Why Don't Rics have "Vintage" Appeal?

[Lowender]

Maybe because they don't look as cool beat up? Rics need to be slick and shiny and space age! lol


I have a 1979 Maple 4001 Ric that I'm considering selling and all the books say it's worth 3K (dollars) but I see them selling closer to 2K -- about the cost of a new one -- which makes sense since I can't tell much of a difference, though I'm no expert on Rics. Any ideas?

Edited March 30, 2013 by Lowender

[karlfer]

Horses for courses I guess, but perhaps something to do with the cost of a new Rick generally being higher.
By the way, one of the 4004LK (Lemmy Kilminster, like mine but carved up ) sold for $11500 on FEEBay just before Christmas

[Kirky]

I think its because there's never been a 'golden' era, but that's because there's never been a poor era. Rickenbacker's build quality has been consistently high so people will buy a new one with confidence. There's no need to pay a premium for a vintage one in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

[Musky]

I think Kirky is right about this, in that they've never had the kind of low points that both Gibson and Fender have had. Some older models do command a premium, such as the RM1999, but nothing like the prices that Pre CBS Fenders fetch.

[evilLordJuju]

4005s go for stupid money - but you can't get a new one of those

[spongebob]

I've had new and vintage (70's) Rics.

I think book price for a '79 at 2k is a little adventurous - prices seem to be £1000-£1300 at the moment. Obviously a little more for really clean examples. You can often grab a 4001 for less than a new 4003....but that's a whole other can of worms!

Great source of info on this kind of stuff is Joey's bass notes - http://www.joeysbassnotes.com/Rick_maint.htm

As for a 'golden era', in Ric terms you'd be looking at a (around) '73 and before - toaster pickup, checkerboard binding, etc. Prices on these are considerably higher than a 'standard' 4001.

[musophilr]

For me they don't have [i]any[/i] kind of appeal. They neither sound nor look like a Jazz.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1364740318' post='2030195']
For me they don't have [i]any[/i] kind of appeal. They neither sound nor look like a Jazz.
[/quote]

That's the whole point of them I would have thought!

[musophilr]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1364741836' post='2030234']
That's the whole point of them I would have thought!
[/quote]

But they're as ugly as sin, and there's no mid range in the sound to define it. All you get is a dull thud plus a bit of 'plick' if you're using a plectrum. Nobody would know whether you're playing a B or a Bb. Horrible things!

[molan]

[quote name='spongebob' timestamp='1364739869' post='2030187']
I've had new and vintage (70's) Rics.

I think book price for a '79 at 2k is a little adventurous - prices seem to be £1000-£1300 at the moment. Obviously a little more for really clean examples. You can often grab a 4001 for less than a new 4003....but that's a whole other can of worms!

Great source of info on this kind of stuff is Joey's bass notes - http://www.joeysbassnotes.com/Rick_maint.htm

As for a 'golden era', in Ric terms you'd be looking at a (around) '73 and before - toaster pickup, checkerboard binding, etc. Prices on these are considerably higher than a 'standard' 4001.
[/quote]

Definitely agree with this. Little variation on Rick prices from anything post '73 to present day.

Checkerboard binding definitely adds decent value but still less then a good quality J or P from a similar era.

[Lowender]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1364742244' post='2030246']
But they're as ugly as sin, and there's no mid range in the sound to define it. All you get is a dull thud plus a bit of 'plick' if you're using a plectrum. Nobody would know whether you're playing a B or a Bb. Horrible things!
[/quote]

They are what they are, in both looks in sound. Oddly enough, I can hear the difference in the notes very well here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57F7vlT_PK8

Edited March 31, 2013 by Lowender

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='Kirky' timestamp='1364628115' post='2028959']
I think its because there's never been a 'golden' era, but that's because there's never been a poor era. Rickenbacker's build quality has been consistently high so people will buy a new one with confidence. There's no need to pay a premium for a vintage one in all but the most exceptional circumstances.
[/quote]

I played a new one a few weeks back and the build quality and attention to detail was impeccable, so this is probably right!

