Why no Rickenbacker import line?

[Gilmourisgod]

This is getting to be an old video, I think they have improved the formula. But an example UV cure clearcoat just using sunlight. This stuff is brush applied, so it’s a lot more work to level-sand, the Ric clearcoat is sprayed. The tech for all kinds of paint is changing really fast, but having made the investment in its UV system, Ric may be reluctant to change it out.

 

[Coolhandjjl]

I've never especially liked Rickenbacker factory finishes. I think my bass just predates the UV-cure finishes when they were using some sort of two-part clear instead. The lacquer never bonded correctly with the walnut wings on the headstock of my bass, and instead there were visible air pockets in the grain of the wood.

The lacquer was also comically easy to sand off most of my bass. A few passes with 240 grit was enough to maybe 98% of my bass bare wood.

I do wonder if UV-cure lacquer could have a purpose for DIY luthiers and techs at home? My girlfriend used to have a UV nail polish kit. She had various colours and a clear UV-cure lacquer. I used it to repair a chip out of a white P bass one time, and the results were fairly good. The stuff gooped on quite heavily and felt slightly rubbery until you used a 'clarifying lotion' on it.

UV cure was introduced around 2007.
The current thin, brittle, crappy low VOC stuff was introduced in the beginning of 2010.

Pre 2010, the finish was polyurethane based. Present finish is polyester based. That’s why most guitars you see post 2009 do not have warm looking maple necks and bodies. The polyester stuff does not add any warm richness to the wood at all, and will never yellow over time like finishes of yore. For some, that’s great. For others, it makes for a bland clear coat.

 

[ScottsTheLimit]

My wild-a** guess is that the finish problems all start with that UV cure process, too long, too short, who knows, but I doubt case material off-gassing has anything to do with it. A small percentage are leaving the factory with bad clearcoat, that might fall into the "sticky" category noted above.

I wasn't referring to the UV processed finishes. The sticky finish problem is not related to the brittle UV process; the instruments that are turning sticky are from the early to late 2000s; that predates the UV process.

Extended time (sometimes for several years) stored in the case (sometimes also in the cardboard box) is the ONLY link in all the complaints about Rick finishes turning sticky that one can find online from a simple google search. Every incidence of this being reported is accompanied by a statement such that the guitar was stored for a long, long time. This gives credence to the case materials gassing out, eating the finish. I have a plastic Rick case from around 2000, blue plush interior, and it smells of ammonia. The bass inside was sticky, and it was NOS, stored since new, never played. I no longer store the bass in that case (although I still have it) and the finish on the bass is ruined; even leaving it for several hours a day in the sun did nothing to cure the stickiness. John and Ben Hall banned me for asking about the problem years ago on their site; Ben stated, "We will never help him" in response to others on the forum stating I was bringing up the sticky finish just to tarnish the Rick brand.

That being said, the current UV polyester probably does not go sticky. It just breaks off in shards.

 

[Allan Allan]

They are a family-owned private corporation. How will they get bought out?

Let's say some generation of Hall's doesn't really like the family company, woodworking, or being responsible for an entire workforce, and would rather take a lump sum payout over making guitars.

I mean, I'm barely at stupid intelligence and I just came up with that one. Anything can happen.

 

[RBrownBass]

Why not MIC Foderas, Alembics or Ritters?

Maybe because no true Ric enthusiast is going to need that level of quality?

 

[F peyton]

Ric management seems fine with being a small niche operation.
It appears to me that they have never been interested in expanding their production

 

[Dreamsinger]

The likely difference between a US Rick and an imagined import line would be that the import would be 1/3 the price and be of a much higher build quality. There's no real reason for Rickenbacker to go import, they already build cheap and sell for too much. Most musicians known for playing Ricks can't/won't/don't play a factory stock instrument, they're highly modified and re-engineered to turn them into actual guitars.

