• 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.

Rickenfakers on a Chinese website

#101
Well, the problem (at least as I see it) when it comes to Fender was Leo himself....as I understand it, (and I DO NOT have all the facts) but apparently Leo only trademarked his headstock? So he pretty much left the rest of his design up to interpretation...and I believe that's why everyone and his brother copies the Fender design. I'll leave it to the experts to set me straight here......:smug:

Rickenbacker, on the other hand, protects their property like a LION!! and, if you think about it, why wouldn't they? It's THEIR livelihood.

Obviously, there isn't a damn thing that they can do about copies made overseas - but they'll jump your ass if you are doing here in America......:D

And, you are correct. There are only so many combinations of notes to write with. Hell, I have heard country songs that I SWEAR were R&R songs that had been ripped off. Done purposefully? Hell, who knows. And, I distinctly recall the "George Harrison dustup".
 
#103
bassplayer8953 said:
Gotta love this:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

...coming from a company that established itself making copies of Fender, Ric, Gibson, etc. etc. etc......
Click to expand...

They made copies not fakes, didn't put someone else's name or pretend they were made by anyone else. They were miles ahead in production technology too, which is how they could be so much cheaper.

bassplayer8953 said:
And that would be totally valid, because US law say that's not allowed, and you have to play by your own rules. Just like China do.

Jsut because RIC have no right to enforce copyright policy overseas doesn't stop them trying anyway. If people in the UK stick anything that shape on ebay they get warnings. I always include them with any copy I sell as certificates of authenticity that they model is competitive with a Rickenbacker model.
Click to expand...
 
#104
Mr. Foxen said:
They made copies not fakes, didn't put someone else's name or pretend they were made by anyone else. They were miles ahead in production technology too, which is how they could be so much cheaper.



And that would be totally valid, because US law say that's not allowed, and you have to play by your own rules. Just like China do.

Jsut because RIC have no right to enforce copyright policy overseas doesn't stop them trying anyway. If people in the UK stick anything that shape on ebay they get warnings. I always include them with any copy I sell as certificates of authenticity that they model is competitive with a Rickenbacker model.
Click to expand...

While Ibanez did identify their clones as Ibanez products, the copying was obvious, and was considered theft of intellectual property, at the time. Thus the lawsuits, back in the day. Through the years, copying has become accepted, with American corporations actually contracting third parties to build instruments for them, using their own brands: Epi, Squier, LTD, etc. In most cases the copycats are branded as 2nd line items. But to brand something as something that it is not (a Chinese-built Ric, for instance) is outright fraud, and is wrong, in any language.
 
#105
One of the reasons that Gibson and Fender jumped on the import/feeder line bandwagon was because they had not protected their trademarks. Had they done so, as RIC has, you would be able to say, as you can with RIC, if it's sold here and looks like a Gibson or Fender, it actually IS one. They, and Hofner too BTW, just decided to at least get a piece of their own pie back and a little control over the quality as well. RIC doesn't need to get a piece of their pie back. With less than 100 employees, they could possibly be put out of business by Asian exports if they let their trademarks expire. If they decided to start an export line, all the money would NOT going to RIC. Much of it would remain in Asia to cover the cost of production. Much of it would go to the retailer in the form of mark up. Any profit from the venture would go to John & Cindalee Hall. No one else at RIC would benefit. Remember, RIC is entirely owned by the Halls, and carries no debt. There are no stockholders or banks to share in the venture, so they and the employees are the only ones getting money out of the company...well them and the state of California obviously. Saying they don't innovate doesn't ring true at all. While most of their guitars look just like they did in the 60's (a quality that their customers like) they have had many improvements and design upgrades along the way. All of their guitars are made using CNC machines now, with the original models for the programs being vintage stuff that most people seem to want, but can't afford. I have an actual '64 4001S. It's woth about 5 times what a new 4003 can be had for, but the 4003 is a better bass by far. For those that don't want the vintage look, RIC has a few models that cater to them, but they don't sell in nearly the volume that that the vintage looking stuff does.
Although the US is only 5% of the world population, we are 25% of the worlds production and economic activity. Therefore not buying stuff made in China here could put a serious dent in their bottom line. And ya know what? If we got that nationalistic about our own products, the rest of the world free world might too. By the way, one of the main reasons many domesticly made products have foreign components in them is because their are laws on the books that allow the foreign sourced parts to be brought in duty free. If those laws were changed, it some cases at least, it would no longer be cheaper to import the component, and they would need to be made here.
 
