rickenbacker will now not be putting finish on their fretboards… thoughts???

[bon viesta]

i saw a facebook post or two about this news, with most people (myself included) quite disappointed and unsatisfied with this decision. what’s your opinion on it?? i personally loved the finished fretboard, it really really added something very special and awesome to rickenbacker basses. i picture chris squire in the studio sitting on a chair with headphones on sliding up and down that beautiful shiny fretboard hitting just the right notes. it’s very charming, that shiny slippery looking fretboard.

 

[godofthunder59]

I like the idea! Years ago I tried to get a custom order with no fingerboard finish and was told no way.

 

[rickdog]

It actually makes sense to me. Lacquering the whole instrument and then polishing a little off the top of the frets leaves the finish susceptible to lifting along the frets, and also is one more complication when it needs to be refretted. And I'll bet the wood they've been using for fretboards will look really good with just a little oil.

 

[metron]

I like the finished board on my 4003. I also like unfinished boards on my other basses.

For me the takeaway here is that they are showing they can be dynamic. I think thats a good thing for Rickenbacker.

 

[bon viesta]

I like the finished board on my 4003. I also like unfinished boards on my other basses.

For me the takeaway here is that they are showing they can be dynamic. I think thats a good thing for Rickenbacker.

agreed, i think there’s nothing wrong with a brand changing design features in their product. you can’t really just stay the same all the time. but that doesn’t mean i can’t be slightly disappointed about it because i liked that feature, though.

 

[lowendblues]

I have no problem with it.

However, I've had some Rick basses with some pretty fantastic grain in the fingerboard, the finish really brings that out.

 

[metron]

agreed, i think there’s nothing wrong with a brand changing design features in their product. you can’t really just stay the same all the time. but that doesn’t mean i can’t be slightly disappointed about it because i liked that feature, though.

For sure. I think this one boils down to personal preference of the aesthetics. I already have a shiny one so Im good!

 

[WillyW]

The finish costs $32.89 a gallon.


not finishing the fretboard saves $49.32.

expect a price decrease next year as they pass the savings on to the consumer.

 

[relayer66]

They’re finishing it with something…pure love, if nothing else.

My 4001 was anything but “slippery”, well, until the strings ate grooves right through the frets. It was pretty slippery after that.

I’m glad the company is innovating. Than again, I’m glad I got one of the last 4003 before the bridge and fingerboard changed. If anything, Rickenbacker is a very conservative company, and the basses haven’t changed much over the decades.

 

[lug]

The finish costs $32.89 a gallon.


not finishing the fretboard saves $49.32.

expect a price decrease next year as they pass the savings on to the consumer.

At more than a gallon a bass, expect tremendous weight savings as well!

 

[FFEJY]

Well, look at the bright side. There is less finish to crack, bubble, and flake off.

 

[dangevans]

I like how it is finished on mine. To each their own.

 

[40Hz]

sliding up and down that beautiful shiny fretboard hitting just the right notes.

OK. But many of us can do that on a bass without a shiny fretboard…and I’m positive Chris Squire could do the same.

FWIW I never liked the lacquered fingerboard on a Ric. The closer a neck and fingerboard are to bare wood the more I like it. But that’s me.

 

[RichterScale]

I think they should still make a vintage model and then make several lines of new basses with different features.
They have the name recognition to pull it off. But I don't think they should make new models and stop offering at least one version of the classic design that made them who they are.
Unless they do have many new and different models now (I haven't been following). But it seems like the Ric has been the same body/pup/hardware config forever and they only make mild changes now and then. I think they should go nuts and have a classic 4001, classic 4003 and then a dozen other basses with the Ric name, that are all completely different.

 

[RichterScale]

And by completely different, I don't mean the same Ric, but with triangle shaped pups and no binding.
I mean different models.

 

[BobKos]

My thought goes something like this. Many people that openly complain about strategic changes made by MI manufacturers have NEVER bought a new retail ANYTHING worth more than $50 USD from said manufacturer. Changes come from proven loyal customers who suggest or even demand certain features, etc. I would think in this case enough real Ric players complained that every Ric they have owned that needed fret services was a PITA due to the finish applied and reasonably questioned why Ric would do that on a bass used as a professional tool that would inevitably need fret work. The answer to that question is that they shouldn't apply the finish. Maybe they listened to their real customers for a change? Just my $.02.

My personal opinion is that I avoid necks with unnecessary finish, bindings, etc that will complicate fret services in the future. If a neck needs fret work I get it done. I want a good PLAYING neck. I also don't want the repair process to be a dramatic exercise in MI restoration.

 

[D.M.N.]

Outside of the look of the finished fretboard, I can say playing-wise I have zero feelings of it, but maintenance wise I'm glad to have a non-finished fretboard. If you wore the frets down, needed a refret or fret leveling, the finish was a real thorn in the side. My old Rick also had flaking around the frets. Fender maple necks never seemed to have the issue nearly as badly as Rick's

 

[Gizmot]

I'm lukewarm on this subject. I have two Rics and I have to say that I love the finished fretboards on them. It looks classy and it feels good too.

For the long-term sake of RIC, I hope this decision ends up being a good one.

 

[sean_on_bass]

There is likely a reason that most other bass makers do not finish the fretboard, and Ric has finally decided to join them i reckon.

 

[RichterScale]

"real" Ric players

Maybe they listened to their "real" customers for a change?

After 60 yrs of making them the same way, I don't think they really cared about their customers' input, whether they were real, imaginary or otherwise.
They obviously made them how they wanted and you get what you get. My money is on fresh blood in their marketing and design staff (or an old curmudgeon who wouldn't let anyone make changes finally croaked) and they decided to try something different and stay competitive.
My money is on it not having anything to do with finally listening to "real" Ric players.
And what does that even mean?