 

[bassdude51]

Because it is a weird instrument company.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I’ve owned Rics for years, and built two clones with minor improvements, and they are most definitely “real guitars” with a lot of flaws entrenched in the design. Gibson’s have a fundamental flaw in the neck/headstock joint (short grain and no volute) that causes them to snap off with alarming regularity. Fenders have a tendency to develop Ski Jump in the upper fret region and have predictable dead spots. Are they “real guitars”? I’m the first to criticize Ric for its foibles, but people buy and successfully use them all the time, so let’s get over the hyperbole. Last I checked, there are THOUSANDS of aftermarket parts available for Fenders, if they were perfect for everyone right out of the box, that market wouldn’t exist. People like to mod stuff, sometimes for no reason other than the fun of it, until recently you didn’t have many off the shelf options to mod a Ric, but that’s changing, which is a good thing.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

The likely difference between a US Rick and an imagined import line would be that the import would be 1/3 the price and be of a much higher build quality. There's no real reason for Rickenbacker to go import, they already build cheap and sell for too much. Most musicians known for playing Ricks can't/won't/don't play a factory stock instrument, they're highly modified and re-engineered to turn them into actual guitars.

Never even played a Rickenbacker but I have a very difficult time believing they "build cheap and sell for too much" given that they are in the most expensive state in the USA and are priced in line with other mainstream brands AND many premium foreign-made brands. A 4003S in Fireglo is $1,629 at Guitar Center; American Fenders start at $1,200 for Performer series and $1,500 for Professionals. American-built G&Ls start at $1,450, Deans at $1,900, Ernie Balls at $2,000. A Korean-built Lakland Skyline 44-02 is $1,418; an Indonesia-built ESP LTD Stream-1004. In fact, Guitar Center offers more than two dozen basses (not all American-built) which are more expensive than their most expensive Rickenbacker. Chinese-built Backlund-designed Eastwoods (which full disclosure, I'd very much prefer to a Rickenbacker) are $1,249. These are all solid body 4 strings.

It also occurs to me that, besides Chinese-built Chickenbackers, Rick could start a line of South Korean-built instruments called ROKenbackers. But I'm still kinda glad they don't, even if it means I'll never own one.

 

[Low Main]

If they made offshore versions of their instruments, then they might lose part of the legal basis for doing what they enjoy most: going after those who sell or own unlicensed offshore copies.

 

[TexasEdition]

If they made offshore versions of their instruments, then they might lose part of the legal basis for doing what they enjoy most: going after those who sell or own unlicensed offshore copies.

 

[soundmasterg]

You can't deny the fact that Rickenbacker sued Jason Lollar out of making a Horseshoe reissue. It may not be a technically advanced pickup, but some people like its tone, and Rickenbacker isn't making one either. Now a company called Classic Amplification is apparently attempting to make a "shoeless" reissue. Quick, Rick.

Rickenbacker saw Lollar at NAMM when he first started making his horseshoe pickups. Then they filed for a trademark on the design, forgetting that they had patented it originally in 1931 and the law says that you can't trademark something that was patented. They also were trademarking aspects of the design that were functional, which is also not allowed. The trademark office is so uneducated that they granted the trademark anyway. After having had it for a year, then they sued Jason. Jason fought it of course, and rightfully so. Rickenbacker was going to lose the case, so they settled, and Jason still makes those pickups btw.

Horseshoe Bass

Part of the rules of keeping a trademark is that you have to enforce it and stop people making counterfeits, and Rickenbacker is rightfully very zealous about this. They trademarked many of their designs decades ago and have enforced them consistently. Fender and Gibson on the other hand didn't bother until recently when it is much too late and courts around the world have laughed at them while they have tossed the cases out of court.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

As to the “build them cheap” comment, 2-piece neck-through construction in solid maple or maple/walnut, very high quality Schaller tuners, and single coils everyone seems to like the tone of, is not what I’d call “cheap”. Any neck through is harder to build, and particularly to finish, than a bolt on design. I know this from personal build experience. The asking price of $1500 average is on par with high end Fenders. Actual value is a matter of opinion and market forces. Is an American Fender worth 5 times a Squier VM? Not to me, but the market is willing to pay it, so that’s what it’s worth.

