• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Advice on an 83 Ric 4003

trackskinz

trackskinz

Nov 1, 2011
161
28
#1
I hear the necks vary year to year - anyone know how this particular year is or what it would compare to?
Gonna drive three hrs to look at one....what should I look for or beware of?
The guy is legit - no issues there, I just know Rics
 
#2
Necks do vary year to year. It's a matter of continuing discussion for Rick enthusiasts, haha.

The neck on my '86 is very slim and the spacing is none too wide at all, or too narrow. It feels great, to me, although I wish the action could get a bit lower. I don't know how an '83 compares.

Be aware of bridge lift. I am not sure what year Rickenbacker added the extra screws in the back of the bridge. My '86 has the extra screws, so you might be okay.

Check where the neck meets the body on the front and back. I have heard the older Ricks can have separation there.

And, as usual, do the normal checks: neck profile, make sure the truss rods aren't maxed out, how much life is left on the frets ...

Paul can definitely give you a better answer. Maybe he will chime in.
 
#4
trackskinz said:
thank you. When you say Separation, do you mean bridge from body, or something else? As in the bridge screws are backing out?
Click to expand...
More likely the tail end of the bridge where the string balls anchor bending and lifting from the body. It was particularly a problem for the ones in the powder black finish. My (white / tuxedo color) 4003s-8 has this issue, worse because of the 4 extra strings - still trying to figure out how to resolve it. Nobody makes aftermarket bridges for Rick 8 strings.
 
#5
trackskinz said:
thank you. When you say Separation, do you mean bridge from body, or something else? As in the bridge screws are backing out?
Click to expand...
These are two different issues.

Issue 1 is the bridge:
Early Rickenbackers do not have screws in the back of the bridge, so over time the tension of the strings can lift the back of the bridge away from the body. This was corrected sometime before 1987 with the addition of two screws at the back of the bridge.

This bridge has the extra screws:
https://kitarablogi.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rickenbacker-4003-e28093-bridge.jpg

This bridge does not:
Link Removed

If the bass you are looking at does not have the extra screws, you will want to make sure the back of the bridge is still flat against the body.

Issue 2 is neck separation:
I have seen an instance of the neck separating from the body wings at the front of the body at the joint, where it first meets the neck. I subsequently heard that it is a rare but known issue in older Rick basses. A guitar tech told me that it can be stabilized, so it might not be a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.
 
#7
superheavydeathmetal said:
These are two different issues.

Issue 1 is the bridge:
Early Rickenbackers do not have screws in the back of the bridge, so over time the tension of the strings can lift the back of the bridge away from the body. This was corrected sometime before 1987 with the addition of two screws at the back of the bridge.

This bridge has the extra screws:
https://kitarablogi.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rickenbacker-4003-e28093-bridge.jpg

This bridge does not:
Link Removed

If the bass you are looking at does not have the extra screws, you will want to make sure the back of the bridge is still flat against the body.

Issue 2 is neck separation:
I have seen an instance of the neck separating from the body wings at the front of the body at the joint, where it first meets the neck. I subsequently heard that it is a rare but known issue in older Rick basses. A guitar tech told me that it can be stabilized, so it might not be a big deal, but it is something to be aware of.
Click to expand...
And the black bridge in the picture that has the two extra screws is exactly the type that tend to lift without the extra screws - exactly as with my 4003s/8. I could just try to drill the holes and screw it back down, but it's so bent and brittle looking I'm afraid it might break. And I hate drilling extra holes into the body - it's banged up, but it's all original stock, other than the nut.
 
#8
trackskinz said:
Ok - what it it is separating?
Click to expand...
There's a glue joint near where the neck joins the body that can separate - the other end, too, sometimes, down at the end underneath the bridge - the laminations can begin to de-lam - can happen on any multi-piece glue joint, not just on Rics.
 
#9
I would like to add that I love Rick basses. They are the only basses I really know anything about, haha, so I am certainly not trying to imply they are of poor quality and that you should worried you are going to get stuck lemon. I'm sure if the bass in question was not abused it will be just fine. I just want to make sure you are making an informed appraisal.
 
