#1
Why do people always give B.C. Rich crap? This guitar looks cool, and its got an OFR, plus Rockfield mafias, which i've come to find out they're pretty good pups. Plus its a neck through, and overall it just looks like a great deal, but people still give it crap. So whats wrong with it? Anyone had any experience with them?


http://www.guitarcenter.com/B-C--Rich-Mockingbird-ST-Electric-Guitar-104228895-i1276270.gc


Cheers,

Demartini96
Warren Demartini is GOD, face it.
#2
Low end BC Rich guitars are awful.

High end BC Rich guitars are amazing.

The problem is, people see that the 1st sentence is true, and then apply it to the entire product line
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
#3
I dont care what people say. I love B.C. rich. I got a Kerry King Signature series Warlock as my first guitar and i havent found a better guitar since. If i were you id totally get it cuz it looks boss as hell. B.C. rich is an underrated brand of guitar.
#4
The one in the link is a fine guitar; one of their best below the custom line. B.C. Rich hurt themselves by pushing a lot of very low-end entry-level stuff that concentrated on being pointy, rather than playable. But the mid-range and custom series are fine instruments that will serve you well.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell?" - Aldous Huxley
#5
Well, in the early 2000's, they really were crap. Now, they've improved a lot, and have a wide range of different guitars. They used to have identical features, just different shapes.

One thing which I find unusual about the new ones is that they use woods like Nato, where other brands in the price range use mahogany. Or maybe, everyone uses Nato and BC Rich are the only ones who are honest about it. Who knows?
#7
Quote by demartini96
Are the necks on these things fast?


Most B.C. Rich's that ive played had pretty fat necks, including mine. I can still shred on it pretty well. As long as you throw a set on 9's on it i think you can do fine. The neck on my guitar feels like im playing on butter, and its been that way for 5 years
#8
Quote by adamchafee
Most B.C. Rich's that ive played had pretty fat necks, including mine. I can still shred on it pretty well. As long as you throw a set on 9's on it i think you can do fine. The neck on my guitar feels like im playing on butter, and its been that way for 5 years


Are they as fat as Epi les Pauls? I like my neck on that, but its not as fast as other necks.
Warren Demartini is GOD, face it.
#9
Quote by demartini96
Are they as fat as Epi les Pauls? I like my neck on that, but its not as fast as other necks.


Id say they are roughly the same size. At least my warlock is. Idk about the mockingbird but the necks by B.C. rich are generally smooth and you can move quickly which kinda evens out the fact that it has a fat neck. I also have an Ibanez with a very thin neck and it doesnt play much differently than my warlock. Maybe if you got specs and compared the measurements it would help you out
#10
Considering this guitar is a lower budget take on Slash's Mockinbird (ST meaning "Slash Tribute" I believe), I'm assuming (If they keep true to Slash) that the neck would be pretty thick. The Slash Les Pauls had those 50s baseball bat necks. I've played quite a few of them. But if you're fine with that, then no worries. Seems to be a great guitar for the price.
Ibanez SAS32EX
Caparison TAT II
Music Man JP 6
BOSS GT-10
ENGL Fireball 60
ENGL Pro Greenback 4x12

#11
that is in fact one bad ass guitar. i'm not a fan of the shape, but aside that (which is preference) it's sick.

very versatile and very well constructed.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#13
Quote by sashki

One thing which I find unusual about the new ones is that they use woods like Nato, where other brands in the price range use mahogany. Or maybe, everyone uses Nato and BC Rich are the only ones who are honest about it. Who knows?


Yeah I would have strong suspicions that most companies are using nato or something similar at those prices, if they say "mahogany" and don't clarify exactly what they mean by that.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#14
The lower end BC Rich guitars are horrid. They're pretty much spiky pieces of wood with bits of metal on them.
Woffelz

Twitter
Youtube
Tumblr

Ibanez RG2550Z/SRX430
Alesis Core 1
BIAS FX


I'm a student. I've got no time or space for an amp!
#15
Low end BC Rich's were particularly abyssmal for quite a while, however they really stepped up their quality a few years ago. Some people have failed to hop off the bandwagon in that time though.
Member #10 Of The Black Tooth Grin: Dimebag Memorial Club. PM Narmi To Join
#16
Quote by Woffelz
The lower end BC Rich guitars are horrid. They're pretty much spiky pieces of wood with bits of metal on them.

this. but it's only the low end BC rich guitars. guitar noob kids tend to judge an entire brand based on 2 things: the lowest price they have (if it's more than they can afford, then the whole brand is "overpriced"), and the cheapest version of their flagship model...

dean are also subjected to hate because "dey r pointy!". dean also make some sensibly shaped stuff. so do BC rich. they also make some really good stuff, so long as you're willing to fork out a lot of money for it.
I like analogue Solid State amps that make no effort to be "tube-like", and I'm proud of it...

