• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Why no Rickenbacker import line?

There are a whole lot of people in this thread who have NO idea how the company is run.

Rickenbacker is small, family owned company. They sell everything they can make and have a backlog that is often a year or more for some models. They are, presumably, profitable with their business model and have no reason to change it.

There is quite a bit to criticize about RIC, but their business model isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure Ben Hall is set to inherit the business, nice having something that profitable handed to you in a silver platter. I shoulda picked my parents more carefully!
It’s more complicated than that. JH bought it from his dad, FC. That meant JH had to arrange financing, perhaps FC financed it, or JH had to look for financing on his own. Either way, JH had to increase sales so the business would generate more money in order to make the purchase price + interest payments to who ever held the note. Then FC could retire to Tahiti, or wherever, and distribute remaining proceeds of the sale (if their were any left) to whomever heirs he wanted to upon his death.

No reason this would be any different.

Also, the value of the company is quite high, so it would make it a bad thing to ‘will’ to someone as estate taxes would kick in on an estate that large.

Succession planing for a family business is horribly complicated, and most of the time, it doesn’t work out that well. BH is not the only offspring either. The fact that Rickenbacker has continued to stay private and wholly family owned for two generations and possibly a third is remarkable.
 
Last edited:
Now Gibson on the other hand...
"This thread is full of Rick bashing. Let's bash Gibson instead." :rollno:
Did Gibson sue anyone out of making a Thunderbird (or PAF for that matter) pickup reissue, or artificially inducing slop? Sure I don't like Gibson's business practice of discontinuing every bass now and then, but what remain are still good sounding and playing basses. And most of us don't doubt that Ricks have a great and unique tone. :thumbsup:
 
The reason is very simple: ric is a carpenter’s workshop that builds musical instruments, complete with a carpenter’s workshop mentality. The foreman’s name is Mr Hall. The guys at ric simply don’t understand that they could make millions from licensing deals alone without any investment on their end. Rica have always sold for roughly the same as USA fenders (give or take 200 bucks) but with a much higher production cost. I would understand ric not wanting some overseas production if this were a 5,000 USD+ bass , but at the current price, come on!!

This is one of the worst takes I've seen when it comes to RIC. John Hall isn't a stupid man. There is no doubt that he knows there would be a ton of money to be made if he licensed the designs. He has decided, to his credit, that keep all production in house and USA made is right for his company. Which comes with the assumption that they're making plenty of profit.
 
There are a whole lot of people in this thread who have NO idea how the company is run.

Rickenbacker is small, family owned company. They sell everything they can make and have a backlog that is often a year or more for some models. They are, presumably, profitable with their business model and have no reason to change it.

There is quite a bit to criticize about RIC, but their business model isn't one of them.
Fair enough. My appeal would be, make them a bit more consistent (MIA Fenders and Gibsons aren't known for top build quality/price ratio compared to Lulls, Sadowskis, etc. either, but Ricks are also a notch more expensive), stop suing independent pickup makers, and expand the dealer network a bit (I mean, China isn't exactly a small poor country, people here are buying Atelier Zs, Sadowskis, CS Fenders but they don't sell a Rick? :eyebrow:). I can see myself buying one in the future just if. I definitely see their bridge change a move to the right direction. :thumbsup:
 
Did Gibson sue anyone out of making a Thunderbird (or PAF for that matter) pickup reissue, or artificially inducing slop?
According to the guys over at Warmoth, Gibson forced them to stop making and selling both Thunderbird bass bodies and Les Paul guitar bodies. They've since re-released their Les Paul type body with some noticeable changes to the lower bout, and have never reintroduced their Thunderbird body. So while Gibson may not have actually sued to stop someone, they've certainly legally enforced the rights to their designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iristone
Uh no. Ric makes around 5000 instruments a year total. Fender makes 250000.
Has to be more than that. I don’t know what their guitars cost, but let’s assume they are pricey, more so than basses. So 5000 units x $2000 average dealer price is just 10 million dollars. At one time, I guessed them to be a 20 million dollar company and @Aceonbass suggested it was much higher.
 
Before making claims, at least take a minute to check out the facts - there's a lot of info on this site - so read the Rickenbacker Club thread for more detailed info.

View attachment 3599796
I'm happy to now be wrong about the bridge. It took them decades, but at least they finally did it.

