| Author |
Topic: Questions about a Bakelite Rickenbacker |
Danny Bates
From:
Fresno, CA. USA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 2:11 pm |
|
Yesterday I received my first Ric Bakelite guitar.
It is a 1953 model with the strings through the body and the flip up headstock cover. (see pic below)
There really seems to be something special about these guitars, tonewise and slantwise.
The only flaws in the guitar are scratches in the panels next to the fingerboard.
My questions are:
1) Would it be a sin to have all of the panels plated or polished?
2) Would a powdercoat finish be good on these panels?
3) What would be the correct paint for a panel restoration?
4) I paid $670 shipped. Is that a good deal?
5) I have an old Ric pickup from an old post-war metal Ric guitar from many years ago. Would this guitar sound better if I demagnetized the magnets, had them chromed, remagnetized and then installed it instead of the 1953 pickup? Both are 1 and 1/4 inch pickups.
Thank You
 |
|
|
 |
Tom Wolverton
From:
Carpinteria, CA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 2:44 pm
|
|
Danny -
First of all, welcome to the bakelite club. I love these guitars. I've owned one just like this and it was a joy. Like an idiot, I sold it. But I still have my other oldie. You paid a great price, too.
Regarding your proposed alterations. Please don't do it. If there were two identical guitars like yours sitting on a table for sale. I would be inclined to buy the one not "cleaned up" with repaint jobs or replating. Folks normally like the guitars in original condition. I would probably not be interested in buying the "restored" guitar.
If you are one of these guys that has to have a dead mint guitar, keep this as your "player" and look for a dead mint one that you can put into a display case....or buy a new custom steel guitar. (me...I like 'em with the patina of life on them)
- tw |
|
|
|
Danny Bates
From:
Fresno, CA. USA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 2:50 pm
|
|
Thanks Tom...This guitar is flawless.... Just exactly like new except for these 2 scratches in the pickguards... I appreciate your response... I'm torn because this guitar will never be sold.  |
|
|
|
John Dahms
From:
Perkasie, Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 3:08 pm
|
|
I look at wear marks in a used instrument as work hardened or as earned in battle. The ones that bother me are ones I put in doing something stupid like banging it or dropping something on it myself.
_________________
Time flies like an eagle
Fruit flies like a banana. |
|
|
|
James Williamson
From:
California & Hawaii
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 3:49 pm Questions about bakealite Ricks
|
|
Go onto Rick Aiello's web site. Rick is the master of Bakelite Rickys. Study this info as there's alot there.
james |
|
|
|
James Williamson
From:
California & Hawaii
|
|
|
|
Don Wright
From:
Roseville California USA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 4:03 pm Leave it the way it is
|
|
Hi Danny and congratulations on your bakelite Ric. If you end up playing this guitar as much as I think you will, you'll put your own wear and scratches on it anyway, so why go to all the trouble to shine it up?
I've been under the Ric bakelite spell since 1981 when I picked one up - a 1935 model for $75 - back when lap steels were very plentiful and considered totally un-cool by the guitar community at large. I still have it and play it regularly.
When compared with other lapsteels, your new old bakelite Ric has some mystical appeal that is hard to describe but it will creep up on you and you will be hooked. Really. And that's not a bad thing.
_________________
1940 Vega Double 8, 1 Bakelite and 1 Metal Rickenbacher, Oahu Tonemaster. '66 Fender Twin, Bogner Alchemist and vintage Baldwin amplifier. |
|
|
|
Danny Bates
From:
Fresno, CA. USA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 4:22 pm
|
|
Thanks for all of your replies.
Don, This thing hit me hard from a tonal knockdown. I was surprised. Everything about it seems perfect. From the tone, attack, sustain. It's like the lap steel from heaven to me.
It won't be long... I know I'll be getting the "Hurdy Gurdy's" for an old frying pan.
I'm excited about my latest tuning also.
(High to Low) E, B, G#, E, C#, A
(Low to High) A, C#, E, G#, B, E |
|
|
|
John Drury
From:
Gallatin, Tn USA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 8:01 pm
|
|
Danny,
I think your guitar has a neck newer than the body.
The strings should not load through the body on a 53. What size are the magnets? If 1 1/2" that is a prewar body with postwar Panda plates.
A 53 should have a metal tailpiece where the strings anchor, horseshoes should be 1 1/4"
Nice axe! But there is a mismatch going on there somehow. JMO
_________________
John Drury
NTSGA #3
"Practice cures most tone issues" ~ John Suhr |
|
|
|
Steve Hamill
From:
California, USA
|
Posted 20 Nov 2008 9:34 pm Bakelite the other Tonewood
|
|
Danny,
I'll bet the Oahu won't get much playtime in the future. Recently lucked into the sweetest B7 prewar. I can't believe how good the tone on these is. Clean or dirty, they are always musical sounding. |
|
|
|
Danny Bates
From:
Fresno, CA. USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 12:47 am
|
|
John, They are 1 & 1/4" shoes. In 1953 they went back to the strings going through the body. I don't know when they started the "flip-down" face on the headstock, but this has that too.
