FS: McGuinn's 1964 12 string...
Roger Reini
newsgroup, as it's bound to be of interest there, too.
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 23:02:32 -0700, Sco...@southpaw.com (Scott
Jennings) wrote:
>
>Hi all, long time since I've posted around here, though I read the group
>regularly.
>
>Two weeks ago Roger McGuinn's first Rickenbacker 12 string surfaced. It is
>a 1964 MapleGlo (blonde finished) 360/12, converted by the factory in 1966
>for "Jim McGuinn" to a 370/12BYRD model. This instrument has been verified
>as authentic by John Hall of Rickenbacker, and is currently available for
>sale. The most serious of inquiries only...
I was under the impression that this guitar was stolen in late 1965,
which is hard to reconcile with the statement that it was converted to
a Byrd model in '66 for McGuinn. Perhaps the "received wisdom" is
inaccurate.
Now we have another guitar to argue about :) -- or should that be :( ?
Scott Jennings
>I was under the impression that this guitar was stolen in late 1965,
>which is hard to reconcile with the statement that it was converted to
>a Byrd model in '66 for McGuinn. Perhaps the "received wisdom" is
>inaccurate.
>
>Now we have another guitar to argue about :) -- or should that be :( ?
This was the story I had heard too, but the instrument was dated inside
when the work was done, and the work order in the factory archives is
signed by "Jim McGuinn". Roger was apparently contacted about the guitar
by John Hall and it all checks out. Roger is obviously reluctant to get
involved in the authentication of an instrument that was stolen from him
There really is nothing to argue about. As with the first Rick 12, which
we sold a few years ago, this one is backed up by factory documentation.
For the record, I am merely brokering the instrument, and am not the
owner...
- Scott
--
Scott Jennings
Route 66 Guitars
http://www.southpaw.com
rou...@southpaw.com
Jim Walker
guitar? I think the police would like to know.
Scott Jennings <Sco...@southpaw.com> wrote in article
<Scottj-1309...@192.168.2.1>...
RLujan4533
>and has asked not to be involved.
>
>- Scott
That sort of sounds like 'losers weepers finders keepers'. Are you saying that
if an item is stolen and held until a certain amount of time has passed that
the original owner has no claim on it? Please explain.
Regards,
Richard
'74 Fender Stratocaster
'98 Fender DG 10-12
'98(99?) 360/12 FG
'86 Seagull Menestel
Scott Jennings
<j&lwa...@conninc.com> wrote:
>If this guitar was stolen from Roger it is still his property. Who has this
>guitar? I think the police would like to know.
Doesn't work like that after 32 years. Roger is aware of the instrument,
and has asked not to be involved.
- Scott
--
EGGBASS
>>and has asked not to be involved.
>>
>>- Scott
Why wouldn't it work like that? It wasn't missing 32 yrs, but in '76 a friend's
strat was stolen, he filed a police report, and about 10 yrs later he got a
call from the cops-they had found his guitar. He still has it.
eggbass
Jim Walker
have passed. It is still mine! If this is truly Roger McGuinn's guitar,
give it back to him!
Scott Jennings <Sco...@southpaw.com> wrote in article
<Scottj-1309...@192.168.2.1>...
> In article <01bddf4f$7ee21c80$47f057cf@customer>, "Jim Walker"
> <j&lwa...@conninc.com> wrote:
>
> >If this guitar was stolen from Roger it is still his property. Who has
this
> >guitar? I think the police would like to know.
>
> Doesn't work like that after 32 years. Roger is aware of the instrument,
> and has asked not to be involved.
>
> - Scott
>
GrowlyMan
I don't think SouthPaw should be proud of what they're doing. It's stuff like
this that makes you not want to buy from someone.
Chris Capozza
mikep
If the guitar was stolen from McGuinn, it belongs to McGuinn. You cannot
transfer title to a guitar that you do not own. Therefore, the thief
could not transfer title, and anyone who acquired it subsequently (other
than McGuinn) does not own it. There is a statute of limitations for
prosecuting the thief, but time does not cure the defective title.
Daniel Cooper
some credit for the ability to cope with the situation himself.
Jim Walker wrote in message <01bddf57$763e8700$47f057cf@customer>...
Scott Jennings
grow...@aol.com (GrowlyMan) wrote:
I do not own the instrument, but have merely been asked to help find the
proper buyer. With all due respect to everyones opinion, that is not how
the law works. McGuinn has been notified of the current owner of the
instrument, and he knows that he has no legal claim to it. He told John
Hall he had no interest in getting it back, or so I was told, I was not
privy to the conversation. I know this offends some people, as it does me
on certain levels, however you need to take these things up with lawmakers
to get the laws changed.
The instrument is historically significant, and relevant to these
newsgroups. I thought it would be worth mentioning to these groups that
the instrument has surfaced and is available for sale. Flames, baiting,
and personal attacks only slightly outweigh the number of responses from
those genuinely interested in the instrument and its story. There are only
a few rock and roll related iconic items still unaccounted for, and I was
thrilled the instrument has surfaced.
I am certain the instrument will sell, and that it will sell to someone
for whom Roger McGuinn and the Byrds were in some way inspirational in
their life, and for whom the monetary value is secondary to their desire
to own a piece of rock and roll history. I am only glad that I am left
handed, so that I do not yearn to own and play these right handed
treasures. (Thank you McCartney for never having your 4001S stolen ;).
MMcG404
Linda Berris
instrument.
RLujan4533 wrote:
>
> >Doesn't work like that after 32 years. Roger is aware of the instrument,
> >and has asked not to be involved.
> >
> >- Scott
>
Macca 67
have mixed feelings about this subject, myself. However, none of it
really matters because Mr.McGuinn apparently has said he wants nothing
to do with it, and probably doesn't want to be bothered about it, so I
guess someone will buy it. I like The Byrds a little and McGuinn, so I
think if this guitar was used on any of their hit records, it belongs in
the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I have always wondered what I would do
if Paul McCartney's stolen 1961 Hofner "Cavern" bass turned up in my
hands. It might fetch a million dollars easily, maybe more. However,
knowing that Paul is sentimental about his old guitars and stuff(he
still has some from his teenage years), and because he is my biggest
musical influence, I would hope that I would give it back to him. Who
knows, maybe doing something like that and he'd be a friend for life,
unless you were the one who stole it!!! I think we should respect Roger
McGuinn's wishes and not involve him in this. Just my opinion, no
offense intended. regards, Macca67
MMcG404 wrote:
>
> I bid $5.
Linda Berris
>
> If this guitar was stolen from Roger it is still his property. Who has this
> guitar? I think the police would like to know.
>
>
It sounds like Scott is simply trying to broker the instrument (and you
have my sympathies, Scott ;-) ). It also sounds like Roger is one of
those musicians, like John Fogerty, who is not ga-ga over any particular
piece of wood and metal--that is, he seems to be into playing the
guitars, not collecting them. That's my impression, anyway.
Linda Berris
fanatics who think they know a lot more about these things than they do!
I'll say it again: Roger is a big boy, and he knows about the situation,
and I'm sure if he was interested in having the guitar returned to him,
he would take action. Evidently that is not the case. Scott Jennings is
a highly reputable guitar dealer who has taken all the appropriate steps
to have the guitar authenticated by John Hall and Roger. He (Scott) is
now trying to conduct his business here. I hope people will let him do
so, instead of telling him what he should do.
MHO,
Linda
Daniel Cooper wrote:
>
> This isn't really your affair, is it? If McGuinn knows about it, give him
> some credit for the ability to cope with the situation himself.
>
> Jim Walker wrote in message <01bddf57$763e8700$47f057cf@customer>...
> >Bullshit! If someone steals something from me, I don't care how many years
> >have passed. It is still mine! If this is truly Roger McGuinn's guitar,
> >give it back to him!
> >
> >Scott Jennings <Sco...@southpaw.com> wrote in article
> ><Scottj-1309...@192.168.2.1>...
> >> In article <01bddf4f$7ee21c80$47f057cf@customer>, "Jim Walker"
> >> <j&lwa...@conninc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If this guitar was stolen from Roger it is still his property. Who has
> >this
> >> >guitar? I think the police would like to know.
> >>
> >> Doesn't work like that after 32 years. Roger is aware of the instrument,
> >> and has asked not to be involved.
> >>
> >> - Scott
> >>
RLujan4533
>> guitar? I think the police would like to know.
