Chinabacker 4005

[sing-modulator]

We've all seen tons of 4001/4003 fake rics from china, japan, europe, whatever. However, until I stumbled across this, I've never seen a 4005 copy.

Invalid Link Removed

This is the only picture I could copy and paste. It's close, but clearly not a ric.

Thoughts? Anyone have one?

 

[eldoryder]

I've been looking at those for months now. I would like to have one in a "natural" finish. The good news is that hardly anyone out there will be able to smugly pontificate to you how it will NEVER sound as good as the REAL DEAL, since there are so very few of them out in the wild, and practically none of them being used today because of their insane valuation due to rarity. I'm still unsure as to the reliability of ordering from China. Your recourse if it's wrong, or delivered broken is almost nil, since return shipping is on YOU. In almost every case, return shipping is cost prohibitive. I want to hear from a TB member who has actually gone through the process and received one of these "4005" models before I attempt to get one myself.

 

[Axstar]

There is at least one poster on Basschat with an example. A lefty in sunburst, if I remember correctly. All the Chinese 4005s I've seen have that weird (and suggestively shaped) oversized top horn. The hardware will be bottom-rung filth, and I can imagine problems finding a repro toaster pickup with a wide enough spread to sense the E and G strings evenly in the bridge position. If the neck or any other hardware is mounted off-centre then you have further issues to deal with. Fix it up, sink money into upgrading the electronics and you are still left with a sorta 4005 clone with a naughty TRC and that boner top horn thing.

I would rather modify an Italia Rimini bass to get it closer, visually, to a 4005. Somebody on here has done that, and used Lakland pickups.

 

[Stdjazz4]

Headstock says Rickenbacker Made in USA.

 

[Spectrum]

The good news is that hardly anyone out there will be able to smugly pontificate

It's a fake, and worse, it claims to be a USA Rickenbacker right on the headstock, which makes it not even a good faith sort-of copy the way, say, Lakland is to Fender.

I am not an IP Nazi generally but this is blatant trademark theft.

Used 4005's can go for several thousand dollars, so this piece of junk is bound to tempt some jackhole to pass it off as the real thing as soon as it gets delivered.

Heack, for those with real Rics looking for a replacement truss rod cover, it might be worth it to buy it, throw away the bass, and keep the cover.

 

[Mosstone]

Ugh... Not close enough for me.

 

[Paul Boyer]

Worse, some dipshoot is going to buy it thinking it is a "real" Rickenbacker, then finding out that it is a piece of junk, will equate "Rickenbacker Made in U.S.A." with junk. Results: Ricks are junk. Down goes RIC.

It's no wonder at all that the folks at RIC are so tough on trademark protection.

 

[eldoryder]

Geez.....here we go again. For myself, I was going to specifically order one with a BLANK TRC (you can do that, you know), instead of getting my panties all in a twist about "trademark infringement". Then I was going to put something like "Tribute 4005-Made in China" on the TRC. No matter what upgrades I do to the electronics, the neck, the bridge, etc. etc. it will, of course, NEVER sound like the real thing (which I understand wasn't all that great....hence the fact that RIC no longer makes it). At the very least, it's a wallhanger that VERY few people have, and only a well-traveled bass player will even KNOW what it resembles.

I view it the same as having a copy of a Picasso on your wall. No one is fooled into believing that YOU own an original. I just happen to very much like their looks, and might actually consider buying one should RIC ever change their minds about reintroducing them. Til that day, China is the only place I can get one that doesn't cost unicorns to own.

Anyone who doesn't like it is free to not buy one. In the meantime, I will continue to research and find out how the process went for someone here in the USA who HAS, and make my decision accordingly

 

[DigitalMan]

The entire bass shape and look is trademarked, not just the logo. Buying one of these is theft.

You want a bass that looks like that? Buy a Rickenbacker. They own the exclusive rights to sell you one.

 

[Gorn]

Buying one of these is theft.

No. No it's not. This might be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on talkbass. At least top 10. Selling one is a different story. But buying a counterfeit does not equal theft.

 

[eldoryder]

"The entire bass shape and look is trademarked, not just the logo. Buying one of these is theft."