BTW, In the Ric forum, John Hall (current owner of Ric) says that for the war, the bakelite molds were melted down. He said the post war bakelites are all from casts of pre war's and from a stronger bakelite material. The pickups are also brighter. That's why I was wondering if the old pickup would be better sounding.... This one sounds great but will I get more moan from the older pickup?
He also says he will never reissue the frypans.
Steve, I still love all of my steels but the one I'm gonna be playing now is this one. The Tonemaster set a mark I thought could never be beat. I even mounted a nice Turner horseshoe on it and it's great, but it sounds like a tin can next to the bakelite. It's going back to stock now.,,, or maybe a Charlie Christian pickup?
It's gotta be the bakelite material and the cutouts on the body or something. "Fantastic Plastic",,, old school stuff!
But, you know what they say, "Love is always good when it's new". |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 5:52 am
|
|
| Danny Bates wrote: |
| John, They are 1 & 1/4" shoes. In 1953 they went back to the strings going through the body. |
Yep, they went back to the string thru on the BDs ... circa 1953.
They used the "surround" as seen in postwar frypans ... and the later basses ... as the pickup mount/height adjustment apparatus.
The bakelite bridge bolts through the surround ... into the body.
| Quote: |
| The pickups are also brighter. That's why I was wondering if the old pickup would be better sounding.... This one sounds great but will I get more moan from the older pickup? |
FC Hall went to winding the coils with 44 AWG magnet wire ... 
You can easily check ... take the DC Resistance ...
Turn vol and tone full on ... plug in .. and touch the black probe to the 1/4" plugs sleeve and the red probe to the 1/4" jack tip.
If its wound with 38 AWG ... your DC resistance should be 1.5 k Ohm +/- 0.5 k Ohm (1000 to 2000 Ohm).
Thems the good-uns ...  |
|
|
|
Ron Whitfield
From:
Kaaawa, Hawaii, USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 10:55 am Pandas are for cats, not for steels
|
|
This is by far the worst term for these great steels.
Please stop the insanity!
Danny, thanx for the info on why the old style of body was changed. I always wondered, and until now, no one had the answer, at least here, per my inquiries.
You may wish to try swapping the T/V wiring harness for a complete pre war (if you can find one...), as it did wonders towards improving the tone on my late 40s 8 str. Bakelite, which was already a good sounding steel.
But overall, just play it and get to loving what you have w/out messing with it.
Sad/sickening to hear he won't remake the Fry Pans. New owner, please... |
|
|
|
Doug Freeman
From:
Los Angeles, CA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 11:33 am
|
|
| Danny Bates wrote: |
It's gotta be the bakelite material and the cutouts on the body or something. "Fantastic Plastic",,, old school stuff!
But, you know what they say, "Love is always good when it's new". |
I believe the chambered bakelite body is exactly what explains the unique sound of these guitars—I'd venture to say even moreso than the pickup (hmmm, anyone ever try a different pickup, say a string-through Supro, on a beater bakelite body?). Ever since I got one, my other lap steels made of wood, covered in MOTS, or whatever, "just don't move me fellas." I have yet to tire of the bakelite sound and responsiveness. I really think there's an almost tactile thing going on with the way those guitars respond. The only other lap steel I'd care to have in addition at this point is my buddy's late '40s/early'50s Rick SD, with the hollow stamped metal body and horseshoe pickup. That guitar has a similarly unique and gratifying sound to me. |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 11:47 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| BTW, In the Ric forum, John Hall (current owner of Ric) says that for the war, the bakelite molds were melted down. He said the post war bakelites are all from casts of pre war's and from a stronger bakelite material. |
I'm sorry ... I didn't read that part closely enough.
My Hall is "putting out" a load of BS there ...
You can't use a bakelite body ... make a mold from it ... and "cast" another bakelite body ...
Bakelite is a thermoset resin that is both ... molded into shape ... and "hardened" ... via tremendous pressure and high temperature ...
There is no "liquid" bakelite that can be poured into a sand, plaster, clay, etc ... mold ...
It ain't polyester or epoxy resin ... 
If the story of the steel compression molds being melted down for the war effort is true ... then the post war bakelites were all NOS (new old stock) ...
I've seen many postwars without the surround/tailpiece ... and all had the remnants of the integrated bridge ... that was filed off ... so the more modern surround/tailpiece could be fitted and screwed down.
Some sloppily done ... some cleaner ... but you could still see the "scar" ...
