.

Bridgehouse

NervousJohn said:

Pulling this back to the topic the R tailpiece on my 1995 330-12 broke about ten years ago. Generic 10s or Ric strings. I seem to remember a scratch in the tailpiece that opened up into a spilt. It would have broken entirely if I’d left it, but contacted Ric, who said send it with a cheque to Rosetti and a month later I had a replacement. 

I believe the metal was changed around 2000 to something more robust and I’ve had no issues since. It doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me that a company wouldn’t have a guarantee on an older instrument. Especially as the failure mode is the customer scratching the part. Which seems to have been rectified....

As an alternative there is the trapeze tailpiece but that’s pretty ugly to my eye. 

See, I have a problem with this. It's not the lack of warranty that I find odd - it's the lack of spares. I can understand Ric not offering bodies as parts items, but items that could break should be easily accessible to the gigging musician. 

Tuners, bridges, other breakable bits and pieces, especially if they have a history of going pop. It goes back to the point of a gigging musician being without their instrument for over a month because of a design flaw or poor material choice.

If one of the big two had a popular model with a part that was only available from them in the US by mail order with a month or more turnaround it would be Fendergate or Gibsongate... the forums would be on fire with rage and bile.. but with Ric, it's a case of "fair enough, they have to defend their IPR.. *tugs forelock to Mr Hall*"

pmg

Bridgehouse said:

pmg said:

Well I suppose if it’s going to explode it’ll be mid song, probably mid solo at some gig.  Should be interesting 

You will be obliged to go on a smashing-up spree and destroy everything on stage if it does..

Thanks 

ICBM

NervousJohn said:

It doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me that a company wouldn’t have a guarantee on an older instrument. Especially as the failure mode is the customer scratching the part.

I don't agree about that. While a scratch will definitely weaken it, they don't need to be scratched to fail. Even if it was the case, a part which requires the plating not to be scratched in order not to fail is far too marginal to be fit for purpose.

OilCityPickups

A classic example of material not fit for purpose was the die cast pot-metal bridge Fender used in the 1970s They realised belatedly that it wasn't fit for purpose and changed it.
My guess is is that Rickenbacker are well aware of the weaknesses of their die-cast components, and have weighed up profit v re tooling ... and would rather simply leave 'as is' and put the onus on the customer to change out the part when it gives up.

impmann

Has anyone looked up the Ric warranty to see if (like Gibson, Fender and PRS) they offer a lifetime warranty?

If so - why would you need to send them any money for this?

impmann

Just looked it up - 5 year warranty and only valid if you buy one in the US or Canada.

Nice.

Bridgehouse

impmann said:

Has anyone looked up the Ric warranty to see if (like Gibson, Fender and PRS) they offer a lifetime warranty?

If so - why would you need to send them any money for this?

I suspect the fact you have to send money means the answer to your first question is “no”

NervousJohn

Bridgehouse said:

See, I have a problem with this. It's not the lack of warranty that I find odd - it's the lack of spares. I can understand Ric not offering bodies as parts items, but items that could break should be easily accessible to the gigging musician. 

Tuners, bridges, other breakable bits and pieces, especially if they have a history of going pop. It goes back to the point of a gigging musician being without their instrument for over a month because of a design flaw or poor material choice.

If one of the big two had a popular model with a part that was only available from them in the US by mail order with a month or more turnaround it would be Fendergate or Gibsongate... the forums would be on fire with rage and bile.. but with Ric, it's a case of "fair enough, they have to defend their IPR.. *tugs forelock to Mr Hall*"

The thing is that’s how you defend your IPR. Gibson and Fender didn’t so anyone can build a guitar that shape. Hence all the lawsuit era malarkey, by which time it was too late. By actively going after anything Ric are saying “these are our trademarks and if you copy them prepare to be bummed by our lawyers”. 

And the tailpiece and truss rod cover identify the guitar. 

In a sense it’s no different from us getting upset when Gibson clones have “Gibson” written on them. 

Yes the hanging around with a non working guitar was a pain but I could of had a trapeze on a next day delivery and had a functioning instrument.  

Bridgehouse

@NervousJohn - Gibson and Fender have pretty active bum-giving lawyers. At times, very active. 

And to be absolutely crystal clear - I am not saying Ric are worse than Fender, Gibson or anyone else.

