Charging $2000+ for a bass with defective paint is poor business. General Motors has had several paint recalls and lawsuits brought against them concerning paint defects and faulty paint procedures. Rickenbacker should fix the issues and we as consumers should hold them accountable until they do.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
'new' ric is slightly broken..
- Thread starter mr.mow
- Start date
The voice of reason.
For the sake of discussion, even if this does constitute a QC issue, that doesn't mean Ric has a QC problem, at least not any moreso than virtually any company manufacturing and selling anything.
Not until you can show me a verifiable percentage of Rics that have issues versus those that don't can you say Ric has a QC "problem."
Rickenbacker does not charge $2000 for their basses. Dealer cost is likely around $1000.
If the bass was bought new from an Authorized dealer, Ric would honor the warranty and refinish it. In this particular case, that is not an option.
According to Musicians Friend they start at $1962.56. I wouldn't pay that kind of money for something that may or may not be defective and require a refinish. I've followed many Ric threads on here and there seems to be a common theme calling their QC into question.
I think he is saying that its a $1000 bass as that is how much the dealer buys it for. I still, however, think it is unacceptable that such instruments can have such defects, and I notice more complaints about Rics than most. Considering their relatively limited productions runs, compared to say that of Fender, it isn't good enough.
Have you read anyone else's posts?
Also, 5000 people people claiming one thing doesn't make that thing so. Thirdly, GM can't be put into the same category as Rickenbacker. They are completely different.
MF has a "MSRP" of one thing. Street price is yet another.
If you are an aggrieved owner of a Rickenbacker, then please get with the company and "hold them accountable".
I've read where some point to QC issues or possibly a materials issue, both are the responsibility of Rickenbacker to fix. Although in this particular case that is null and void, but I've read on this site where there have been other paint issues, bridges pulling up, binding defects, etc. I know any company will have a percentage of defects/failures, but Rickenbacker has been producing more or less the same product for years and in smaller numbers than many other bass manufactures. Again I would expect more for the money.
If 5000 people had a similar complaint it would at the very least make me question it and research its validity. I was in the market for a Ric a few months ago. After reading the numerous number of complaints, I decided against it.
Anyone got a verifiable number of Ric basses that had QC issues over the past 30 years and a verifiable number of Ric basses produced/sold in that same period so we can get an actual ratio?
Because if you don't and you try to pull numbers out of the air to prove Ric has unusually high QC problems, you're blowing smoke.
Sure, people can't wait to complain about the QC issue on the internet, no surprise there. But for every one person who got a legitimately flawed Ric, how many got a great Ric and didn't rave about it all over the internet? Anyone got accurate verifiable numbers on that?
I'd love to see these ratios. If no one can produce them, this QC debate is an exercise in futility.
As for me, I've had a problem with a Ric. I've also owned around a dozen that were flawless.
And my problem was relatively simple: Tail lift, and it stabilized and played in tune perfectly, so I'm not even sure that qualifies as a "problem," but I went above and beyond and got a Hipshot replacement. That was my choice, it was hardly necessary to make the bass play and sound better (because it doesn't).
And there's another factor: How many people realize that most basses from most builders have idiosyncracies, yet players who are genuinely enthusiastic about the brand consider those idiosyncracies a small price to pay and roll with it, make the simple modification, and have decades of bliss playing what becomes one of their favorite basses ever. I think some people are on the fence about a brand to begin with, and then they jump on any excuse to bash the brand if their particular specimen isn't perfect. Anyone who really wants a perfect Ric can get one, either via the dealer or via manufacturer warranty, even if it takes two tries.
Anything that's not worth a second try to you probably wasn't worth the first try either.
Because if you don't and you try to pull numbers out of the air to prove Ric has unusually high QC problems, you're blowing smoke.
Sure, people can't wait to complain about the QC issue on the internet, no surprise there. But for every one person who got a legitimately flawed Ric, how many got a great Ric and didn't rave about it all over the internet? Anyone got accurate verifiable numbers on that?
I'd love to see these ratios. If no one can produce them, this QC debate is an exercise in futility.
As for me, I've had a problem with a Ric. I've also owned around a dozen that were flawless.
And my problem was relatively simple: Tail lift, and it stabilized and played in tune perfectly, so I'm not even sure that qualifies as a "problem," but I went above and beyond and got a Hipshot replacement. That was my choice, it was hardly necessary to make the bass play and sound better (because it doesn't).
And there's another factor: How many people realize that most basses from most builders have idiosyncracies, yet players who are genuinely enthusiastic about the brand consider those idiosyncracies a small price to pay and roll with it, make the simple modification, and have decades of bliss playing what becomes one of their favorite basses ever. I think some people are on the fence about a brand to begin with, and then they jump on any excuse to bash the brand if their particular specimen isn't perfect. Anyone who really wants a perfect Ric can get one, either via the dealer or via manufacturer warranty, even if it takes two tries.
Anything that's not worth a second try to you probably wasn't worth the first try either.
It may very well be a refinished bass. Jetglo's don't normally come with red "primer"; that may be the main reason why the black finish is coming off in such big pieces. Personally, I would peel as much off as I could, so it doesn't come off on stage, and just play the snot out of it. Also, start saving up to have it refinished right - or do it yourself. I have a beat up Rick 330 Fireglo that will soon be a lefty Mapleburst, once I get all the stuff I need from ReRanch. Ricks arent' really any harder to refinish than anything else; people do it all the time.
Actually I think it's Rickenbackers loss. I bought something else and I am completely satisfied. I will always love the look and sound of a Ric, but as stated in an earlier post the idiosyncrasies aren't worth it to me.
I am in and have been in a world class manufacturing facility for 15 years now. You make absolutely no sense when you say that a quality process is not part of quality control. And no it is not a process problem. It is a really bad QC problem. Period! And here's another problem. They obviously knew it could possibly be a defect or they wouldn't have sold them at a cheaper price than all the other technically good rics.
Somehow this has turned into a bit of a Ric bashing thread re: quality control. The OP was asking how to fix his problem. He wasn't asking if the Ric company sucks.
I guess I should find a Sting Ray thread and start complaining about how every month I have to do a set up on my Rays because of humidity changes. And can't EBMM come up with necks that aren't so susceptible to weather changes. What a PITA that is.
But I won't.
I guess I should find a Sting Ray thread and start complaining about how every month I have to do a set up on my Rays because of humidity changes. And can't EBMM come up with necks that aren't so susceptible to weather changes. What a PITA that is.
But I won't.
There is a bit of a difference between having a bass that has a somewhat sensitive neck, and spending $1000 or more on an instrument with self-removing finish.
Blame California's gov. They are the ones who force companies like Rickenbacker to use different and untested finishes to meet the CARB standards. Rickenbacker should just move the whole operation to another state.
If I owned that Ric, I'd remove the hardware and strip the rest of the finish off. I'd repaint it in a unique colored, nitro finish (but you could do it in black again, it's an easy color to refinish).
