys me as a collector of old Jap copies - I have massive respect for his principles on this, and (grudgingly!) support him. I'm less impressed with Hall's actions regarding the Hipshot bridge. The point is, Rickenbacker are designing, and apparently close to launching, a completely redesigned 4001/4003 bridge/tailpiece, which apparently addresses all the issues the original has - poor intonation adjustment, inflexible height adjustment, "tail lift", etc. Hipshot's bridge, which already addresses all of these issues, has been on the market for some time, at a fairly reasonable price, and has been deservedly popular. It doesn't seem to have bothered RIC up until now. Hall has now decided, because the base plate shape is the same as the Rick original (it bears no other resemblance), that it's an infringement, and is chasing Hipshot to cease & desist. He claims that while the bridge is a well-engineered & inexpensive (compared to the original part) replacement, using the same shape footprint as the original was nothing but a cynical ploy to ensnare RIC customers by trading on a copyrighted design. He claims Hipshot could have made the bridge any shape and it would have been just as efficient. While the last point is in some way true, one can't help thinking that the fact that RIC is intending to launch a redesigned bridge, which is likely to bear rather more relation to the modern Hipshot design, than the current 50s/60s era Rick bridge, means he wants the competition out of the way. RIC have already stated that their new product will be "expensive" and will be dearer than the current price for the Hipshot. J.

You're quite right about all that, Jihemt. Rickenbacker own trademarks to all branding & all parts of the design of their instruments - body, headstock, hardware (Rickenbacker are currently putting pressure on Hipshot to cease production of their replacement bridge. Doesn't look much like the original, though, does it? ) and [i]apparently[/i], under US law, a trademark owner must actively pursue all visible infringements (including ones from 30 years ago) or they run the risk of losing the trademark. Rickenbacker is a small company, and wants to stay that way, so they're down on the copyists, current & past, to preserve their market share. This is according to RIC CEO John Hall - who I've actually discussed this with, via email. There's a tiny discrepancy here, relating to the copies. The US trademark registry is a public record, and if you dig, it appears that Rickenbacker registered most of their TMs in the late 90s/early 2000s, presumably when Hall modernised the old company & formed Rickenbacker International Corp. Which obviously means that all those 70s copies were built to that design [b]before[/b] Rickenbacker registered its ownership of the design - and it would presumably only take one manufacturer (Ibanez, for example, since they're still trading) to hold up an old 70s copy in court & say - "but look - here's one we made earlier. In 1975, to be exact" - for all of RICs trademarks to be void. So pulling the auctions is effectively sweeping the old copies under the carpet & hiding them from public view. Sale of these things is in no way illegal, but if Ebay don't pull them when RIC request, they likely face the risk of John Hall taking them to court for facilitating the sale of counterfeit goods. J.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='19457' date='Jun 18 2007, 08:27 AM']If you're dealing with nitro-cellulose finishes, try the [i]Brasso[/i] cotton wadding (not liquid [i]Brasso[/i] - too abrasive). This isn't a joke ... I use it on my vintage Hofners when I first get them, and they're usually seriously crudded up.[/quote] On fingerboards? Wouldn't that leave a white residue in the grain? I use Brasso on light abrasions on lacquer - polishes out a lot of hairline scratches, kind of like T-cut on a car. J.

Just to split hairs - that listing hasn't been pulled - the seller ended it early. He says it's because someone's pointed out it's not actually a real one! He wants to re-list it as a copy, presumably. J.

I've read that it's a terrible idea, because it contains all sorts of nasty glue-dissolving solvents. However, I have tried it myself.... Wouldn't think it would cause drying out - it's a lubricant after all, presumably once the solvents evaporate the oily residue's left over. Lemming oil smells nicer, though. Jon.

Is this actually a serious instrument? This was conceived & manufactured to be sold in a fashion shop, and is described as "a ready-to-play power gift" in the link I followed from the ad. The case contains a built-in "amplifier". Doesn't seem to me there'd be very much point in making a bass to a particularly high standard, if it's only intended to be sold as a fashion-brand yuppie toy. Jon.

