Because they are stickers on that bass....No. Sharks tooth inlays aren't even straight.
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Because they are stickers on that bass....No. Sharks tooth inlays aren't even straight.
Surprisingly low. 1850€.What's the price?
I haven’t tried it.how does it play & how does it sound?
I'd love a 5 string Rick that didn't cost $4K.The bridge pickup cover on new copies is a dead giveaway, as the edges are squared off. Not necessarily the case with "lawsuit" era repros, though. But seriously doubt someone would have put a lot of effort into copying a 5 string Ric, given the apparent lack of interest.
BBB
www.rickenbacker.com
I currently own three 5 string Rics, and can assure you the "B" strings are fine, as good as the "B" strings on any of my other basses.The B string would be horrible, but I really like the Rick tone.
I'm guessing a large part of that was the close string spacing?I’ve run into 2 of these factory 5 string Rics (not the new ones with the funky pickup shape) in local music stores in Oregon. Both were truly awful to play.
Definitely a large part of it. All in all, it truly just felt like a 4 string bass that someone crammed a 5th string on to, making it do something it wasn’t originally designed to do.I'm guessing a large part of that was the close string spacing?
Like Walmart chrome pin-striping on a nice car.Looks legit, but it looks like some dummy poorly cut out some stickers and made his own sharkfin inlays.![]()
So basically a Ibby SR? (I kid, it's not that bad)Definitely a large part of it. All in all, it truly just felt like a 4 string bass that someone crammed a 5th string on to, making it do something it wasn’t originally designed to do.
Not only does it look bad, it actually angers me. Heresy, unclean, burn it, it must be a witch! The shark's tooth on a real Rick is impeccable.Like Walmart chrome pin-striping on a nice car.
Everyone has missed the obvious clue: even though jack plates can be altered, replaced or modified, run the serial number through the decoder and see what comes up:
And yes, the triangles are stickers. Hmmm. I wonder what the owner had against the stock dots that have been the position markers ever since there have been "S" model basses? Hmmm. looks legit to me.![]()
Serial number decoder
Unlock the mystery of your instrument with our Serial Number Decoder. Decode amplifiers and Rickenbacker serial numbers easily.www.rickenbacker.com
Not everyone missed it. I mentioned that earlier today.It's the real deal. The serial number on the jack plate is the giveaway. The pickups, knobs, bridge, TRC, and headstock are correct.
It's a 1990s era 4003S/5 based on what I can see of the serial number. Rickenbacker's serial numbers are wonky between 1987 and 1997 because they were figuring out a new system. The 1961-1986 A-Z system had ran out of years and they didn't start using the last 2 digits of the year of manufacture until 1998 IIRC.
Admittedly I’ve never played one, but aesthetically? Hard disagree.executed as well as it could have been
Looks legit to me minus the fingerboard inlays. It should have dots. I like the tight string spacing on these!Hello all,
Came across this one, but I don’t really know if it’s a legitimate Ric.
What do you think?
View attachment 7492940View attachment 7492941View attachment 7492942View attachment 7492943View attachment 7492944View attachment 7492945View attachment 7492946View attachment 7492947View attachment 7492948
Thank you.
I love the tight string spacingDefinitely a large part of it. All in all, it truly just felt like a 4 string bass that someone crammed a 5th string on to, making it do something it wasn’t originally designed to do.