#106
Which is why I'm puzzled how SX get's away with what they're doing with Fender's designs. Maybe Buster was right & ol' Leo dropped the ball, but that doesn't account for how Douglas gets away with their LP copies. Okay, sure, the lower bout/cutaway is a little stubbier than the Gibson, but if anyone got that close to a Ric design, Hall would be on them like stink on sh_t.

So SX & Douglas are okay, but a "Chinabacker" is taboo?
 
#107
BTW, I do NOT advocate branding these Chinese copies as "Rickenbackers." That IS wrong.

But the Halls have a problem with Rockinbetter too, so rebranding them won't alleviate the furor.

And I stand by what I said earlier...wish as you may, they're NOT going away.

Not saying I'll actually end up buying one. Not saying I won't either. Just saying I won't eliminate the possibility.
 
#108
Flyingfrets said:
BTW, I do NOT advocate branding these Chinese copies as "Rickenbackers." That IS wrong.

But the Halls have a problem with Rockinbetter too, so rebranding them won't alleviate the furor.
Click to expand...

Well, first - Chinese copies are just that - copies. Even though it says "Rickenbacker made in the USA" on the truss rod cover, we all know it ain't. It's a lie. And, it is taking money out of the pockets of John Hall and his employees.

If I were taking credit for writing "Inagadadavida" (God forbid!) I would catch hell from every musician on the planet (and deservedly so!) :D

Look, the bottom line on all of this is simple. China is not going to stop the blatant theft of designs with the sole intention of selling fakes back to us. I understand this. I DO NOT like it. However, I completely understand a young dude, just starting out, being tempted by the idea of the fake. I get it.

Basses and amp are just as expensive as they were when I started out in the late 60s. And, who can say that, if presented with the same circumstances of having the ability to buy a cheap fake bass from China, that many of us old timers wouldn't have done the same thing?

But I do remember working my ASS off one summer in High School, to make enough scratch to by my first Rickenbacker......and I'd do it all over again!! :D
 
#110
Buster Brown said:
Basically, Fender lost the right to sue other guitar and bass manufacturers that "cop" their design because other outfits have been doing it for so long..........interesting....
Click to expand...

And that's the whole point. Fender and Gibson blew it by not protecting their trademarks. When the lawsuit copies from Japan started hittin' our shores in the 70's two of the big three probably saw no threat and let it slide. I hope they eventually fired their whole legal team for not jumping on this. The Halls DID jump on it, and although it took quite awhile, they won. Unfortunately the government or whoever, isn't responsible for protecting your trademarks, YOU are. That's why you see Ebay auctions pulled for RIC copies or fakes. The pulling of these listings is because of direct action by RIC, their employees, or what some here have called the Rickenpolice (Rickenbacker owners). If they don't jump on EVERY single one that reasonably could show up on their radar, they will lose these trademarks. If that happens, the RIC body shapes will become as common as the Fender and Gibson shapes. Whether it be Asian imports, or even domestic builders like Mike Lull or Lakeland. I realize that Lull and Lakeland probably build a better version of the original, but they use recognozable shapes for a reason. That reason is to sell their product, and that's what trade marks are all about and why they are protected so fiercely by their owners. The smart ones anyway.
 
#112
Couldn't agree more. One paragraph that stood out was this:

Van Vleet said the company has trademarked its logo, outlines of its headstocks and other designs in countries around the world. The body designs were one thing it hadn't registered, he said, so in 2003, it applied for the U.S. trademarks on "a fancifully shaped configuration of the body portion of a guitar."

So, it is as I thought I had heard many years ago, that Leo trademarked the headstock but (apparently) didn't think the body shape was a big deal.

And, as a longtime Ric owner, I for one am glad that the Hall's are so protective of their design. Could they have made a boatload MORE money if they had a "budget" line of guitars and basses? Probably, but obviously it doesn't interest them (anymore than it does me!).
 
#114
Well, after a 3 hour break (to watch the replay of the Australian Grand Prix...you know, those foreign made copies of our Indy Cars...:eek:..:D), I have to say I'm highly impressed that 6 pages in, this discussion has remained extremely civilized. They usually degenerate into the internet equivalent of a shouting match.