>>
>>
>
>It sounds like Scott is simply trying to broker the instrument
I guess what offends me and I assume others on this NG is that Scott is going
to profit from the loss of someone who's fairly well respected around here. If
Roger chooses not to involve himself with this particular collection of wood
and metal that's fine. I agree it is his business. But that doesn't change
the fact that Scott is knowingly brokering a stolen article. Last time I
checked that was a crime whether or not the original owner had relinquished
their claim to the item.
David Hartley
Rock and Roll Hall of fame or some other rock museum is a better call. I think
it's where it belongs. Not in some guy's collection gathering dust.
Dave H
Roger Reini wrote:
> I'm cross-posting this to the fairly new alt.guitar.rickenbacker
> newsgroup, as it's bound to be of interest there, too.
>
> On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 23:02:32 -0700, Sco...@southpaw.com (Scott
> Jennings) wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi all, long time since I've posted around here, though I read the group
> >regularly.
> >
> >Two weeks ago Roger McGuinn's first Rickenbacker 12 string surfaced. It is
> >a 1964 MapleGlo (blonde finished) 360/12, converted by the factory in 1966
> >for "Jim McGuinn" to a 370/12BYRD model. This instrument has been verified
> >as authentic by John Hall of Rickenbacker, and is currently available for
> >sale. The most serious of inquiries only...
>
> I was under the impression that this guitar was stolen in late 1965,
> which is hard to reconcile with the statement that it was converted to
> a Byrd model in '66 for McGuinn. Perhaps the "received wisdom" is
> inaccurate.
>
> Now we have another guitar to argue about :) -- or should that be :( ?
>
> Roger (rre...@wwnet.net)
> http://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/
Steve Cobham
wrote:
>If the guitar is historically significant (and it is) surely donating it to the
>Rock and Roll Hall of fame or some other rock museum is a better call.
Alanis Morrisette - "Isn't it ironic?"
Steve.
===================================
st...@guitars.powernet.co.uk
Even a dog can shake hands........
===================================
David Hartley
Zito330
donate it to the R&R Hall of Fame!
- Mike Zito
(7 Rics; none owned by famous people)
Greg W.
I think that guitar definitely belongs in the R 'n R Hall of Fame. The
questionwould be how to get it there. That guitar is probably going to go for
bigger
bucks than we could scrape together here. Maybe we could contact the Hall and
pledge donations towards the purchase of the guitar if they buy it. Just
brainstorming...
I'm going to buy a couple of Fla lotto tickets today. Then there will be a 1 in
7,000,000 chance that I can solve the problem myself ;-)
--
Greg W.
----------------------
http://www.netrox.net/~gregw/home.htm
Greg....@faa.dot.gov
gr...@netrox.net
Vin S.
> Maybe we should all take up a collection and buy it together . . . then
> donate it to the R&R Hall of Fame!
yeah after we all get a chance to play it right? =>
Cheers,
Vin
"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant!"
http://orion.ramapo.edu/~vsperanz/alice.html
__
\,`/ /
Vin S. _).. `_
oO0[Loaded(at)hempseed(dot)com]0Oo ( __ -\
Web Magician of: All Tomorrows Parties: '`.
http://zoso.home.ml.org/velvets/ ( \>_-_,
Welcome back my friends to show that never ends! _||_ ~-/
-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
Jim Walker
condone what is happening here. How would you feel if your guitar was
stolen? We, as a group of people who love our Rickenbackers and who respect
Roger, must not allow someone to profit from this stolen guitar. This is
simply wrong no matter how you look at it.
Scott, you should be ashamed of yourself and you should bow out of this
transaction immediately!
Linda Berris wrote in message <35FC610D...@home.com>...
>Jim Walker wrote:
>>
>> If this guitar was stolen from Roger it is still his property. Who has
this
>> guitar? I think the police would like to know.
>>
>>
>That would be Roger's business, wouldn't it?
>
Jim Walker
ask Roger if he would like to have it back or if it should go somewhere like
the R&R HOF.
MMcG404 wrote in message
<199809140125...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I bid $5.
RICK12DR
buying a couple lottery tickets,too,and
when I win in a couple days,Roger may
want to buy me lunch,cause that's all it
would cost him to get me to get his old
axe back?If the jackpot is as big as it was
last time I looked, hell, maybe I'll just buy
Rickenbacker while I'm at it!
JAMES3202
Scott Is not recieving stolen merchandise.
He is brokering it for a private party.
And after 32 years, this private party is most
probably not a thief but someone who paid for this instrument.
Possibly, 4 or 5 hands ago there is a thief involved but let us not smear and
slander someone who runs an honest business.
He has taken the time to verify this instrument
and contacted all concerned.. He has time
(money) involved and has a right to turn a profit. Lets honor his right and
Mr. McGuinns
and leave the "sour grapes" at home.
Obviously at this juncture this instrument is legal, free and clear, with
papers ---and for
sale Make a Bid!!!!
james cooper
ACSLAMBERT
>papers ---and for
>sale Make a Bid!!!!
>james cooper
This makes me curious. Although this has been a subject of much passion,
complete with name calling (fanatics?), would it in fact be free and clear? If
I could put together an offer of say 25 grand would I be assured that the
guitar would be mine to keep?
Mark
John Hall
>Jennings) wrote:
>Two weeks ago Roger McGuinn's first Rickenbacker 12 string surfaced. It is
>a 1964 MapleGlo (blonde finished) 360/12, converted by the factory in 1966
>for "Jim McGuinn" to a 370/12BYRD model. This instrument has been verified
>as authentic by John Hall of Rickenbacker, and is currently available for
>sale. The most serious of inquiries only...
I have NOT authenticated this guitar, nor will I do so.
I have only verified ONLY that a particular serial number given to me
belongs to a guitar which appears on our records. The owner is listed as
"Jim McGuinn" and indeed, it was converted from a Model 360/12 to a 370/12.
The wiring was modified at the same time. This much information was only
released after I consulted with Roger personally and received his permission
to do so.
I have NOT SEEN this guitar and therefore could not possibly offer an
opinion about it, even if I wanted to.
Cheers,
John Hall
JAMES3202
However, in a seperate post, Mr. Hall states
that he has not, and will not authenticate this
instrument. HE HAS NOT SEEN THIS
GUITAR.
Given the opportunity I would hope that John would reconsider his posture, as
an instrument with such potential historical signifigance should be returned to
the factory for inspection, and review. All
efforts should be made to identify and put in
to proper perspective.
Stolen or not, this is one of the mile markers
for both the history of Music and quite frankly
for Rickenbacker International.
a joint effort would either raise this particular
guitar to its proper position or dispell all the
"magic" surrounding it.
james cooper
RLujan4533
Not so sure about that. Had a friend once who bought a car with all the
papers. Only to have the police show up a few weeks later and haul it away as
it been stolen a while back. No compensation either!
Regards,
Richard
JAMES3202
merchandise.
He has Publicly or Privately stated he wishes
not to be involved.
Check with your attorney and make a bid.
cooper
Jim Walker
isn't going to assist someone who wants to make a profit by selling stolen
merchandise.
If anyone in this NG buys this guitar or finds out who the buyer is, please
let us all know. That person would be just as much a thief as the creep who
originally stole the instrument (not to mention the creep who is now selling
it).
JAMES3202 wrote in message
<199809141627...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I would think with a reciept that you would definately own a legal guitar.
Roger Reini
> Maybe we should all take up a collection and buy it together . . . then
>donate it to the R&R Hall of Fame!
>
> - Mike Zito
> (7 Rics; none owned by famous people)
Now this is an interesting idea! Thanks for coming up with it.
JAMES3202
cooper
Steve Cobham
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 23:02:32 -0700, Sco...@southpaw.com (Scott
>Jennings) wrote:
>>Two weeks ago Roger McGuinn's first Rickenbacker 12 string surfaced. It is
>>a 1964 MapleGlo (blonde finished) 360/12, converted by the factory in 1966
>>for "Jim McGuinn" to a 370/12BYRD model. This instrument has been verified
>>as authentic by John Hall of Rickenbacker, and is currently available for
>>sale. The most serious of inquiries only...
>
>I was under the impression that this guitar was stolen in late 1965,
>which is hard to reconcile with the statement that it was converted to
>a Byrd model in '66 for McGuinn. Perhaps the "received wisdom" is
>inaccurate.
>
>Now we have another guitar to argue about :) -- or should that be :( ?
Let's see a scan of it on the Route66 web page and we can settle this
without anybody arguing.
It's that simple..........
Really.
GrowlyMan
somehow become a legal aquisition just because money has exchanged hands. Last
I checked it was illegal to posess, own, sell or buy stolen goods.
