#2
Essentially a two-pickup version of the sliding pickup Grabber, the Ripper was typical of Gibson's 1970s basses: solid maple, heavy as hell, set neck with a three-point bridge, and not particularly appealing. They have a following, but not a big one. Gibson has reissued the Ripper as the USA Ripper II. It lists for US$3,600.00, which puts it well out of range of most of the people who would buy one. Gibson rarely put any thought into their bass designs. Their most successful basses (the EB-3 and the Thunderbird) are little more than bass versions of their existing guitar models (the SG and the Firebird). Their attempts to design a bass from the ground up have been pretty dismal, as evidenced by the Continental, the 2020, etc. Gibson's best original bass design was the Victory, but they discontinued it after only a couple of years.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell?" - Aldous Huxley
#4
They are supposedly very heavy, and from what I've heard of them they certainly have their own sound, like all gibson basses. Really only worth it if you're either a huge Krist Novoselic fan or planning to use it in the studio, way too unwieldy for live use unless you're 6'4" and weight doesn't bother you or you have a back like an ox. You can find lawsuit copies of the grabber/ripper for under $600 depending on where you are, I just bought a lawsuit era El Degas EB3 that just needed a setup and a couple new pots for $100 and it sounds better than the gibby EB3's I've heard.
#5
In a nutshell, heavy and a bit muddy sounding but in a midrange sort of way. The three point bridge is a really poor Gibson design.
#6
I haven't owned a Ripper, but I've owned a G3 (the three pickup model). All maple construction, quite heavy, unbelievably bright tone, difficult to play and to set-up. All in all, not a great bass imo.
Spare a Cow
Eat a Vegan