[musophilr]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1364744514' post='2030308']
They are what they are, in both looks in sound. Oddly enough, I can hear the difference in the notes very well here: [/quote]

I never liked his sound either. Way too trebly, not enough bottom end grunt. I guess that's down to EQ ... maybe I'm saying I've never heard a Ric EQd properly. But however you EQ it a Ric is still as ugly as sin!

[martthebass]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1364745310' post='2030321']
I never liked his sound either. Way too trebly, not enough bottom end grunt. I guess that's down to EQ ... maybe I'm saying I've never heard a Ric EQd properly. But however you EQ it a Ric is still as ugly as sin!
[/quote]

So now I finally understand the definition of 'Trolling' ;-)

You either love em or you don't....each to his own. Fortunately in this age of consumption some of us have sufficient funds to allow the ownership of more than one bass so you can have that 'horrible' plucky-clank for your prog-rock band AND that weasley 'Honk' for your 70's funk band.....

Anyhoo.....everyone knows the ugliest bass in the world is the Status Streamline, so if you have one send it to me and I'll happily detroy it for you.

Edited March 31, 2013 by martthebass

[MB1]

='martthebass'

Anyhoo.....everyone knows the ugliest bass in the world is the Status Streamline, so if you have one send it to me and I'll happily detroy it for you.

MB1.
Lowregisterhead has something requiring your attention Mart?...

[martthebass]

I know Martin, he'll send it over no doubt when he realises it's 'un-sellable'.....

[4 Strings]

It's a good question. Same cold apply to Gibson and other makes. There seems to be a sacred regard to Fender substance, particularly if its more than 10 years old. I was at an auction recently, a Strat which had no working hardwear and in need of a compete rebuild and refinish went for £2500. Why? It was from the late '60s. A heap of worthless bits in actual fact.

Is it because they are considered to have a more meaningful place in guitar history?

[Highfox]

I bought a new 4003 a few months back and I'd say even DI'd it's definitely not low on bottom end and all treble!
and that comes from a P-bass type guy.

[Ashborygirl]

As others have said, the lack of a CBS or Norlin period in Ric's history, means you can buy a new bass that's made to the same standards as a 35 year old one. Rickenbacker take a lot of stick on here over the copies thing but I admire their resolve to protect the integrity of the brand.

[mrdreadful]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1364745310' post='2030321']
I never liked his sound either. Way too trebly, not enough bottom end grunt. I guess that's down to EQ ... maybe I'm saying I've never heard a Ric EQd properly. But however you EQ it a Ric is still as ugly as sin!
[/quote]

So yeah... I suggest you go look up 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' ASAP.

I like the look and sound of Ricks, but that's just my opinion... yours is that they're awful. Either way, this is purely subjective. Coming to a thread about Ricks and being a dick about expressing your opinion is, well, dickish.

[evilLordJuju]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1364750293' post='2030400']
It's a good question. Same cold apply to Gibson and other makes. There seems to be a sacred regard to Fender
[/quote]
I don't really agree here about Gibson - I think there is definite vintage appeal with Gibson basses. It just hasn't resulted in the ridiculous price levels of Fender. Old Fender basses have become vastly over-valued for what they are: not really that old bits of wood, metal and plastic. They don't play so very differently from new Fenders IMHO. I feel there is a lot of mystique about old Fenders that perhaps doesn't bear close examination. Maybe i'm wrong, and haven't tried the right one! Old Gibson's on the other hand (in many cases anyway) are nothing like new ones. A 60s EB bass is simply a completely different bass to a new SG reissue. Same shape, and that's about it.... Same with the Les Paul basses, Ripper, G3 or RD - all Norlin period so I don't think it's about periods of perceived poor quality either.

[12stringbassist]

Even 4003's new go for a stupid price now.
I'm sure that 4000's go for decent money when they show up, but 4001's / 4003's aren't that rare.
The odd one in a scarce finish may fetch more money.

[jonsmith]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1364742244' post='2030246']
...and there's no mid range in the sound to define it. All you get is a dull thud plus a bit of 'plick' if you're using a plectrum. Nobody would know whether you're playing a B or a Bb. Horrible things!
[/quote]

I have six Ricks made over a 30+ year period & this statement does not apply to a single one of them. Quite the opposite in fact - notes are extremely well defined.