[quote name='Stag' post='14351' date='Jun 8 2007, 07:36 PM']October 1982 according to the serial number. It is an odd thing, which is half the reason I bought it... about 7 years ago now. woodenshirt : I was a bit "Eh?" about the split pickguard as well! Bit of an oddity I must say. One of these days ill use the neck pickup :-)[/quote] It's odd alright! Says 4001 on the TRC, has a mid 80s split plate & big gap between neck & pup, and early 70s wavy Grovers. Is the colour a refin, do you think? Usually the white (I'm guessing it would have been white but has aged rather nicely!) went with black hardware/ binding - I can see paler binding on yours, if I'm not mistaken. I'd guess it's a bit of a hybrid or a one-off. Either way, it's right luvverly! Jon.

[quote name='Worf' post='18045' date='Jun 15 2007, 09:47 AM']Raaaghr! Such is the way of the warrior. [url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOFfLVLod7c"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOFfLVLod7c[/url] K'pla![/quote] Apropos of nowt - I'm sure I remember reading, back in my Trekkie days, that the actor who plays Worf is a bassist. That pointy bass is interesting art - but nowhere near enough strings for prog! J

Sorry - quite stark & unpleasant to read - typeface too dark, background a bit too bright - ever wondered why books are usually printed on off-white paper? Using a monitor accentuates eye fatigue in the first place. Also, a couple of PMs were waiting for me when ChaseBat "came back" - appears the old formatting for quote & image tags no longer work & the old smileys don't work either, at least in PMs [push in the truck] [flower of power] [Top Ten hit] Good to see [i]some[/i] things are the same. Jon.

I'll butt back into this, as it's in danger of becoming a bitchfest (can we say "bitch"? Seems we can.) and state that really the point is that the filter here is the problem. I regularly use about 5 other boards which have profanity filtering - these either substitute vowels, or replace words with ****s, and work on a carefully & intelligently selected list of words, rather than what looks like random selections of letters within other words, selected by an educationally subnormal American with a predilection for gay porn! Joking aside - it's the nature of the filter in use here, rather than the fact there is one. I never gave it any consideration (and I don't think I swore, either) until it started mangling my PMs! Hopefully it'll be tweaked until it's workable, given time - or better, replaced by a less obtrusive, more language-sympathetic substitute. You girls can get back to your hair-pulling now. J.

[quote name='jihemt' post='17779' date='Jun 14 2007, 06:43 PM']mmmh..if i sell it, i'll stay away from ebay i think. on a first time, i'll try to propose it on this topic for some serious "connoisseurs !' my friend is selling its 4003 for 1200 euros, which is less than all i see here in France.. (ok, its a friend price and he know that i play many Macca titles !)..[/quote] €1200 is a very good price for a Rick, particularly if it's in good condition. As far as your Ibanez is concerned, outside of Ebay - and particularly on here, if that's what you're planning, I doubt you'll get anything like the €740 you might get on Ebay. I might be wrong, but I think you'll have to be prepared to accept quite a bit less. Considering how rare the Ibanez Rick copies are, I think you'd be better off keeping it, and maybe looking at other ways of raising the money. The Ibanez will become more rare & more collectable, after all. J.

[quote name='jihemt' post='17745' date='Jun 14 2007, 05:45 PM']what would be, according to all of you, the "average" price for theses ibanez copies ? i'll maybe sell mine (maybe !!!) to get money to buy a "real" 4003 that a friend of mine plan to let go... cruel dilemmna !! [/quote] Depends if you can get an Ebay auction to run to completion without it being pulled by the RickenCops. I've seen them fetch around, and slightly over, £500. That's specifically Ibanez-branded ones, because Ebay idiots will pay a premium for that name. I've often commented on the ridiculousness of that, given that I've seen real Ricks sell outside Ebay for not much more. Your Ibanez probably wouldn't get as much in a private sale, though - "Ebay Madness" is a big factor! How much is your friend looking for for the 4003? J.