My point from the off is Ric do not treat their customer base well, they do not tolerate any criticism, and they are impervious to anything their customers might suggest to them - other than disdain. 

As such, I don’t understand why they don’t get the same level of criticism as the other main US manufacturers. 

And my earlier point about patronising some of our brilliant UK builders stands.

Bridgehouse

impmann said:

Just looked it up - 5 year warranty and only valid if you buy one in the US or Canada.

Nice.

To be fair, the UK bit should be covered by the U.K. distributor. 

NervousJohn

Bridgehouse said:

@NervousJohn - Gibson and Fender have pretty active bum-giving lawyers. At times, very active. 

And to be absolutely crystal clear - I am not saying Ric are worse than Fender, Gibson or anyone else.

My point from the off is Ric do not treat their customer base well, they do not tolerate any criticism, and they are impervious to anything their customers might suggest to them - other than disdain. 

As such, I don’t understand why they don’t get the same level of criticism as the other main US manufacturers. 

And my earlier point about patronising some of our brilliant UK builders stands.

To be clear I’m no Ric corporate apologist. But on the other hand they can sell everything they make so listening to customer suggestions doesn’t really seem to be affecting things. 

Keep in mind that Ric are also a much smaller operation too, so by definition there will be less criticism. It’s there if you look. 

And a UK builder - that’s fine but they can’t build me a Ric can they?

NervousJohn

Also to add - we have a saying at work, “the customer always has an opinion, our job is to work out if they are correct”

Bridgehouse

@NervousJohn - understood. I’m just trying to give an opposing view. I don’t like some of the things they do. Big, small, whatever. It’s arrogance.

Anyway, I don’t really care that much - I’m doing the moaning that Ric owners who have had bits go wrong should be doing, and I’m not going to do it any more as I don’t own one. I’ve owned quite a few in the past, but I doubt I will again, mainly these days because they are so damned expensive for what they are. I’m out.

thermionic

NervousJohn said:

I believe the metal was changed around 2000 to something more robust and I’ve had no issues since. 

Ah, great. Mine’s a ‘99...

prowla

NervousJohn said:

Bridgehouse said:

See, I have a problem with this. It's not the lack of warranty that I find odd - it's the lack of spares. I can understand Ric not offering bodies as parts items, but items that could break should be easily accessible to the gigging musician. 

Tuners, bridges, other breakable bits and pieces, especially if they have a history of going pop. It goes back to the point of a gigging musician being without their instrument for over a month because of a design flaw or poor material choice.

If one of the big two had a popular model with a part that was only available from them in the US by mail order with a month or more turnaround it would be Fendergate or Gibsongate... the forums would be on fire with rage and bile.. but with Ric, it's a case of "fair enough, they have to defend their IPR.. *tugs forelock to Mr Hall*"

The thing is that’s how you defend your IPR. Gibson and Fender didn’t so anyone can build a guitar that shape. Hence all the lawsuit era malarkey, by which time it was too late. By actively going after anything Ric are saying “these are our trademarks and if you copy them prepare to be bummed by our lawyers”. 

And the tailpiece and truss rod cover identify the guitar. 

In a sense it’s no different from us getting upset when Gibson clones have “Gibson” written on them. 

Yes the hanging around with a non working guitar was a pain but I could of had a trapeze on a next day delivery and had a functioning instrument.  

There's nothing wrong with the styling; it's the functional design and the materials that are the issue.

WezV

Ricks do what they do better and more consistently than anything else out there.  You can moan about where they are now, but it’s worth remembering they don’t have the bad decades like Fender or Gibson.  They stuck with what they knew when everyone else  was trying to change.

yes, there is some arrogance.  Probably a product of the above.

they are not my favourite design at all, but they are consistently different to the main stream stuff.  The hardware may be a bit crap, but it’s nice to see someone using something non standard.

i still have a lot of time for the brand.. quirks and all

thermionic

All my guitars have annoying quirks to some degree when I stop to think about it. 3-saddle Tele bridge, Jaguar bridge, Les Paul headstock angle... I think the worst part of a Rickenbacker is also the bridge - I can never get it right with the 4 allen key bolts, one is always too unscrewed and not supporting it. Bridges are easily replaced with 3rd party parts, but nobody would be allowed to make a steel R tailpiece!