If that's not true anymore, I can see why OJ is free and President Bill still
has a job! We got one fucked up legal system. ;)
Chris Capozza
Dakota6500
>Subject: Re: FS: McGuinn's 1964 12 string...
>From: David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
>Date: 09/14/98 2:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35FCB893...@ihug.co.nz>
>
>If the guitar is historically significant (and it is) surely donating it to
>the
>Rock and Roll Hall of fame or some other rock museum is a better call. I
>think
>it's where it belongs. Not in some guy's collection gathering dust.
>
>Dave H
"When I get to heaven, the angels will be playing not harps, but Rickenbackers.
And they will be playing songs by R.E.M." - Matt Snow, N.M.E.
Dakota6500
heck, even a poor college guy like me would be interested in that.
roy
Jim Walker
MMcG404 <mmc...@aol.com> wrote in article
wmthor
to the R & R Hall of Fame.
MMcG404
Ron
Zito330
_______________
$7.00. Shipping, case and personally delivered by Roger McGuinn?
Ron Hodgson
>
> Then either Lloyd Chiate has difficulty with the truth, or John Hall has
> difficulty with the truth.
>
> On Saturday, September 5, 1998, Lloyd Chiate of Voltage Guitars -- who owns
> the guitar in question -- told me over the phone that he took the guitar in
> question to the Rickenbacker factory and that he not only has written authen-
> tication from John Hall, but also from Roger McGuinn, who allegedly wants no-
> thing to do with any of this, and who allegedly couldn't care any less about
> recovering any of his old guitars.
>
Are we to assume that you have a problem with someone claiming to have
Mr. McGuinn's FIRST Ric 12 string? Wouldn't this guitar be of historical
value? After all it was the guitar that produced the FIRST Byrds sound
that we know and love today.
You are now doing what you whinned about everyone doing to you. This
would of course make the 8MH Ric worth less to a collector. But only
because the 360 would have been the one that made the sound of the Byrds
famous.
I'm not trying to flame you Terry. I just found your last post to be
more than a little ironic.
I too would like to see pictures of this Ric. But just because I love
old Rics. Even the one you have.
John Hall
> Then either Lloyd Chiate has difficulty with the truth, or John Hall has
> difficulty with the truth.
>
> On Saturday, September 5, 1998, Lloyd Chiate of Voltage Guitars -- who
owns
> the guitar in question -- told me over the phone that he took the guitar
in
> question to the Rickenbacker factory and that he not only has written
authen-
> tication from John Hall, but also from Roger McGuinn, who allegedly wants
no-
> thing to do with any of this, and who allegedly couldn't care any less
about
> recovering any of his old guitars.
For the record, Lloyd contacted me by phone, and as I stated before, gave me
a serial number of a guitar. I looked up the repair records . . . which
listed the owner as Jim McGuinn . . . and faxed him a copy. End of story.
No factory visit, no authentication (other than the existence of a repair
order for a particular guitar).
I have no knowledge about whether Lloyd contacted Roger, subsequent to my
conversation with "Jim".
John Hall
Gerard Lanois
: It is no secret that McGuinn's 1970 Rickenbacker 370/12 was rebuilt, then
: fraudulently used to encroach upon my guitar's history and credentials, hav-
: ing been originally donated/loaned to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame + Museum
: on Wednesday, January 25, 1995 as a fictitious 1967 Rickenbacker 370/12 al-
: legedly used by McGuinn in the Byrds.
I'm joining this a little late, but I interpret this paragraph to
mean that you own McGuinn's 1967 370/12. Is that correct?
From this discussion, I know of three of McGuinn's guitars:
1. '64 360/12, which was converted to a 370/12 and rewired
This is the guitar which this thread is dicussing
2. '67 370/12, which I think you own, right?
3. '70 370/12, which is at the R'n'R HOF as of 1/25/1995
Just trying to get this straight. Maybe for the FAQ???
Thanks,
-Gerard
ger...@lanois.com
Gerard Lanois
: Just trying to get this straight. Maybe for the FAQ???
OK - I've got your posting from 8/10 from DejaNews. I'll repeat it here,
and stand corrected.
-Gerard
ger...@lanois.com
Tomcat wrote:
> Aside from a borrowed Fireglo 360/12, these are the four Rickenbacker
> 12-strings McGuinn played in the Byrds. Although the Hall of Fame Ricks
> (Ricks #3 & #4) were acquired at the end of 1970, they were McGuinn's
> 1970s solo career Ricks for the most part. The Byrds disbanded in 1973.
>
> 1) 1964 Mapleglo Rickenbacker 360/12 - MTM Rick
> -http://netnow.micron.net/~jcorey/byrd65pix.jpg
> -http://members.aol.com/byrdsonlne/byrdsstuff/byrdpic1.gif
> -http://ebni.com/byrds/lpttttaj.gif
> -http://www.uark.edu/~kadler/rmcguinn/ed_byrds.gif
>
> 2) 1965 Mapleglo Rickenbacker 360/12-->370/12Byrd - 8MH Rick
> -http://www.uark.edu/~kadler/rmcguinn/byrds.gif
>http://orpheus.la.utk.edu/music/resources/song.site/ROCK.tmbrne/byrds.live.GIF
> -http://www.waxing-eloquent.com/byrds/images/Byrdslive67.jpeg
> -http://www.itrstudio.com/roger2.jpg
> -http://www.artfarm.co.jp/TatadoHeaven/images3/Tomcat2.jpg
> -http://www.vincentflanders.com/byrd_jp40.jpg
> -http://www.vincentflanders.com/rm_jp50.jpg
> -http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/Byrd2a.jpg
> 3) 1970 Mapleglo Rickenbacker 370/12 - HoF Rick
> -http://www.waxing-eloquent.com/byrds/images/Byrds73.jpeg
> -http://members.aol.com/mcbyrds/mcguinn.gif
> -http://www.uark.edu/~kadler/rmcguinn/jollyroger.gif
> -http://www.mabi.de/~marsch/rp/gifs/mcguinn.jpg
> -http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3120/mcguinn2.jpg
> -http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3120/mcguinn8.jpg
> -http://www.rickenbacker.com/images/nlmcguinn.gif
>
> 4) 1970 Rickenbacker 341/12SF Lightshow - HoF Lightshow Rick
> -http://ebni.com/byrds/memrm3.gif
> -http://southpaw.com/images/Lightshows.gif
Steve Cobham
wrote:
>Oh yes, I really do think!
Yes, but probably not for the same reason as I do.
Such is the nature of irony - and that's a little ironic in
itself.......
>
>Steve Cobham wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:32:51 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If the guitar is historically significant (and it is) surely donating it to the
>> >Rock and Roll Hall of fame or some other rock museum is a better call.
>>
>> Alanis Morrisette - "Isn't it ironic?"
Steve.
====================================
st...@guitars.powernet.co.uk
"I get knocked down
But I get up again
You're never going to keep me down"
Chumbawamba - "Tubthumping"
====================================
Steve Cobham
wrote:
>And would you be so kind as to explain what your reason is?
>
>Hanging on your every word
>
>Dave H.
>
>
>
>Steve Cobham wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:40:56 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Oh yes, I really do think!
>>
>> Yes, but probably not for the same reason as I do.
>>
>> Such is the nature of irony - and that's a little ironic in
>> itself.......
>> >
>> >Steve Cobham wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:32:51 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If the guitar is historically significant (and it is) surely donating it to the
>> >> >Rock and Roll Hall of fame or some other rock museum is a better call.
>> >>
>> >> Alanis Morrisette - "Isn't it ironic?"
Well, if you examine the various histories - as revealed in the
available literature, as well as in the posts from the experts on this
group - McGuinn's second Rick, the one he used to record 8MH has, to
all intents and purposes, already hung in the RNRHOF for a period of
time! That's the irony inherent in the suggestion that the Jennings
Rick should end up there.
It's not there now, but it is.
Paradox (but not irony).......
Read everything you can get hold of from the published sources and
from the archives of alt.music.byrds and alt.guitar.rickenbacker and
you'll find that at one time, the Rick in the HOF had a caption worded
as if to read that the guitar was, in effect, the guitar that has now
surfaced recently.
Then, there's Tomcat's guitar which, based on available photographic
evidence, seems to be the second Rick that McGuinn owned, also.
Thus, we now have three guitars that have, at one time or another, all
been purported to be McGuinn's main guitar used between -
approximately - the recording of 8MH and the demise of The Byrds.
They can't all be that particular guitar.
They could all have been McGuinn's guitars.
Two of them certainly were - the one in the HOF, and, in my opinion,
the one owned by Tomcat, based on what appears to be sound
photographic evidence.