...A little too proud, to be honest.
#17
Quote by sashki
Well, in the early 2000's, they really were crap. Now, they've improved a lot, and have a wide range of different guitars. They used to have identical features, just different shapes.

One thing which I find unusual about the new ones is that they use woods like Nato, where other brands in the price range use mahogany. Or maybe, everyone uses Nato and BC Rich are the only ones who are honest about it. Who knows?


It's odd that they would be honest about that, and not honest about their Floyd Roses.

Speaking of which. Can someone explain to me how all these <$1000 guitars are getting away with having OFR in their specs? They're not OFR's. I'm lookin at you Schecter and BC Rich.
Spin 'round carousel when your horse isn't screwed in.

My band:
Fractured Instinct
(For fans of Death/Groove/Prog Metal)

Ibanez RGA42E
Ibanez S420
LTD H-301
Ibanez RG520
Peavey Predator USA
Douglas Grendel 725
Line 6 Pod HD500X
#18
Quote by Offworld92
It's odd that they would be honest about that, and not honest about their Floyd Roses.

Speaking of which. Can someone explain to me how all these <$1000 guitars are getting away with having OFR in their specs? They're not OFR's. I'm lookin at you Schecter and BC Rich.

They are pretty much Korean made OFRs.

But hey, guitar manufacturers aren't always 100% honest, no matter where you look.
Might it be those really cheap "mahagony" guitars, a little flamed maple veneer which is sold as "maple top" or the Floyd as you mentioned.

Anyway, those "OFR" trems are very solid Floyds.
#19
I'm normally not a fan of b.c. rich because i like to play sitting down when i'm at home and a lot of their shapes make it uncomfortable. However the mockingbird is the one i can tolerate, and i have played that particular model and it is very nice.
#20
Quote by demartini96
So whats wrong with it?


it's not a gibson, fender, ibanez, or agile.

#21
I've heard good things about that model. I would never get it because I'm not fond of Nato. I hate that they call it eastern mahogany, it's not even in the same family.
#22
OMFG EWW IT'S A BC RICH. I've never touched one, or even seen one, but I know they are bad, just because it's from BC Rich, and I've heard people who have also never seen one, or even played one say the same thing, so they must be bad.

^^that's where most of the bad comments regarding BC Rich come from, so don't worry about it. Most mid to high range BC Rich guitars are pretty good, I almost got one myself after playing one at a store (if only it wasn't overpriced in Canada). Is there anyway you can try the guitar before you buy it? That would be the best way to see if it really is a good guitar, but I think it's fine.
#23
there is absolutely nothing wrong with that guitar. plays like a dream, some cool features, OFR. decent enough pickups for that price range. and for the price your getting a badass finish too. played that same one extensively when i was shopping for a new guitar
Quote by kangaxxter
The only real answer to the SG vs Les Paul debate is to get a Flying V and laugh at all the suckers who don't have one.


Quote by Blompcube

if you embrace inaccurate intonation it can be quite arousing.


I <3 TWEED
#26
+1

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#27
Quote by a_hub10
I'm normally not a fan of b.c. rich because i like to play sitting down when i'm at home and a lot of their shapes make it uncomfortable. However the mockingbird is the one i can tolerate, and i have played that particular model and it is very nice.


Warlocks (the kerry king warlock 6 in any case) are very comfortable - go and try one out!
#28
Quote by rageahol
Warlocks (the kerry king warlock 6 in any case) are very comfortable - go and try one out!

i think that's a personal preference thing. i find warlocks VERY uncomfortable in every imaginable way.
I like analogue Solid State amps that make no effort to be "tube-like", and I'm proud of it...

...A little too proud, to be honest.
#29
Would it be fast enough though? I play Ratt and Iron maiden, and also Ozzy Osbourne (Randy Rhoads and Jake Lee era, can't take Zakk but that's a different story) To acdc, GNR, etc. I was just wondering if it's fast enough, because on my Les Paul it is somewhat hard to play tough licks on the higher notes, partially because it's a set neck, partially because there is only one cut-off.
Warren Demartini is GOD, face it.
#30
just depends, really. you don't have the cutout problem with the mockingbird, but if mine is anything to go by, the neck profile'll be more in the lp camp than the speed neck camp.

also mockingbirds can be neck-heavy. not sure if anyone has mentioned that yet.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?