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='17270' date='Jun 13 2007, 11:02 PM']Another "Ibanez" surfaces ... [url="http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rickenbacker-Copy-Bass-Guitar-in-case-for-restoration_W0QQitemZ250130079834QQihZ015QQcategoryZ4713QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem"]http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rickenbacker-Copy-Ba...1QQcmdZViewItem[/url][/quote] Unusual to see a Southpaw - the only other I've seen is Deksawyer's (did he come over from BT or get sick of all the running & hiding?) and his is an Ibanez. Strangely, if the number the guy quotes is a serial number, it looks consistent with Fuji Gen numbering, so it might in fact have been sold as an Ibanez. Wonder if it has checked binding? J.

[quote name='David Nimrod' post='16965' date='Jun 13 2007, 03:41 PM']Geddy talks about being 'funky' but although I rate him as a rock player, unless I'm missing something, he just ain't funky![/quote] No - much as I love him, he's one of the most funk-free bassists ever! I can only think he means contextually - funky compared to [i]La Villa Strangiato[/i], rather than funky like James Brown! J.

It doesn't understand plurals of the same evil word, either: [member of the ladies tennis circuit] lesbians WT[push in the truck]? J.

It's also upset by certain anatomical terms, which are neither offensive nor insulting, such as [Mars and Venus], [Allota Fagine] or [Skoda Fabia], yet we can all say vulva, clitoris, testicles and scrotum without hurting anyone! Isn't that nice? It also seems to like a profusion of terms for hardcore [men's crack florist squad] sex activities, too. Except for [lucky dipping]. J.