 

[PianoOfDoom]

As to the “build them cheap” comment, 2-piece neck-through construction in solid maple or maple/walnut, very high quality Schaller tuners, and single coils everyone seems to like the tone of, is not what I’d call “cheap”. Any neck through is harder to build, and particularly to finish, than a bolt on design. I know this from personal build experience. The asking price of $1500 average is on par with high end Fenders. Actual value is a matter of opinion and market forces. Is an American Fender worth 5 times a Squier VM? Not to me, but the market is willing to pay it, so that’s what it’s worth.

I also think that Rics are fairly priced given their uniqueness and quality level (qc issues aside, which have not affected me). I did want to point out that Epiphone has managed to make fantastic neck through Thunderbirds in the 500-700 range that easily compete with or beat the Gibsons. That one example doesn't constitute a rule, though. Maybe just that Gibson is exceptionally meh.

But not everything needs a cheaper version. Let Ric be Ric, and let me feel special for having one.

 

[PennyroyalWe]

Let Ric be Ric, and let me feel special for having one.

That might ultimately be their best reason not to license out. The feeling of being special that comes with scarcity. As surely as a black p-bass makes one feel like a quintessential “Everyman”.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

I also think that Rics are fairly priced given their uniqueness and quality level (qc issues aside, which have not affected me). I did want to point out that Epiphone has managed to make fantastic neck through Thunderbirds in the 500-700 range that easily compete with or beat the Gibsons. That one example doesn't constitute a rule, though. Maybe just that Gibson is exceptionally meh.

But not everything needs a cheaper version. Let Ric be Ric, and let me feel special for having one.

No Epiphones are domestically produced. Production in countries with relatively low wages is especially advantageous for high labor products like neck-throughs; the greater the skilled labor hours, the bigger the advantage. That said, Guitar Center has some impressively priced MIA Gibson basses (and before I began boycotting them I picked up a sweet SG Special there for $700) but at least part of that is because the demand for Gibson basses (at least relative to their respective production capacity) is simply lower than demand for Rics. And as you say, not everything needs a cheaper version.

 

[NeonVomit]

If they made offshore versions of their instruments, then they might lose part of the legal basis for doing what they enjoy most: going after those who sell or own unlicensed offshore copies.

Say what you will about their practices, at least they defend their designs with zeal. Intellectual property has to be actively protected, and since they created some iconic instruments which will be inevitably copied, they decided to do what they need to to protect their brand.

By contrast, Gibson never bothered to and is now trying to close the gate 40 years after the horse bolted, with hilarious futility.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Ironically, for a company so publicly zealous about defending their own IP, they had zero compunction blatantly and undeniably ripping off the Treble Bezel, an aftermarket part that infills the space around the bridge pup with the cover off. This was an original design Ric had no patent or trademark claim on whatsoever. They just straight up stole the design from an American mom n’pop business called Tubeampology. The guy can’t afford to sue them, so he’s screwed. They sell their rip off version on the Ric Boutique. Every time I hear people lauding Ric for protecting their IP it makes me gag a little.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

Ironically, for a company so publicly zealous about defending their own IP, they had zero compunction blatantly and undeniably ripping off the Treble Bezel, an aftermarket part that infills the space around the bridge pup with the cover off. This was an original design Ric had no patent or trademark claim on whatsoever. They just straight up stole the design from an American mom n’pop business called Tubeampology. The guy can’t afford to sue them, so he’s screwed. They sell their rip off version on the Ric Boutique. Every time I hear people lauding Ric for protecting their IP it makes me gag a little.

Unfortunately that's all too common. Defending one's trademarks is a business move, not an expression of morals. That said, might it be also be simultaneous independent creation? That happens fairly often as unrelated teams look to advance common designs or solve common problems.