• 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.

Rickenbacker copy

#21
namraj said:
What everyone seems to have missed here is that the OP is in no way implying he wishes to honor Rics design.

He just want's a bass that looks like a Ric, nothing honorable or dishonorable there.

And in reponse to your later comment, by all means copy my work, I am comfortable not being a greedy capitalist pig and sharing my talents with people who enjoy them.
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar boat. Use my design, that's fine. DON'T advertise it as my product, that's not okay.

I want a bass that looks like a Rickenbacker, but I'll have to go through various channels to get it made, because Rickenbacker will not make one to my specs and will probably sue any luthier that I have make it.
 
#22
FunkMetalBass said:
If the OP said he wanted a "Rickenbacker-style" bass, would that change anything?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if he said 'R type'! LOL

I guess it all winds up to someones character and what industries they wish to support. The companies making the knock-offs know exactly what they are doing and that they need to maneuver carefully around US laws. If someone in the US were to order one, there is a fairly big chance it would be stopped at the port of entry and the purchaser may be out of money. Makers like Sadowsky, et al, operate within the law, and you don't see them knocking off other peoples protected designs intentionally.
 
#24
Coolhandjjl said:
Perhaps if he said 'R type'! LOL

I guess it all winds up to someones character and what industries they wish to support. The companies making the knock-offs know exactly what they are doing and that they need to maneuver carefully around US laws. If someone in the US were to order one, there is a fairly big chance it would be stopped at the port of entry and the purchaser may be out of money. Makers like Sadowsky, et al, operate within the law, and you don't see them knocking off other peoples protected designs intentionally.
Click to expand...

Well, now we're in another semantics situation where the foreign companies are not subject to US copyright laws, and are thus not breaking any. Makers like Sadowsky, Mike Lull, etc. aren't breaking any copyright laws because there is no copyright. They are intentionally copying Fender's design as well as possible, except for the headstock, for which Fender does have a copyright.

There are pros and cons to both situations. It's been widely discussed that most modern-day Rickenbacker copies are more hassle then they are worth to obtain and are generally junk upon arrival, so those that want a Ric can either pay full price for an actual, quality* Ric, pay good money for a luthier to agree to make a copy under the table, or chance it on a copyright.





*subjective
 
#25
Perhaps insulting another TB'er shows what sort of character a person has. An apology wouldn't go amiss, in my opinion.

That aside, Talkbass boasts an international community and it's important to remember that we are not all bound by the laws of the US and can therefore buy these instruments legitimately.

From a legal and moral perspective, there's therefore no difference between buying a Rickenbacker-style instrument, and buying a cheaper instrument based on a Fender, Hofner, Gibson or other design. I wonder if those who accuse people who buy such instruments as lacking integrity have ever purchased a supermarket's 'own brand' product.

I've read a few threads on TB in which folk asking about Rickenbacker copies have frowned upon by Rickenbacker owners, something that doesn't seem to happen to people asking about P and J basses, Thunderbirds or even violin basses.

A hypothetical question, then - if Rickenbacker hadn't protected their designs (and 'done a Fender'), would you take issue at Sadowsky, Lakland and other builders if they made a Rickenbacker-style bass?
 
#27
I'd love to own a Rickenbacker styled bass. I think they look cool as hell, but I would not own an actual Ric. They are too expensive (to me) for what you get out of them. The Career copies in the $500-$600 range are much more reasonable, IMO.
 
#28
I love the Rickenbacker 4001/4003's the best bass by far & thanks to my girlfriend am lucky enough to own one. BUT if owning an original is not going to happen without a lottery win, then owning a lookalike maybe the only hope you ever have.Which is a shame because a copy is never as good as the original, but not everyone can afford one

I agree with the stance that Mr.Hall takes with protecting his company, & would never try and argue that they should turn a blind eye to cheap copies of their basses. But when I started playing bass back in 1987, the closet I could get to a Ric 4001/4003 would have been either a Hondo or better a Shaftsbury version. People slate Rickenbacker for chasing copies of their products in America,I bet Fender wished they had taken more care of their instruments.
 