As for what I'm calling the Jennings Rick, this instrument may have
belonged to McGuinn, but without any photographs of it, no comparisons
can be made between it and guitars photographed in the possession of
McGuinn during the time he was supposed to be using it.
It's clear what is needed to cast any further light on this subject
and that's a photograph of the Jennings Rick posted on a web site or
posted to a binaries ng.
What's the problem with putting up a photo?
After all, no-one who can't personally visit the location of the
guitar in question wouldn't buy it blind, would they?
If I was interested in buying it, for example - I'm in the UK - (I'm
not - too many zeros involved), how would I be able to view my
prospective purchase?
I'm sure that photographs have already been taken.
Hey, here's an offer! If no-one has the time to scan a photo of it
into their computer, send it to me by snail mail and I'll scan it and
post it to a binaries newsgroup!
C'mon....................
How difficult is it to let us all see a photo?
RV WRLee
>Read everything you can get hold of from the published sources and
>from the archives of alt.music.byrds and alt.guitar.rickenbacker and
>you'll find that at one time, the Rick in the HOF had a caption worded
>as if to read that the guitar was, in effect, the guitar that has now
>surfaced recently.
I've been to the RNRHOF many times since it opened and I never saw the Mapleglo
Ric hanging on display captioned as anything other than "1970 Ricenbacker....".
I also had the opportunity to see both HOF Rics a number of times before they
were ever donated/loaned to the HOF and neither was ever porported to be
anything other than what they were. Just my perspective.
Bi!!
RV WR...@AOL.COM
WR...@RVMAIL.COM
Sandra Thompson
uo some groups so I looked yours up and I thought that I would write a
little. Even though I know nothing about guitars, I was very bored and
decided to try this out and write you!!!! see ya!
A bored comp lit. student
John Sessoms
>
> Just think of the tax benefits one would receive if they were to donate it
> to the R & R Hall of Fame.
Just think of the probability it's going to end up in the hands of some
Japanese collector and never be seen in the US again. :-(
John Sessoms
>
> >Doesn't work like that after 32 years. Roger is aware of the instrument,
> >and has asked not to be involved.
> >
> >- Scott
>
> That sort of sounds like 'losers weepers finders keepers'. Are you saying that
> if an item is stolen and held until a certain amount of time has passed that
> the original owner has no claim on it? Please explain.
>
No, it sounds like the original owner has decided to MAKE no claim for
it. It's the balance between the expected reward and the effort that
would have to be expended to obtain it.
Roger could probably sue to get the instrument back, but would it really
be worth the time and expense involved? Given the state of the courts
today, it'd take years, cost a small fortune in legal fees and be a LOT
of hassle.
But, Scott...
How about putting a picture up at Southpaw even if it's not a lefty?
I expect he's decided he'd rather spend the time playing the guitar's he
still has, and saving his money.
David Hartley
Hanging on your every word
Dave H.
Steve Cobham wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:40:56 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh yes, I really do think!
>
> Yes, but probably not for the same reason as I do.
>
> Such is the nature of irony - and that's a little ironic in
> itself.......
> >
> >Steve Cobham wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:32:51 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If the guitar is historically significant (and it is) surely donating it to the
> >> >Rock and Roll Hall of fame or some other rock museum is a better call.
> >>
> >> Alanis Morrisette - "Isn't it ironic?"
>
David Hartley
that some of us won't be able to sleep until we know
Regards
Dave H.
Steve Cobham wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:01:33 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >And would you be so kind as to explain what your reason is?
> >
> >Hanging on your every word
> >
> >Dave H.
> >
> >
> >
> >Steve Cobham wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:40:56 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh yes, I really do think!
> >>
> >> Yes, but probably not for the same reason as I do.
> >>
> >> Such is the nature of irony - and that's a little ironic in
> >> itself.......
> >> >
> >> >Steve Cobham wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:32:51 +1200, David Hartley <dh...@ihug.co.nz>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >If the guitar is historically significant (and it is) surely donating it to the
> >> >> >Rock and Roll Hall of fame or some other rock museum is a better call.
> >> >>
> >> >> Alanis Morrisette - "Isn't it ironic?"
>
> Well, if you examine the various histories - as revealed in the
> available literature, as well as in the posts from the experts on this
> group - McGuinn's second Rick, the one he used to record 8MH has, to
> all intents and purposes, already hung in the RNRHOF for a period of
> time! That's the irony inherent in the suggestion that the Jennings
> Rick should end up there.
>
> It's not there now, but it is.
>
> Paradox (but not irony).......
>
> Read everything you can get hold of from the published sources and
> from the archives of alt.music.byrds and alt.guitar.rickenbacker and
> you'll find that at one time, the Rick in the HOF had a caption worded
> as if to read that the guitar was, in effect, the guitar that has now
> surfaced recently.
>
Dakota6500
dude she wants you. go for it. (just not online)
roy (wondering if they teach netiquette in comp lit class)
:)
Scott Jennings
wrote:
>Monday, May 22, 1995:
>
> I suddenly and unexpectedly show up at the Rickenbacker factory with the
> real McCoy. John Hall denies the guitar's authenticity, tells me the gui-
> tar is worth only "about $10,000", then tries to herd me over to Route 66
> Guitars to see Scott Jennings.
At no time was this instrument mentioned to me until you told me you had
it during your paranoid diatribe on the inaccuracy of Tony Bacons book. If
John Hall did ask you to contact me I am flattered, but this is the first
I have heard of it.
- Scott
--
Scott Jennings
Route 66 Guitars
http://www.southpaw.com
rou...@southpaw.com
Kenneth La Barre
It won't wind up in Japan, they're out of money!
As for other sources: while I hear the Sultan of Brunei likes "blondes" he's
not big on that "infidel" art form called Rock and Roll!
While we're on the subject:
Does anyone else doubt that they'll get the *rumoured* $100k plus that
they'd like to get for this guitar? I've read more article in the past 6
month about how the RnR memorabilia market is/has dried up.
Any opinions?
Cheers,
Ken
John Sessoms wrote in message <360089...@nospam.pagesz.net>...
BobKat
Tomcat wrote:
> In article <19980916100759...@ng72.aol.com>, rvw...@aol.com
> (RV WRLee) wrote:
>
> > >Read everything you can get hold of from the published sources and
> > >from the archives of alt.music.byrds and alt.guitar.rickenbacker and
> > >you'll find that at one time, the Rick in the HOF had a caption worded
> > >as if to read that the guitar was, in effect, the guitar that has now
> > >surfaced recently.
> >
> > I've been to the RNRHOF many times since it opened and I never saw the
> Mapleglo
> > Ric hanging on display captioned as anything other than "1970
> Ricenbacker....".
> > I also had the opportunity to see both HOF Rics a number of times
> before they
> > were ever donated/loaned to the HOF and neither was ever porported to be
> > anything other than what they were. Just my perspective.
> > Bi!!
> > RV WR...@AOL.COM
> > WR...@RVMAIL.COM
>
> March 1994:
>
> Roger McGuinn deliberately "misleads" Tony Bacon & Paul Day in an interview
> for their upcoming Rickenbacker book, and tells them that the second Rick-
> enbacker 12-string he used in the Byrds was "stolen in late 1966," and re-
> placed by a fictitious 1967 Rickenbacker 370/12 in a fictitious 1967 trip to
> the Rickenbacker factory with David Crosby.
>
> August[?] 1994:
>
> Roger McGuinn appears in _The Rickenbacker Book_ [Bacon & Day] posing with
> his rebuilt 1970 Rickenbacker 370/12 in front of a poster of the 1967 Byrds.
> http://www.rickenbacker.com/images/nlmcguinn.gif
> http://rickenbacker.com/images/nlmcguinn.gif
>
> Wednesday, January 25, 1995:
>
> The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame + Museum announces it has received the Byrds
> Collection -- including a Mapleglo Rickenbacker 12-string.
> http://www.waxing-eloquent.com/byrds/rockhall.html
>
> Sunday, May 14, 1995:
>
> McGuinn announces to alt.music.byrds that he has donated/loaned "the Rick-
> enbacker 12-string that I used in the Byrds from 1967 until I got my sig-
> nature model" to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame + Museum.
> ftp://www.cuconnect.cornell.edu/pub/gm27/Byrds/1995_digests/Byrdmaniax37.txt
>
> Monday, May 22, 1995:
>
> I suddenly and unexpectedly show up at the Rickenbacker factory with the
> real McCoy. John Hall denies the guitar's authenticity, tells me the gui-
> tar is worth only "about $10,000", then tries to herd me over to Route 66
> Guitars to see Scott Jennings.
