In 1975, when I was 19 years old, I bought a brand new Ric 4001. I played that thing for about 15 years. In 2000, I bought a brand new Ric 4001CS (Chris Squire). I played that for a few years in a YES tribute band (fun!) In 2010, I bought a brand new Ric 4003. I played that for a year or so. As many of you already know, most Ric 4003 basses have a 1 and 11/16" nut width. The '75 I owned might have been ever-so-slightly narrower than that, but still more than 1 and 5/8ths wide. I have also owned many other basses over the past four decades of playing bass, and I have found that I have a strong personal preference for basses that have a 1.5" nut width. It's just more comfortable for me. At the present time, I do not own any Ric basses (even though I love Rics dearly), but I do own four basses, all of which have a 1.5" nut width. Okay, with that background info, here is my thought: For folks who prefer a 1.5" nut width (of which there are many such folks based on what I have seen on TB over the years), why the heck doesn't Rickenbacker make a 4003 with a 1.5" nut width? It seems to me that it would be perfect for those folks (like me) who love the sound and looks of a Ric, but who also love a 1.5" nut width. Yeah, I know all about John Hall and his insistence on doing things the way they have always done it. I "get" that. But I still wish they would make a 4003 with a 1.5" nut width. I would have my VISA card ready to go in a heartbeat, and I would venture to guess that I would not be alone in that regard. I guess this post falls in the "wishful thinking" category.