#29
I dunno, after looking at these pics closely, they really do look pretty cheap (but that's the point, right?) I mean, the rosewood used for the fingerboards is awfully dark. Every Rick I've ever seen has a light reddish rosewood fingerboard. Heck, I thought they were ebony until I read the description. Now that actually would be cool, but since it's not ebony, my guess is that it is low grade rosewood. Jesus, look at the dark streaks running down those fingerboards, especially on the black lefty.

And these are set-necks as opposed to neck-throughs? Isn't the neck-through construction one of the most, if not THE most, important aspect of the 4001/4003's sound? I would be shocked if they actually sounded like a real Rick. Also, what kind of truss rod system do they employ? God tell me they have truss rods.

But then again, that probably won't matter, because these are made from BASSWOOD!!! Perhaps THE worst possible wood to use for a guitar body/neck. Just Google it if you don't believe me. The cheap, crapwood alternative to alder and swamp ash. You can literally dent basswood with a fingernail--it's that soft. Given how soft that wood is, have much confidence in that neck holding up for long? The dude behind these has left out some rather important information. Might wanna check ourselves before we all start foaming at the mouth about how good these are.

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but I seriously think I'd rather keep what amounts to $400 in my pocket and save up a couple hundy more for a GOOD bass. Hey, I'm not saying don't go for it because they're copies, I would say don't waste your cash because these look like serious dogs and I shudder to think what the warranty coverage is like!
 
#30
DasBassDude said:
I dunno, after looking at these pics closely, they really do look pretty cheap (but that's the point, right?) I mean, the rosewood used for the fingerboards is awfully dark. Every Rick I've ever seen has a light reddish rosewood fingerboard. Heck, I thought they were ebony until I read the description. Now that actually would be cool, but since it's not ebony, my guess is that it is low grade rosewood. Jesus, look at the dark streaks running down those fingerboards, especially on the black lefty.

And these are set-necks as opposed to neck-throughs? Isn't the neck-through construction one of the most, if not THE most, important aspect of the 4001/4003's sound? I would be shocked if they actually sounded like a real Rick. Also, what kind of truss rod system do they employ? God tell me they have truss rods.

But then again, that probably won't matter, because these are made from BASSWOOD!!! Perhaps THE worst possible wood to use for a guitar body/neck. Just Google it if you don't believe me. The cheap, crapwood alternative to alder and swamp ash. You can literally dent basswood with a fingernail--it's that soft. Given how soft that wood is, have much confidence in that neck holding up for long? The dude behind these has left out some rather important information. Might wanna check ourselves before we all start foaming at the mouth about how good these are.

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but I seriously think I'd rather keep what amounts to $400 in my pocket and save up a couple hundy more for a GOOD bass. Hey, I'm not saying don't go for it because they're copies, I would say don't waste your cash because these look like serious dogs and I shudder to think what the warranty coverage is like!
Click to expand...

Troll much?

1. A fingerboard, is a fingerboard, is a fingerboard. There's little differences in quality between basses costing a couple hundred and a couple thousand besides aesthetics.

2. MusicMan Bongos are made from basswood and they are one of the best sounding mass produced basses on the market.

3. The Peavey T40 is known as one of the Ric'ist sounding basses out there in the tone department and is a bolt on.

4. I'd also say this YouTube - Career CB-RIK-400 BK sounds just as good if not better than most Rics I've played in person.

5. Even my $125 Saga DIY bass had a truss rod. Don't be a fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kodiakblair
#33
It may be difficult to track one down, but I remember in the 70s there was a brand that was 'popular' in Britain called Shaftsbury. They actually made some nice stuff, occasionally. They seemed to specialise in Ric copies.
Scour the classifieds for one of them.
Of course: Cheap Copy + (30+ years) = someones idea of "Vintage"
so they may have appreciated in 'value' somewhat since then. Still, probably less than a real one.
 
#36
jmattbassplaya said:
Troll much?

1. A fingerboard, is a fingerboard, is a fingerboard. There's little differences in quality between basses costing a couple hundred and a couple thousand besides aesthetics.


2. MusicMan Bongos are made from basswood and they are one of the best sounding mass produced basses on the market.

3. The Peavey T40 is known as one of the Ric'ist sounding bassist out there in the tone department and is a bolt on.

4. I'd also say this YouTube - Career CB-RIK-400 BK sounds just as good if not better than most Rics I've played in person.