>
> Wednesday, June 7, 1995:
>
> John Hall assures me that my guitar is not authentic, and cannot be the
> guitar on page 84 of Smith's book. John Hall assures me that the guitar
> on page 84 of Smith's book is in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame + Museum.
>
> Saturday, September 2, 1995:
>
> Rock & Roll Hall of Fame + Museum grand opening ceremonies and concert.
> http://www.rockhall.com/news/archived/grandopening/weekend.html
>
> Roger McGuinn tells me to my face that he has donated/loaned "a mid-60s Rick-
> enbacker - one I used in the Byrds" to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame + Museum.
>
> Naturally, I booked a flight to Cleveland to see just what the devil was go-
> ing on over there. When I got there, the 1970 370/12 had been rebuilt, all
> right; but by then it was correctly captioned as a "1970 Rickenbacker 370/12",
> since those involved in this treachery knew I was on my way to Cleveland.
> Dennis Barrie, posing as just another tourist, met me incognito (or so he
> thought) in front of the Byrds exhibit, and immediately struck up a casual
> conversation about McGuinn's 1970 370/12 (to see if there was a problem).
> http://www.rockhall.com/news/archived/grandopening/photo9.html
> http://www.rockhall.com/facts/bios/barrdenn.html
>
> Considering all those involved, I don't trust any one of them for what
> they've done, and continue to do, in deliberately falsifying the history
> of the McGuinn/Byrds Rickenbackers to their own ends. Their CEO and ce-
> lebrity credentials and "reputations" mean little to me since they have all
> knowingly and willfully dealt treacherously and dishonestly with the truth.
>
> It should be abundantly clear that every attempt is still being made by the
> willfully dishonest to annex as much of the history and credentials off my
> guitar as they think they can get away with, backing their own fabrications
> with more fabrications, and swearing to the veracity of them all. It should
> also be abundantly clear that the players involved -- including those who are
> allegedly not involved -- are all bosom buddies, some for over three decades.
>
> But if Joe Blow, CEO, sez it's so, then who are we to dispute the infallible
> and unquestionable word or "company documents" of Joe Blow, CEO?
>
> Imvho.
>
> Tomcat
> 8...@mlode.com
> --
> http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mccorp/mcguinn66.jpg
> http://www.uark.edu/~kadler/rmcguinn/byrds.gif
> http://orpheus.la.utk.edu/music/resources/song.site/ROCK.tmbrne/byrds.live.GIF
> http://www.waxing-eloquent.com/byrds/images/Byrdslive67.jpeg
> http://pix.corbis.com/\pix\DZ\00\32/DZ003292_wm.jpg
> http://www.itrstudio.com/roger2.jpg
> http://www.artfarm.co.jp/TatadoHeaven/images3/Tomcat2.jpg
> http://www.vincentflanders.com/byrd_jp40.jpg
> http://www.vincentflanders.com/rm_jp50.jpg
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/Byrd2a.jpg
> http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/mcguinn_8mh.jpg
> http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mccorp/artists.html
> http://www.books.mfi.com/store/docs/Chineryintro.html
> http://www.robbreport.com/frontrunners/teardrop.htm
WOW....this is easily the most paranoid rant I have ever seen from Tomcat. This
one is REALLY good.
At waht point were you accosted in the bathroom by Kevin Costner, before the 11
minutes of film was removed from this movie or after? God, Tomcat, you really
can't believe this stuff. If you do, I recommend medication....please!
You are a bright guy, and a real knowledgeable source. But you are clearly
paranoid.
Macca 67
and Lee Oswald alone killed JFK. James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther
King all by his pitiful and pathetic self. Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK, all
by his lonesome self, and our boy Bill Clinton likes to recieve sexual
favors from any thing that moves, no "Right Wing" conspiracy planted
Miss Monica in the Oval Office, or should I say Oral Office. Get the
Drift? Even if you do own a guitar that used to belong to Roger McGuinn,
nobody cares, as I'm sure he doesn't either. Besides, it's apparent all
the guitar means to you is $$$, and that is pitiful and pathetic in it's
own right. Jingle Jangle, Macca67
Tomcat wrote:
>
> In article <Scottj-1709...@192.168.2.1>, Sco...@southpaw.com
> (Scott Jennings) wrote:
>
> > In article <813-160998...@ts1-24.mlode.com>, Tomcat <8...@mlode.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Monday, May 22, 1995:
> > >
> > > I suddenly and unexpectedly show up at the Rickenbacker factory with the
> > > real McCoy. John Hall denies the guitar's authenticity, tells me the gui-
> > > tar is worth only "about $10,000", then tries to herd me over to Route 66
> > > Guitars to see Scott Jennings.
> >
> > At no time was this instrument mentioned to me until you told me you had
> > it during your paranoid diatribe on the inaccuracy of Tony Bacons book. If
> > John Hall did ask you to contact me I am flattered, but this is the first
> > I have heard of it.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > --
> > Scott Jennings
> > Route 66 Guitars
> > http://www.southpaw.com
> > rou...@southpaw.com
>
> Hall figured I'd take the bait, but I didn't fall for it. $10K won't even
> buy a rusty old string off this puppy. On Thursday, July 20, 1995, Roger
> McGuinn interrupts an East Coast tour to come ALL the way out here to Cali-
> fornia and play a "Private Function" in San Rafael, across the state from me.
> http://www.waxing-eloquent.com/byrds/McGuinndate.html
> The very next day I get a call from Sotheby's out of the blue, and they sud-
> denly want me to put my guitar on the block for their December auction, and
> they want me to sign papers right away -- by fax, if necessary. They tried
> to get me to cough my guitar up real quick for $40-$50K. I guess they thought
> I'd be impressed. I didn't fall for that, either. They lied to my face and
> tried to dumb me down by denying that there was ever a $425,000.00 bid on the
> 1948-49 Fender Broadcaster that went on the block at Guernsey's the previous
> January, when it was already a known published fact. Turns out Sotheby's was
> only being used as a deception to find out everything I knew about my guitar
> because of the Hall of Fame thing, and also to see how gullible I was -- you
> know, like certain people behind the scenes thought they might possibly get
> this guitar back in a hurry for mere chump change. Not. Needless to say, I
> will never do business with Sotheby's in the future for anything.
>
> Tough toaster tops, Roger.
Paul Williams
<j&lwa...@conninc.com> writes
>Bullshit! If someone steals something from me, I don't care how many years
>have passed. It is still mine! If this is truly Roger McGuinn's guitar,
>give it back to him!
Mmmm. I hope this doesnt apply to land....
Paul
Steve Cobham
Native Americans would love to hear this...............
JWilli1130
>Native Americans would love to hear this...............
>
>Steve.
>
So would the Druids..... ; - 0
John
Daniel Cooper
Paul Williams wrote in message ...
>In article <01bddf57$763e8700$47f057cf@customer>, Jim Walker
><j&lwa...@conninc.com> writes
>>Bullshit! If someone steals something from me, I don't care how many years
>>have passed. It is still mine! If this is truly Roger McGuinn's guitar,
>>give it back to him!
>
>Mmmm. I hope this doesnt apply to land....
>
I had the same thought, Paul.
Macca 67
McGuinn, John Hall and probably many others want nothing to do with you.
Seek help immediatly!! Jingle Jangle, Macca67
Tomcat wrote:
>
> In article <6tjd7m$4rj$1...@supernews.com>, "John Hall"
> <c...@rickenbacker.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 23:02:32 -0700, Sco...@southpaw.com (Scott
> > >Jennings) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Two weeks ago Roger McGuinn's first Rickenbacker 12 string surfaced. It is
> > >a 1964 MapleGlo (blonde finished) 360/12, converted by the factory in 1966
> > >for "Jim McGuinn" to a 370/12BYRD model. This instrument has been verified
> > >as authentic by John Hall of Rickenbacker, and is currently available for
> > >sale. The most serious of inquiries only...
> >
> >
> > I have NOT authenticated this guitar, nor will I do so.
>
> Then either Lloyd Chiate has difficulty with the truth, or John Hall has
> difficulty with the truth.
>
> On Saturday, September 5, 1998, Lloyd Chiate of Voltage Guitars -- who owns
> the guitar in question -- told me over the phone that he took the guitar in
> question to the Rickenbacker factory and that he not only has written authen-
> tication from John Hall, but also from Roger McGuinn, who allegedly wants no-
> thing to do with any of this, and who allegedly couldn't care any less about
> recovering any of his old guitars.
>
> > I have only verified ONLY that a particular serial number given to me
> > belongs to a guitar which appears on our records. The owner is listed as
> > "Jim McGuinn" and indeed, it was converted from a Model 360/12 to a 370/12.