The warranty is still lousy and well below the industry standard (unless I missed some changes).
 
According to the guys over at Warmoth, Gibson forced them to stop making and selling both Thunderbird bass bodies and Les Paul guitar bodies. They've since re-released their Les Paul type body with some noticeable changes to the lower bout, and have never reintroduced their Thunderbird body. So while Gibson may not have actually sued to stop someone, they've certainly legally enforced the rights to their designs.
I knkw that. They used to sue PRS too, but recently they seem to have decided to "collaborate" with others who are inspired by their designs. Curiously, Fender kind of sued Gibson to stop making non-reverse Thunderbirds, and Gibson came up with the infamous neck dive design. History is fun. ;)
 
Has to be more than that. I don’t know what their guitars cost, but let’s assume they are pricey, more so than basses. So 5000 units x $2000 average dealer price is just 10 million dollars. At one time, I guessed them to be a 20 million dollar company and @Aceonbass suggested it was much higher.

You’re right. While Ric doesn’t publish their numbers, the numbers that are getting bandied around are 8000-12000 a year. I stand corrected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Whitfield
Uh no. Ric makes around 5000 instruments a year total. Fender makes 250000.

Has to be more than that. I don’t know what their guitars cost, but let’s assume they are pricey, more so than basses. So 5000 units x $2000 average dealer price is just 10 million dollars. At one time, I guessed them to be a 20 million dollar company and @Aceonbass suggested it was much higher.

You are quoting the dealer price. The fact that some dealers can make a profit selling them for around $1500 means that the wholesale price from Rickenbacker to the dealers would be closer to $1000 or less.

You’re right. While Ric doesn’t publish their numbers, the numbers that are getting bandied around are 8000-12000 a year. I stand corrected.
That would have to be more like it.
That makes it an $8-12Million dollar a year company. After wages, materials and all other associated costs you'd have to assume that JH and family are not in the mega-rich league which makes me tip my hat to them for not simply cashing in on releasing an offshore built version and diluting their brand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Whitfield
Something that hasn't been mentioned here is why Ric don't capitalise on the fact that many of their old guitars and basses were used by some of the most influential players of the 60's and 70's. Here's an excerpt from an article I just found. They could still be made in the US and not dilute their brand in any way at all.

Why aren't Rickenbacker guitars more popular?
140518171903-2.jpg


Pictured is George Harrison's 1962 Rickenbacker 425; it just sold for $657,000. George was in a band called The Beatles. You might have heard of them.

Can you buy a new 425? No. Rickenbacker currently does not make one as far as I know. And to be honest, I'm surprised they don't, because it's normally par for the course that any guitar company that has any famous model will produce some modern version of it whether it's a signature model or not. Rickenbacker has chosen not to do that with the 425 for whatever strange reason.
 
Except for the fact that part of keeping a trademark valid is vigorous defense of that trademark, which John Hall has learned well how to do and I say good for him.

Yes but one should be entitled to sell his/her original 2nd hand bass .. what Hall did to BassChat (strange it didn’t happen here yet) is a clear exaggeration (provided it is entirely true - these are the site’s mods./owners explanations right at the head of the “bass sale” thread there) .. I just reported this fact as a sort of curiosity on the care Mr. Hall puts in defending his rights, although, sometimes, it seems that this goes little out of the normal limits .. I’m personally an estimator if the tone of the Ric 4000 series of basses although I never owned one
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Whitfield
Something that hasn't been mentioned here is why Ric don't capitalise on the fact that many of their old guitars and basses were used by some of the most influential players of the 60's and 70's. Here's an excerpt from an article I just found. They could still be made in the US and not dilute their brand in any way at all.

Why aren't Rickenbacker guitars more popular?
View attachment 3600399

Pictured is George Harrison's 1962 Rickenbacker 425; it just sold for $657,000. George was in a band called The Beatles. You might have heard of them.

Can you buy a new 425? No. Rickenbacker currently does not make one as far as I know. And to be honest, I'm surprised they don't, because it's normally par for the course that any guitar company that has any famous model will produce some modern version of it whether it's a signature model or not. Rickenbacker has chosen not to do that with the 425 for whatever strange reason.
RIC has done just that, with many models over the decades, however, the 425 was never really all that popular. When someone wants a Rick guitar like what George played, it would be a 360 variant, not the 425.