dlloyd - we're probably broadly singing from the same hymn sheet - my daughter (who's 14 now) started swearing like it was a "naughty" thing when she came into regular contact with a range of children from various backgrounds, once she started school. Prior to that, I'd not really attempted to shield her from bad language - but she would really only hear it in context, so it wasn't something she was any more likely to repeat than stuff about basses! However it was important to contextualise it once she actually started using it - telling her that random swearing just made you look a bit dim, rather than it being shocking, was effective - but the fact she'd heard these words in context and attached little importance to them, made it probably quite a lot easier. I'd still maintain UK based web forums won't be subject to the Public Order Act, any legislation is a lot more likely to be comparable to the kinds of laws that govern print publication or broadcasting. Any language filter is going to leave the original point /intent of the word concerned plainly apparent - which is really why they're little more than prudish irritations, in my opinion. I was particularly irked by the new one here when it suddenly started making PM correspondences unreadable - I'm sometimes apt to express myself with a bit more colour in a private correspondence - but evidently not private enough. And the last bit proves my point - pretending people aren't swearing ain't gonna make 'em play nice! J.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16352' date='Jun 12 2007, 04:56 PM']Okay, I wasn't aware that you were that serious about it. I'll take you through it. It is inappropriate to swear in front of children. You swear loudly and repeatedly in public, particularly in front of kids, and you'll soon attract the attentions of the law. Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 as ammended by POA 1994 and all that. You can argue a defence based on reasonable use, or that your words were not intended in an abusive way, but that would involve a court appearance and most people go with the caution. Do you consider internet forums a special case? That they shouldn't be subject to the same norms of communication as "real life"? Replacing the words with thinly disguised euphemisms is another matter, one that I wasn't really touching on.[/quote] "Inappropriate"? Why? Are you speaking strictly from a legal perspective or is that a personal moral standpoint? If the former, it's outwith what I'm really interested in discussing, if the latter, your personal values are your own concern & I won't argue with that - but it's always interesting to hear reasons, rather than unsupported absolutes. Internet forums [i]aren't[/i] subject to the laws you mention - which is why they self-regulate, as this one is attempting to do. "Replacing the words with thinly disguised euphemisms" is really the whole point of this discussion – remember your earlier point was this: [quote name='dlloyd' post='16252' date='Jun 12 2007, 02:28 PM']I'd feel the same if we were talking about an adults only forum, but (and maybe I'm making assumptions) this forum should be open for everyone including 12 year old kids (or younger) who may have just taken up the bass. I think the language should be tempered accordingly.[/quote] - Where you support the forum's censorship in order to make it suitable for younger users. The examples & legal recourses you mention are extreme, and entirely inapplicable to an internet forum. As I mentioned before, the original BW had no profanity filter, yet I very seldom encountered any "offensive" language there, and when I did, it was at least contextually relevant. The nature of self-expression via keyboard is entirely different to "real life" and hardly comparable - it's simply not possible to have the kind of spontaneous outburst of profanity you describe - on the contrary, everything you read is by comparison, very carefully considered. That makes it hard to see autocensors as doing anything useful, beyond imposing predetermined prudery upon users - often with the sort of idiotic results we've been seeing lately. The other side of this is that for any remotely articulate person, it's incredibly easy to be massively insulting and offensive, without any recourse to profane language at all. J.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16322' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:57 PM']It's one thing for kids to be discovering the complexities and delights of adverbial epithets for theirselves. That's fine and expected although not all kids choose to use flowery language. It's another thing for it to be imposed on them from adults using a public forum. Think of it as an extension of real life... swearing is generally tolerated in an adults only situation, such as in a pub. You do it repeatedly in a shopping centre where families are walking past and you'll get a seat in white van with fluorescent detailing.[/quote] Aside from the fact that all you appear to have done is re-state your original comment with added verbosity and thesaurus consultation, rather than actually hint at a reason [i]why[/i] you think it makes any actual difference - in what way then, do you consider that a piece of software on a forum, which substitutes "inoffensive" words and phrases for "bad" ones - while still allowing it to be [i]perfectly and abundantly goat-buggeringly obvious[/i] what the poster typed originally - offers any form of "protection" to a child's tiny, fragile developing sensibilities, from the crass vulgarity of adult communication? I think if you had much contact with or experience of kids, you'd actually discover that many of them don't so much "discover the complexities and delights of adverbial epithets" as use them as punctuation. Much like their parents do. J.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16309' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:36 PM']I'm fully aware of how some kids use language amongst theirselves. But there is a big, big difference between this and adults swearing in front of kids.[/quote] Would you care to elaborate on the nature of the difference? I'm not challenging your opinion necessarily, just interested. J.

[quote name='Hamster' post='16295' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:19 PM']Most posters seem to be able to express themselves without the use of sexual swear words....[/quote] [i]Quod Erat[/i] funking [i]Demonstrandum[/i]. That's the entire [i]point[/i]. J.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16252' date='Jun 12 2007, 02:28 PM']...this forum should be open for everyone including 12 year old kids (or younger). I think the language should be tempered accordingly.[/quote] So that means we should also have a filter that translates everything into txt spk? an we shud rite evthin in lwr case n not acshly bothr 2 try n spel cus its 2 time cnsumin? J.

[quote name='Oxblood' post='16281' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:07 PM']Now that's interesting, Jon. So you can see the whole word unmolested, yes? On my screen it came out as S[flower of power]horpe![/quote] I can, yes. But if I embolden the emotionally damaging & psychologically scarring bit, then I see what you see. I really think the author of this useless piece of software was a right talentless lady's front bottom. And very obviously, an American. BW didn't have a "won't somebody please think of the children" filter, and oddly enough - no one died. J.

Is an autocensor really necessary - personally I find having my self-expression tampered with, as if I was a 7 year old, or an American or something, massively more insulting than any "bad cusswords" people might use. I hate this sort of thing. Besides - they can always be circumvented. And how come it lets you get away with Scunthorpe? Jon.