> > The wiring was modified at the same time.
>
> Evidently, if enough people can submit the correct serial number of the gui-
> tar modified at the factory from a 360/12 to a 370/12Byrd in February 1966,
> the world will eventually be crushed under the weight of counterfeit guitars
> all allegedly once belonging to "Jim McGuinn".
>
> Furthermore, I have been informed by Scott Jennings:
>
> "The INSTRUMENT has been verified by the factory." [emphasis mine]
>
> That claim goes far beyond mere serial number verification, so someone is
> not telling the truth.
>
> > This much information was only
> > released after I consulted with Roger personally and received his permission
> > to do so.
>
> Are we supposed to be impressed that Mr. Hall "consulted" with Roger "person-
> ally"? I have "consulted" with Roger "personally", as well as Mr. Hall, on a
> number of occasions, and have been deliberately lied to repeatedly.
>
> > I have NOT SEEN this guitar
>
> Lloyd Chiate? Scott Jennings? Or John Hall. One or more of these individu-
> als is not telling the truth.
>
> > and therefore could not possibly offer an
> > opinion about it, even if I wanted to.
>
> Scott Jennings insists:
>
> "The INSTRUMENT has been verified by the factory." [emphasis mine]
>
> Either Lloyd Chiate and/or Scott Jennings and/or John Hall is not telling
> the truth.
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John Hall
>
> Scott Jennings has also stated: "There are no secrets."
>
> But Scott Jennings deliberately ignores the simple questions that I asked
> regarding the guitar's alleged history, and we still have yet to actually
> see the guitar in question or its woodgrain (or its headstock).
>
> Let me restate my questions:
>
> a) How long was the guitar allegedly used by McGuinn and what albums did
> the guitar allegedly record after December 1965?
>
> b) When was this alleged 1964 Rickenbacker allegedly converted to a 370/12?
>
> c) Is this alleged 1964 Rickenbacker being claimed as the Rickenbacker
> 370/12Byrd pictured on the back cover of The Byrds' 1966 "Fifth Dimen-
> sion" LP?
>
> "There are no secrets"???
>
> So, just what is it that is actually for sale? An allegedly authentic 1964
> serial number on a counterfeit guitar? Or is it just the allegedly authentic
> 1964 serial number with an old 1960s Rickenbacker 12-string tossed in as a
> bonus? Any high school kid who's taken metal shop can stamp out a Ricken-
> backer jackplate with a 1964 serial number and put in on an old 1960s Rick-
> enbacker 12-string. Anyone who knows the serial number of McGuinn's 1964
> Rickenbacker 360/12 can do likewise. The Rickenbacker factory knows the
> serial number of McGuinn's 1964 Rickenbacker. Scott Jennings is bosom bud-
> dies with John Hall. Lloyd Chiate and Scott Jennings are bosom buddies, hav-
> ing both owned or co-owned Voltage Guitars at one time.
>
> It is no secret that McGuinn's 1970 Rickenbacker 370/12 was rebuilt, then
> fraudulently used to encroach upon my guitar's history and credentials, hav-
> ing been originally donated/loaned to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame + Museum
> on Wednesday, January 25, 1995 as a fictitious 1967 Rickenbacker 370/12 al-
> legedly used by McGuinn in the Byrds.
> http://www.waxing-eloquent.com/byrds/rockhall.html
> ftp://www.cuconnect.cornell.edu/pub/gm27/Byrds/1995_digests/Byrdmaniax37.txt
> http://www.rickenbacker.com/images/nlmcguinn.gif
> http://rickenbacker.com/images/nlmcguinn.gif
>
> It now appears that another Rickenbacker 12-string is being used in yet anoth-
> er attempt to encroach upon my guitar's history and credentials -- this time
> for huge profit -- by those who evidently have difficulty with the truth and
> who evidently can't get their stories straight. These individuals are evi-
> dently claiming things about the guitar to potential buyers which they are
> unwilling to share in public or on this newsgroup -- such as claiming full
> authentication of the INSTRUMENT by John Hall and Roger McGuinn. This is a
> clear indication of dishonesty and a definite lack of "truth in advertising"
> given Mr. Hall's denial of such authentication.
>
> If the fact that the alleged 1964 Rickenbacker is for sale is no secret, then
> why are photographs of the guitar top secret? Why also is the guitar's alleg-
> ed history with the Byrds top secret? "There are no secrets"??? For six fig-
> ures, any intelligent potential buyer will want to make damn sure of what he
> is getting BEFORE making any substantial financial commitment.
>
> No excuses. If the guitar is for sale, then let's see its woodgrain.
>
> Caveat emptor.
>
> Imvho.
JAMES3202
Well
It seems TomCat has the only true guitar
to date. and a whole lot of facts.
Where is the pictures seem to be running
a little slow for such an important instrument.
If TomCat needs help, it is in the proving of
such a guitar is authentic, and not a rip off.
sounds like there were some pretty devious
games played a while back.
Scott Jennings
I have been busy with personal matters for the last week, so have not had
time to photograph the instrument. Jeff Veitch, my usual photographer has
also been out of town, and Lloyd, the owner of the instrument, couldn't
use a camera to save his life. :) Earliest chance I will have will be
Tuesday afternoon. I will take the digital camrea with me and take the
best shots I can so you guys can stop chewing up bandwidth with baseless
allegations of forgery and fraud... if you can't wait that long, put on a
Byrds CD, close your eyes, and shut up... ;)
- Sj
John Sessoms
IIRC there have been several Federal lawsuits filed by Native Americans
in recent years, making just that claim. For some reason, I remember
something about a tribe called the Penobscots (?) suing the state of
Maine, claiming the majority of the land in the state. I think the state
settled out of court for.
Steve Cobham
Cobham) wrote:
>Let's see a scan of it on the Route66 web page and we can settle this
>without anybody arguing.
>
>It's that simple..........
>
>Really.
Obviously it isn't that simple.
We're still waiting.
Damn this new-fangled technology - those digital cameras are a bitch
to work........
Jim Walker
camera. With all of heard about dumb crooks, the seller is probably the
original thief. He's probably been trying to figure out how to play a guitar
all these years. (Or, maybe he can't figure out how to open the case?)
Steve Cobham
<jim.w...@prodelin.com> wrote:
>And the broker has already told us that the seller is too stupid to use a
>camera. With all of heard about dumb crooks, the seller is probably the
>original thief. He's probably been trying to figure out how to play a guitar
>all these years. (Or, maybe he can't figure out how to open the case?)
>
>>Damn this new-fangled technology - those digital cameras are a bitch
>>to work........
>>
I thought Scott Jennings was going to put up a photo on Tuesday -
yesterday.............
Daniel Cooper
Jim Walker wrote in message <6uauct$4p4$1...@news5.ispnews.com>...
>And the broker has already told us that the seller is too stupid to use a
>camera. With all of heard about dumb crooks, the seller is probably the
>original thief. He's probably been trying to figure out how to play a
guitar
>all these years. (Or, maybe he can't figure out how to open the case?)
>
Why do you care so much?
Steve Cobham
Let me use an analogy from the world of art -
If a famous Picasso turned up when it had been thought it was lost
forever, people interested in such matters would want to know who'd
had it, where it had been, how it came to be lost, how it came to be
found etc, etc, etc.
Then there'd be the inevitable discussion as to whether it was fake or
genuine.
Sure, to those people who weren't interested in painting or Picasso
it's be a waste of air.
There'd be some people who were into such things who wouldn't care -
they'd just be glad it was found.
Then there'd be people who were interested and also wanted to know all
the facts.
Of course, if you had some financial interest in it - you were the
owner, the broker, the seller or even just interested in the art
market - then you'd start to look into the valuation of it. The
painting then becomes a commodity whether you like that idea or not.
In many ways, the 8MH Rick is rather the same. I know that there's
those people out there who will say that it's only a musical
instrument and, as such, should not be viewed as a commodity, but it
does have some value, whatever that figure is.
The more famous the former owner is, the higher that figure is going
to go, and the more heated the debate will get.
If it was just any old guitar, then there'd be no fuss at all. Well,
it isn't - whichever guitar we're talking about here, Tomcat's, Scott
Jenning's seller's, whoever's - it's a very important guitar. One of a
kind, too.
To some, the talk of money and the morals of selling what some view as
stolen goods are paramount. Well, you're wasting your breath, I'm
afraid. If one of these guitars sells as the genuine article, it's
going to involve a substantial sum of money, and money - whether we
like it or not - is ultimately going to decide the historical
significance and fate of this guitar.