But, as inevitably happens, it has evolved into a political hotspot with everybody taking up camp on one side of the issue or the other.

Of course any discussion of the instruments themselves becomes secondary and maybe that's unavoidable (consciously or not, the course of the discussion obliterates anything positive or negative someone might have to say about the instruments).

Ah well...Have a pleasnt evening all. I'm off to burn copies of some DVDs :D
 
#116
Mr. Foxen said:
They made copies not fakes, didn't put someone else's name or pretend they were made by anyone else. They were miles ahead in production technology too, which is how they could be so much cheaper.



And that would be totally valid, because US law say that's not allowed, and you have to play by your own rules. Just like China do.

Jsut because RIC have no right to enforce copyright policy overseas doesn't stop them trying anyway. If people in the UK stick anything that shape on ebay they get warnings. I always include them with any copy I sell as certificates of authenticity that they model is competitive with a Rickenbacker model.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
 
#117
Well, this thread has gone to a fork in the road. Yeah, trademark ripoff is one thing. Is anybody on here remotely saying this is OK? I hope not. I didn't read every single post. HOWEVER, there is another fork in this thread which really hit home for me.
1. To me, NO Rickenbacker is worth $2700.00. I'm sorry, but to me, I can't justify it. They are WAY overpriced and are hoping that the endorsers/players/famous guys of the past will justify their existence and keep up the demand.
I have a family so I can't justify it.
Ditto for a new German Hofner. $2400.00 for a Beatle bass? Come on. Even if I could afford it, do I take the chance that some ******* won't throw a beer can at it or worse....steal it?
2. LICENSED Chinese/Korean basses are OK, IMO. Yeah, there's good and bad. You have to do your homework and a lot of these companies (Epiphone comes to mind) have a reputation to hold on to and I haven't seen any horrible Epiphones when I've been to GC. YMMV.
So, I have a choice to make. The music business where I live isn't what it was in the mid-seventies to the early eighties. There aren't the gigs there used to be. I'm lucky if our band gets 2-3 gigs a month, and to me, that's OK, too.
I like to buy American, too, but I can't understand why an American-made instrument has to be so damned expensive. I think they like to promote the 'It ain't a real Fender unless it's an American Standard' line of thinking, so when you show someone what you've bought, you can say, "Yeah, it's the American version".
To sum it up, SOME companies are trying to stay alive by living on the coat-tails of the artists that have played their instruments. There's already this 'class-war' going on......everybody's looking at the headstock to see "Hmmm...a FENDER! WOW! This guy must be good". "It's a Gibson!! This guy is going to be a success". BS.
I don't care what brand my guitar player or drummer plays. As long as they know how to make it sound good and they have talent, I don't give a sh**.
Look around in your own home. You'll see a lot of Chinese stuff. Why did you buy it? BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAP AND FILLED A NEED.
 
#119
Well new Rick basses are NOT $2700, so I don't know why that number was thrown out there. I got my new 4003 last year for $1106.00, and a new 4004 2 years ago for $1725.00. Both Fender and Gibson have guitar and basses that net for WAY over the price of RIC instruments, and at least in part, unlike RIC is because both companies have endorsers who get free instruments, have stockholders to pay dividends too, and bank loans to occassionally pay off for expansion. The main reason Asian made instruments are so much less than here is simply what they will work for there and how much cheaper it is to do business in countries with no workers standards or emmisions laws and such. Conversly, stuff like this is more expensive to produce here because Americans have a higher standard of living to maintain, and a completely different set of rules to play by. I like that standard of living and don't mind living with those rules that help maintain everything around us. Then again, most of my GK gear was made in China. There was simply no domestically produced gear that did for me what the GK stuff does, and that, Bob Gallien, is sad because I would have paid more if the stuff were made here. If things continue as they are, bass amps could go the way of the television set in this country. It pays more to make this stuff than stand behind a counter and sell it.
 
#120
Rics 2700$?... hahah, lets see in 2011 I bought a new mapleglo for 1080$ , 2 MID's for 1104$ and a used 1991 4003 for 780$.

Also you can get them all day musciansfriend for 1949$ which is way high for a ric but way lower then 2700$.


This website sells them for 1750$ with 10-15% off regularly

Invalid Link Removed
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back