5. Even my $125 Saga DIY bass had a truss rod. Don't be a fool.
Click to expand...

You're really gonna compare these guys to MM and Peavey!? These aren't a proven commodity, wake up!

1. I wasn't talking about the tone so much as the aesthetics, thanks for clarifying my point. It looks like some sharpied all over the fretboard. So much so, it looks like an entirely different wood. Ever consider how much pre-treating of the wood completely RANDOM Chinese guitar factories do? How do you know that it's not all dried out with frets sprouting by the time you open the case? Then who covers it?

2. You are can't compare a well regarded American guitarmaker with a no-name Chinese maker. No doubt MM has some serious qc built into their Bongo production because they of course have a reputation to uphold. There's actually high end basswood and low end. Do you think these are made from high end basswood at this price point? Hopefully they thought to let the necks season before they assembled the guitar, this ain't no bolt on.

3. Here you go again, now comparing Peavey to some shadowy factory in China. I would think Peavey would know how to make a bass that sounds like a Rick given their level of expertise. Hell, they were the first to use CNC machines in guitar production. If anyone can make a bolt on sound like a Rick, it's Peavey. I seriously doubt these jokers in China can, UNLESS PEAVEY WAS HELPING THEM!

4. 100% your opinion. Totally unbiased, I'm sure.

5. This is a legit question. What kinds of rods are they? If that neck is cheap basswood and glued in forever, it better work.

All I'm saying is caveat emptor. Maybe these do sound like Ricks and I'm totally wrong. Once someone gets one and reports back to us we will know for sure. I just think it's complete stupidity to fork over that sum of money without getting some answers first. Like, for one, what's the RETURN POLICY for a China copy?

The folks that make Chinese knockoffs aren't exactly bound by the same laws nor commitment to quality as a lot of US companies, they're just out for a quick buck. NOW, if someone like MM were making Rick copies in China, I would shut up right now because that's a company that knows just what the hell it's doing.
 
#37
Was SX proven when they first came out, or did they need some time to build up a reputation? How about the new Squier issues that have been coming out within the past 3-5 years? I won't deny the fact that you need to try before you buy, but if you're in Germany (or the EU in general) you can easily try out one of these basses. They're being sold by a reputable music company over there, so I'm sure their return policy is fine. They just need time to prove whether or not they are good, and considering they've been out for at least a year and are coming out with new models (the fire glow) they must be halfway decent. In addition, the video I posted shows that they can in fact sound like a real Ric. There's no "that's just your opinion" involved. It sounds like a Ric. You saying it's just a cheap Chinese "knockoff" is fine and dandy, but it changes nothing. These Chinese basses are becoming better and better all the time. For example, the newest Squiers and Ray34s have been nothing short of fantastic considering their prices. I'm willing to bet these basses are at least as good.
 
#38
When it comes to Rickenbackers some people adopt a "cult" mentality. They seem to hate copies like it threatens their religious beliefs.

Nobdy seems to get upset if someone copies a p-bass or a jazz. But one someone copies a Ric the holy warriors will chime in.

I don't mind copies. I just don't like them to have the nameplate or the decal that says they are real if they are fake.

Rickenbacker tried to shut down Hipshot from making the replacement bridge claiming trademark infringement. They lost that one.

A loose interpretation of the law is if you change 35% then you can make a copy.
 
#40
FunkMetalBass said:
Well, now we're in another semantics situation where the foreign companies are not subject to US copyright laws, and are thus not breaking any. Makers like Sadowsky, Mike Lull, etc. aren't breaking any copyright laws because there is no copyright. They are intentionally copying Fender's design as well as possible, except for the headstock, for which Fender does have a copyright.

There are pros and cons to both situations. It's been widely discussed that most modern-day Rickenbacker copies are more hassle then they are worth to obtain and are generally junk upon arrival, so those that want a Ric can either pay full price for an actual, quality* Ric, pay good money for a luthier to agree to make a copy under the table, or chance it on a copyright.
*subjective
Click to expand...

It is NOT a copyright ... it IS a trademark. You do not copyright a bass guitar. You copyright a book or a song. Rickenbacker claims some of the shapes of their musical instruments as trademarks. They have to be registered and enforced. Like the Ford logo on the hood of a car. The logo is a trademark.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back