Still no photo, either.........
Steve.
===================================
st...@guitars.powernet.co.uk
Even a dog can shake hands........
===================================
Daniel Cooper
Steve Cobham wrote in message <360a1573.5259418@news>...
You're right. Steve. I would also guess that Roger McGuinn is one of those
people who would tend to regard it as just another guitar. But that guitar,
as you point out, has taken on a great deal more significance for some than
that of just another beautifully crafted tool.
The ethical stance on this matter has already been well and clearly stated
by a number of people but, until someone puts in some dilligent detective
work, there the matter rests and all the huffing and puffing in the world
isn't going to prevent this guitar from hanging on a wall in some private
home in Tokyo or Perth Amboy.
Steve Cobham
In my opinion, the detective work's already been done. All anybody has
to do is use their own eyes. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people
who don't _trust_ their own eyes.
>and all the huffing and puffing in the world
>isn't going to prevent this guitar from hanging on a wall in some private
>home in Tokyo or Perth Amboy.
Taking my analogy a bit further - comparing a rare, celebrity guitar
to a painting by Picasso - the vast majority of people will never own
a Picasso painting. A few more - not many more - may own a sketch by
Picasso. Most of us have to make do with a book or a print. We can't
all own the genuine thing. Or can we?
If all Picasso's works were given to the public, we could all own
them, but would we really all be better off? At present, we can go and
see quite a few of his works in galleries and other collections. Those
of us who have the means to do so, that is. What about public
ownership of all valuable paintings? Presumably that can be extended
to all artefacts. Where do we stop? Like it or not, the works of art
that we can all see are the tip of the iceberg compared to those in
the hands of private collectors - it's a fact of life. In both our
capitalist societies, it's a major component - the right of the
individual to legally amass wealth, whether it's in the form of money
or valuable possessions.
Even in the former USSR, where artefacts were public property, most of
them were locked away from the public gaze. The famed Treasure Of
Troy, long thought lost in the last war, has now been acknowledged as
having been in the possession of the Russian authorities since 1945
and _still_ languishes in some warehouse somewhere. Not to mention
countless works of art that were taken from the Germans after WW2 that
have yet to emerge from their crates after 53 years. Indeed, it would
present major logistical problems to house and display everything if
it was in public ownership.
Anyway - back to guitars. If the Rick under debate ends up on the wall
of Chinnery or some Japanese electronics magnate, who cares? If it
ended up as a Rock 'N' Roll Hall Of Fame exhibit, it may as well be
owned by Chinnery for all the good it'll do me and many other people.
Great for people in the US and especially those with easy access to
Cleveland, but tough on the rest of us.
However, I can look at photographs of it, and listen to it, and
that'll be a far greater source of satisfaction than knowing that it's
in Cleveland but I can't afford to go and see it. Even if I could go
and see it, I'd have far greater pleasure listening to it back home.
For those who are fortunate enough to actually have their hands on it,
as far as I can see, they may as well get as much as they can for it -
regardless of who the purchaser might be. I know that if I had it, I'd
get every penny I could for it - I haven't got enough money to turn
down offers. The majority of people would do the same.
Is this what all this is about? Keeping a US guitar in the US? I can
see why people would want that. From time to time our government pays
considerable sums of money to keep British artefacts in Britain and
prevent them going to auction and ending up overseas. However, the
seller always gets the true market value and that's only right,
whether it's a guitar or a painting.
However, I repeat, until we get a photo of this new "contender" we
can't resolve anything, or even go some way towards doing so.
If there is any huffing and puffing going on, it's due to:
a) frustration at not being able to see the guitar that Scott Jennings
is brokering, or
b) a natural consequence of the re-emergence of a very famous guitar
stirring up interest and opinion amongst the people who care about
such things.
k...@lmib.azm.nl
st...@XSPAMXguitars.powernet.co.uk (Steve Cobham) wrote:
> Let me use an analogy from the world of art -
>
> If a famous Picasso turned up when it had been thought it was lost
> forever, people interested in such matters would want to know who'd
> had it, where it had been, how it came to be lost, how it came to be
> found etc, etc, etc.
>
Can I please interpret this analogy a bit differently.
Isn't the real work of art THE MUSIC (generated by the Byrds) and not THE
GUITAR (played by McGuinn)? Would anybody be interested in Picasso's brushes
rather than his paintings/sketches, etc.?
Why does the fact that a famous person, like McGuinn, played this fantastic
guitar, make this guitar more valuable (as expressed in stupid figures) than
any other Rickenbacker 12- (or 6-)string, each being splendid instruments? In
my opinion, each Rickenbacker is valuable. And what McGuinn and other highly
talented players can do with them is valuable (i.e. make beautiful music
which we can all own and listen to!). And what an individual with much less
talent (like myself) can do with Rickenbackers is valuable!
Each Rickenbacker looks and sounds like a work of art!
Each Rickenbacker is of approximately similar value, since they are made by
skillful people from pieces of wood and metal in perfect harmony (OK, they are
somewhat more expensive when more wood carving is involved!, etc.).
Let's just value our beloved guitars for how they sound and look and not by
their age or by whom they were owned, signed, played, looked at, etc. (After
all, this putative McGuinn guitar may nowadays sound like crap! Maybe it was
thrown in a truck during THE THEFT which resulted permanent neck damage....;))
Of course, this is just my opinion.
Best wishes,
Kees
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
fro...@metro.net
Steve Cobham wrote:
>
>
> To some, the talk of money and the morals of selling what some view as
> stolen goods are paramount. Well, you're wasting your breath, I'm
> afraid. If one of these guitars sells as the genuine article, it's
> going to involve a substantial sum of money, and money - whether we
> like it or not - is ultimately going to decide the historical
> significance and fate of this guitar.
well now, I don't know about that. If I pay ten million dollars for what I
believe to be a Picasso and it then is discovered to be a forgery, both it's
market value and it's historical signifigance become appx. zilch. (Tho, I
admittedly might make the world book of records of gulible suckers.)
tre...@bellsouth.net
Jim Walker wrote:
> Yes, Linda. You are right. It is Roger's business. But I can't and won't
> condone what is happening here. How would you feel if your guitar was
> stolen? We, as a group of people who love our Rickenbackers and who respect
> Roger, must not allow someone to profit from this stolen guitar. This is
> simply wrong no matter how you look at it.
>
> Scott, you should be ashamed of yourself and you should bow out of this
> transaction immediately!
>
> Linda Berris wrote in message <35FC610D...@home.com>...
> >Jim Walker wrote:
> >>
> >> If this guitar was stolen from Roger it is still his property. Who has
> this
> >> guitar? I think the police would like to know.
> >>
> >>
> >That would be Roger's business, wouldn't it?
> >
> >It sounds like Scott is simply trying to broker the instrument (and you
> >have my sympathies, Scott ;-) ). It also sounds like Roger is one of
> >those musicians, like John Fogerty, who is not ga-ga over any particular
> >piece of wood and metal--that is, he seems to be into playing the
> >guitars, not collecting them. That's my impression, anyway.
Steve Cobham
Perhaps I should have included the proviso that the guitar is genuine
in my post.
With that proviso, however, I stand by what I said.
And also.........
The amount of money realised from the sale will determine the
historical significance and fate of this guitar.
Now, that really is sad..........
tre...@bellsouth.net
The only reasons these people care about this guitar is money, greed, and
jealousy!
Steve Cobham wrote:
Aaron Williams
~~~Shut thefuck up Jimmie Walker.
~~~
Okay, so we've regressed to this again?
'72 es-345td
'88 Fox GL WGN
'89 370-12 mplglo
Remove NOSPAM to e-mail~
JAMES3202
If you really wish to honor Mr. McGuinns
wishes, it has been stated that he does NOT
want to retrieve it.
let it go!!!
cause really it isn't any of our business.
buy it or quit bitching.
cooper
Steve Cobham
>In article <360a1573.5259418@news>,
> st...@XSPAMXguitars.powernet.co.uk (Steve Cobham) wrote:
>
>> Let me use an analogy from the world of art -
>>
>> If a famous Picasso turned up when it had been thought it was lost
>> forever, people interested in such matters would want to know who'd
>> had it, where it had been, how it came to be lost, how it came to be
>> found etc, etc, etc.
>>
>
>Can I please interpret this analogy a bit differently.
Be my guest.........
>
>Isn't the real work of art THE MUSIC (generated by the Byrds) and not THE
>GUITAR (played by McGuinn)? Would anybody be interested in Picasso's brushes
>rather than his paintings/sketches, etc.?