Getting factual info about steel guitars from the current RIC company ... well, I'd better stop now ... before I get thrown off for abusive language ...  |
|
|
|
Danny Bates
From:
Fresno, CA. USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 2:26 pm
|
|
Rick,
I measured both pickups. The one in the guitar measures 7.19 and my old black horseshoe from the metal body measures 1.79
BTW, I talked to FC Hall for about an hour once at a NAMM show many years ago. He was a very nice, interesting and very high class person. He told me about how he flew to New York and met the Beatles and about the "old days" of guitar building. By a stark contrast, I met John at a NAMM show years later and he was as uptight and rude as a person could possibly be. He actually seemed like his head was going to explode from stress and anger.
Thanks to everyone for your comments. Please keep 'em coming! |
|
|
|
chris ivey
From:
california (deceased)
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 3:35 pm
|
|
| cool guitar danny. i didn't know they went back through the body in 53 or whatever.. i'd just play that sucker! don't change anything til you get as good as jerry byrd. learn it good and come teach me how! i think that actually might be the last tuning i put on mine...it's over at the house i'm moving to so can't check it yet. i hardly play it but want to whenever i look at it! |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 3:56 pm
|
|
| Danny Bates wrote: |
Rick,
I measured both pickups. The one in the guitar measures 7.19 and my old black horseshoe from the metal body measures 1.79
|
Thought y'all might be interested in these ...
50's 8 stringer bobbins ... used bobbins that were made for 6 strings ... with two added pole pieces.
I got a couple pickups out of a double neck 8 sent to me to fix ... and I wanted to try and wind them with 38 AWG ...
But "real estate" is at a premium here ...
It took alittle ingenuity ... but it's done ... everything is firm ...
And they still fit inside the 1.25" horseshoes ...
DC resistances ... around 1.9 k Ohm each
 |
|
|
|
Ron Whitfield
From:
Kaaawa, Hawaii, USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 4:12 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| If the story of the steel compression molds being melted down for the war effort is true ... then the post war bakelites were all NOS (new old stock) |
The pre-war, and the post-war bodies, are of course two completely different designs, so if the Hall version is BS, then we still need an answer as to why the design was changed.
Maybe the neck pull problem was 'a' reason...
When did the 'new' war era style come on the market?
Are there any pre '41s wih the latter body style in existance? |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 4:18 pm
|
|
| Ron Whitfield wrote: |
The pre-war, and the post-war bodies, are of course two completely different designs, so if the Hall version is BS, then we still need an answer as to why the design was changed.
|
???
Other than the integrated bridge ... all my postwars ... are identical to my "Wartimes" (circa 1940 with 1.5" magnets, celluloid plates, jack, tone and volume on audience side) ...
Both neck and body ... identical ...
Please elaborate on this ... "completely different design" ... |
|
|
|
Danny Bates
From:
Fresno, CA. USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 4:35 pm
|
|
| I have to leave for a gig now, but tomorrow I'll post some detailed pics of the body. |
|
|
|
Ron Whitfield
From:
Kaaawa, Hawaii, USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 4:56 pm
|
|
quote=]Please elaborate on this ... "completely different design" ...[/quote]
Not war time VS post war.
Pre war VS war/post war. |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 5:06 pm
|
|
| Ron Whitfield wrote: |
Not war time VS post war.
Pre war VS war/post war. |
Take a look around here ... some good info put forth by Harry Sheppard, John Dahms and myself ...
http://www.horseshoemagnets.com/_sgg/m5m5s1_1.htm |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 5:15 pm
|
|
Some folks call these "Wartimes" ... circa 1939 to 1941 ...
But they are still considered as "Prewars ... by most.
The third generation ..
1.5" magnets, Half Moon Mounting Tabs, Integrated bridge .. identical to all earlier prewars.
The differences between them and the first two generations of bakelites ...
A different "heel" on the neck ...
The audience side jack and controls (just a function of drilling) ... and celluloid plates on the later models.
And a rounded "edge" to the body ...
Last edited by Rick Aiello on 21 Nov 2008 5:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Ron Whitfield
From:
Kaaawa, Hawaii, USA
|
Posted 21 Nov 2008 5:37 pm
|
|
Nice efforts on the site page, indeed, Rick.
Dampens some of my theories on these guitars.
It's always seemed to me that along with the necks, the bodies were slightly different.
Can't see enuf from the pix to say for certain, besides the original design bridge being gone from the war/posties, having been removed, which answers another question, thank you.
Have you measured the bouts and waistes between the two eras? If they are equal, then my assumptions could have been tropical delusions.
Not my first, or worst...
If all is the same with the bodies, then why were the neck's design changed?
Was the neck design where the problem of the necks seperating from the body was?
Any word of war/post era neck/body seperation? |
|
|
|