Oh give me a fat break. RIC has decided in their infinite wisdom to no longer manufacture and sell the 4005 (a decision made YEARS ago). The ONLY place you can buy a "real" one is on the SECONDARY, USED market. How in the bloody HELL does a cheap, Chinese copy affect "trademark" or the almighty RIC company in ANY way, shape or form when we are talking about a model they DON'T MAKE ANYMORE? Buying one of these Chinese "copies" is STUPID unless you want a wallhanger (which I do). Virtually NO ONE knows what a 4005 is, and anyone looking to purchase a REAL one would already have done enough due diligence to educate themselves as to the difference between a USA-built and a cheap Chinese copy in all of TWO SECONDS.

 

[eldoryder]

The RickenWaffen never disappoint, do they?

 

[DigitalMan]

No. No it's not. This might be the most ridiculous thing I've seen on talkbass. At least top 10. Selling one is a different story. But buying a counterfeit does not equal theft.

If it's the most ridiculous thing you've seen on TB you aren't looking very hard. Also, you probably haven't ever taken a glance at the rest of the Internet. Equating the purchase of copyrighted goods to theft is not an idea I conjured up in my spare time.

 

[eldoryder]

SELLING and making a profit of counterfeit copyright goods technically MAY be "theft" PURCHASING the same is NOT. That's law. You can look it up.

 

[Gorn]

If it's the most ridiculous thing you've seen on TB you aren't looking very hard. Also, you probably haven't ever taken a glance at the rest of the Internet. Equating the purchase of copyrighted goods to theft is not an idea I conjured up in my spare time.

The originality or lack thereof of your assertion doesn't make it less ridiculous.

 

[Mvilmany]

Headstock says Rickenbacker Made in USA.

I'm NOT ok with this AT ALL. Fake, this will lead to fraud. This thing shouldn't be allowed in the country.

The sad thing is that fake $300 piece of Chinese junk is probably batter made than an American Rick.

 

[johnson79]

Looks like a waste of $320 to me. Trademark issues aside, there's a 99.9% chance it's an unplayable piece of junk.

 

[eldoryder]

Headstock says Rickenbacker Made in USA.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, that answer is WRONG, but thanks for playing! The TRUSS ROD COVER (easily replaced, AND can be ordered without, OR blank!) says that. Take it off, change it, order it blank...SO many solutions for something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place!

 

[electracoyote]

It's a fake, and worse, it claims to be a USA Rickenbacker right on the headstock, which makes it not even a good faith sort-of copy the way, say, Lakland is to Fender.

Yep. The least one could do would be to switch out the TRC. But the whole design is protected.

Geez.....here we go again. For myself, I was going to specifically order one with a BLANK TRC (you can do that, you know), instead of getting my panties all in a twist about "trademark infringement".

Agreed. And I congratulate you on your healthy sense of ethics. Some other people, not so much, and there is some veracity to concerns about fakes getting into the used market stream and someone getting scammed.

"The entire bass shape and look is trademarked, not just the logo. Buying one of these is theft."


Oh give me a fat break. RIC has decided in their infinite wisdom to no longer manufacture and sell the 4005 (a decision made YEARS ago). The ONLY place you can buy a "real" one is on the SECONDARY, USED market. How in the bloody HELL does a cheap, Chinese copy affect "trademark" or the almighty RIC company in ANY way, shape or form when we are talking about a model they DON'T MAKE ANYMORE?

Great point. Even though I normally lean the direction of protecting intellectual property, in this case it is hard to see the actual verifiable financial harm that would be done. Ric made the decision not to reissue these, for whatever reason, even though everyone knows they would sell like hotcakes, fill a hole in their model inventory, and keep the money flowing their direction, like they want it to.

There's something to be said for denying consumers access to a hot commodity and then bitching when people take matters into their own hands and circumvent the chain to get what they want.

Bottom line: If this clone was offered in burst, I'd already have one (with a custom TRC of course). I am a Ric supporter, own three 4003's, and I don't think John Hall is the devil. But if he wants to put a stranglehold on a design, this is the natural result.

P.S.--When you get right down to it, this is almost purely an aesthetics issue, since I sincerely doubt that even an original 4005 offers anything more in terms of tone and playability than numerous basses that can be obtained brand new and perfectly legally/ethically. That being said, if Ric reissued these at a reasonable price (<$2K) I'd much prefer to give them my money than the overseas factory.

 

[ICM]

This bass is fooling nobody, it looks nothing like a legit 4005. The TRC should say 'Dickenbacker' based on that top horn. If these Rick copies were close to the real deal, I'd own one. I'm still holding out for a dead on C64 copy. That's when I'll scoop one up. There's no need to get worked up since odds are you aren't going to see to it that these copies are taken down.