That is one point of view, and a valid one. However, Picasso's brushes
would be worth a fair bit at auction (not to mention Lennon's
cigarette end........)
>
>Why does the fact that a famous person, like McGuinn, played this fantastic
>guitar, make this guitar more valuable (as expressed in stupid figures) than
>any other Rickenbacker 12- (or 6-)string, each being splendid instruments?
It just does.....
........Fact.
Why should a mediocre Strat used by Hendrix at Woodstock fetch ŁUK198
000 when it first reached the world of the auctioneer's gavel?
Because it was Hendrix's Strat. If it was mine, it would have been
worth small change.
The same goes for any Rick that belonged to McGuinn. In the case of
the 8MH Rick, it can be heard on most of the post 8MH Byrds'
recordings and was seen at every gig.
>In
>my opinion, each Rickenbacker is valuable.
But some are more valuable than others. All have worth, but only some
are valuable.
> And what McGuinn and other highly
>talented players can do with them is valuable (i.e. make beautiful music
>which we can all own and listen to!). And what an individual with much less
>talent (like myself) can do with Rickenbackers is valuable!
Any instrument used to make anybody's music has worth, but in terms of
monetary value, some instruments are worth more money than others.....
........Fact.
>
>Each Rickenbacker looks and sounds like a work of art!
>Each Rickenbacker is of approximately similar value, since they are made by
>skillful people from pieces of wood and metal in perfect harmony (OK, they are
>somewhat more expensive when more wood carving is involved!, etc.).
In terms of materials, about the same dollars' worth of raw materials
goes in each instrument.
However, using this criterion for value, the Mona Lisa is worth about
a dollar - ŁUK0.60 - if that.....
>Let's just value our beloved guitars for how they sound and look and not by
>their age or by whom they were owned, signed, played, looked at, etc.
In the real world, celebrity guitars are about money - plain and
simple. Who's going to be the first to get their mint '59 Les Paul
Standard Sunburst out of the vault and sell it anonymously because of
how it sounds? Star guitars are worth big money - like it or not. If
you had a guitar that was worth 6 figures, would you regard it as just
another guitar?
> (After
>all, this putative McGuinn guitar may nowadays sound like crap!
The guitar which I believe to be genuine is, I am assured, an
extremely fine-sounding instrument.
> Maybe it was
>thrown in a truck during THE THEFT which resulted permanent neck damage....;))
The only neck damage done to a Byrds Rick was repaired at the same
time the replacement Klusons were fitted. This damage was not a result
of theft, however.
Riot, perhaps, but not theft.
Steve Cobham
(Steve Cobham) wrote:
> In the case of
>the 8MH Rick, it can be heard on most of the post 8MH Byrds'
>recordings
Including, naturally, 8MH.
Vin S.
>
> ~~~Shut thefuck up Jimmie Walker.
> ~~~
> Okay, so we've regressed to this again?
I think as long as money and minor glory are involved we will continue to
regress to this.. not a pleasant though IMO
Cheers,
Vin
"You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant!"
http://orion.ramapo.edu/~vsperanz/alice.html
__
\,`/ /
Vin S. _).. `_
oO0[Loaded(at)hempseed(dot)com]0Oo ( __ -\
Web Magician of: All Tomorrows Parties: '`.
http://zoso.home.ml.org/velvets/ ( \>_-_,
Welcome back my friends to show that never ends! _||_ ~-/
-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
Scott Jennings
(Steve Cobham) wrote:
>However, I repeat, until we get a photo of this new "contender" we
>can't resolve anything, or even go some way towards doing so.
The guitar is no longer for sale. The current owner of the guitar has been
playing Rick 12s since 1966, and has decided that he'd like to keep it for
now. This is certainly more my loss than any of yours, since I had a
qualified buyer at over $100,000...
I have been asked not to post the pix I took on Tuesday, and out of
respect for the wishes of someone I have known for 20 years I will not.
I have seen the documentation from the factory SIGNED by McGuinn. The
serial number matches the invoice, which is dated 2/66, disproving the
story that it was stolen/lost in 1965. The rather unique grain pattern on
the instrument very definitely matches that of McGuinns first guitar. See
the 1985 Guitar Player magazine with a story on the history of
Rickenbacker for a shot of McGuinn with this guitar in 1965... (I forgot
the month of the mag, sorry)
There is no "contender", and no one owes this group proof of anything. Had
the discussion been more civil he might have offered the information
simply for its own sake. But personal attacks on people you don't even
know is not the way to get them to provide information. I have seen the
guitar, and it is real. Now that it has been set up by the current owner
it plays like a dream... it is in good hands for as long as Lloyd chooses
to keep it...
That's all I have to say about this instrument.
- Scott
Steve Cobham
<danc...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>Steve Cobham wrote in message <360a44d2.9299373@news>...
>>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:55:01 -0500, "Daniel Cooper"
>><danc...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The ethical stance on this matter has already been well and clearly stated
>>>by a number of people but, until someone puts in some dilligent detective
>>>work, there the matter rests
>>
>>In my opinion, the detective work's already been done.
>
>I was referring to tracking down the culprit who stole the guitar in the
>first place.
I repeat: In my opinion, the detective work's already been done.
Please refer to the Deja News archives for further information.
> My point was that the continued moralizing doesn't have much
>effect, except maybe to make the moralizers feel good about themselves.
When Roger McGuinn has stated that he does not want the guitar in
question returned, and yet people still talk as if he does, I would
have to agree with your summation.
Let people discuss the moral issues. They have absolutely nothing to
do with the sale, brokering or purchase of this guitar.
In an ideal world, the moral issues might be an important factor.
It is not an ideal world.
Like it or not, whichever guitar we're discussing here, the issue is
simply one of a celebrity guitar that is eminently collectible and
very valuable entering the marketplace. People's moral stances will
not alter the price that such an instrument will generate by one
single penny.
I'm not advocating immorality or even amorality. I'm just being
pragmatic.
In other words:
Money talks - ________ _____.
I'm sure that people can fill in the blanks for themselves.
k...@lmib.azm.nl
Tomcat <8...@mlode.com> wrote:
> In article <6udqne$gfp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, k...@lmib.azm.nl wrote:
>
> > In article <360a1573.5259418@news>,
> > st...@XSPAMXguitars.powernet.co.uk (Steve Cobham) wrote:
> >
> > > Let me use an analogy from the world of art -
> > >
> > > If a famous Picasso turned up when it had been thought it was lost
> > > forever, people interested in such matters would want to know who'd
> > > had it, where it had been, how it came to be lost, how it came to be
> > > found etc, etc, etc.
> > >
> >
> > Can I please interpret this analogy a bit differently.
>
>
> > Isn't the real work of art THE MUSIC (generated by the Byrds) and not THE
> > GUITAR (played by McGuinn)?
>
> > Best wishes,
> > Kees
>
> glo Rickenbacker 325/12, I'll be more than glad to let you sell it to me for a
> few hundred bucks. After all, it's a real old guitar and "may nowadays sound
> like....!"
>
> Tomcat
> 8...@mlode.com
Dear Tomcat,
thanks for the entertaining response.
Indeed I respect everybodies sense of value as long as everybody respects
mine. I just fail to see what the hassle is all about with these "old" or
"historic" items. They do not mean anything to me.
However, if I do get hold of Lennon's 1964 325/12, you will certainly be the
first I will consider selling it to. Ah, what the heck: consider it a
gift! Problem is: I do not like the 325 body style much, and moreover, I
was informed that 12-strings on a short scale neck do not make one
happy.
Therefore, I will probably refrain from ever buying it (stolen or not,
cheap or expensive, Yoko's or Julian's, Kennedy's or Monica's ;0, ;)).
Roger Reini
Jennings) wrote:
>In article <360a44d2.9299373@news>, st...@XSPAMXguitars.powernet.co.uk
>(Steve Cobham) wrote:
>
>>However, I repeat, until we get a photo of this new "contender" we
>>can't resolve anything, or even go some way towards doing so.
>
>
>The guitar is no longer for sale. The current owner of the guitar has been
>playing Rick 12s since 1966, and has decided that he'd like to keep it for
>now. This is certainly more my loss than any of yours, since I had a
>qualified buyer at over $100,000...
Interesting development....
>
>I have been asked not to post the pix I took on Tuesday, and out of
>respect for the wishes of someone I have known for 20 years I will not.
This means that the authenticity of the instrument will remain
questionable, at least in the eyes of the newsgroup readers. However,
none of us can ask you to violate the trust of the owner, so that's
where the issue will stand for the forseeable future.
Guess this is the end of the discussion.