#11
The neck/body separation was usually associated with "negative neck angle", where the neck bends towards the body under string tension because the huge neck pup route leaves only about 3/8" of wood in the neck beam. They've solved the problem on newer basses , and it was relatively rare even on the older ones. If you can adjust the action low with the neck dead straight or with minimal relief, you're golden.
 
#13
bholder said:
And the black bridge in the picture that has the two extra screws is exactly the type that tend to lift without the extra screws - exactly as with my 4003s/8. I could just try to drill the holes and screw it back down, but it's so bent and brittle looking I'm afraid it might break. And I hate drilling extra holes into the body - it's banged up, but it's all original stock, other than the nut.
Click to expand...

I have an s8 also, but it was on an s5 that I had bad tailpiece lift. Here is my post from the Ric forums describing how I fixed it, taking the bent tailpiece to a machine shop to have them drill the holes with better precision than I could:

Bridge de-lifting now complete. It cost me $20, but the machine shop put in some nice beveled holes in the tailpiece, using my other 4003s5 tailpiece as a model for the precise hole locations. The machine shop made certain to use the perpendicular for the holes as it would be AFTER the lift was removed, rather than as I gave it to them. The holes ended up with a polished steel look that would have looked nice with the chrome tailpiece; since mine was black I dabbed some flat black enamel in the recessed area and it looked the way it should have looked when it left the factory!

I then removed the lift as follows. First, I drilled mounting holes in the routed scrap wood, using the model 4003s5 tailpiece so that the new screws would pull to the desired final location. I then attached the target bridge to the wood using the 5 stock screws. I then began sinking the screws in the two new holes, using 2 1.5" DECK screws at the recommendation of the machine shop, as these screws have a lot of pull behind them. Alternating tightening on these screws, I would get them to where they were snug, and then I put the tailpiece (attached to the board) out in the Texas sun to warm it up. Every 15 minutes or so, I would tighten up all the screws, putting a little more tension into the deck screws each time. After about 90 minutes, the bridge was perfectly flush with the wood, just the way it was supposed to be. Then, using my other 4003s5 as a guide to the depth of the holes for the rear two screws (about 1/2"), I drilled (gulp) the two new holes into the bass and mounted the tailpiece. In case anyone else does this, the stock screws for those two rear holes are 1" #6 oval head Phillips screws...they are a bit longer than the other 5 screws that attach the tailpiece.

I then restrung the bass with factory-gauge (D'Addario nickel) strings, and in the process noticed that the strings that came on the bass looked like bridge cables...no idea the precise gauge, but WAY heavier than the rather light factory strings for the s5. These strings from the previous owner were probably responsible for both the bridge lift and the rather poor action on the bass when it arrived. My advice...if you want to try a heavy gauge string on your Ric, you had better have the tailpiece with the extra screws.
 
#14
trackskinz said:
I hear the necks vary year to year - anyone know how this particular year is or what it would compare to?
Gonna drive three hrs to look at one....what should I look for or beware of?
The guy is legit - no issues there, I just know Rics
Click to expand...

the 1980 to 1985 4003 basses are the least collectable of the 4003 basses ... not bad basses ... just not as desireable ... I would buy a 1997 or later 4003 ... you can get a brand new one for around $1600
 
#15
Gilmourisgod said:
The neck/body separation was usually associated with "negative neck angle", where the neck bends towards the body under string tension because the huge neck pup route leaves only about 3/8" of wood in the neck beam. They've solved the problem on newer basses , and it was relatively rare even on the older ones. If you can adjust the action low with the neck dead straight or with minimal relief, you're golden.
Click to expand...

I have owned a lot of Rics from the 60s to the 2010s and none showed even the slightest indication of that problem. But I still prefer the new ones.
 
#16
I have an '84 4003, so it's probably similar to the one OP is looking at. Neck is definitely a bit fatter than your typical Jazz neck, but not nearly as wide. If the electronics on yours are untouched, that means you've probably got the .0047 cap on the bridge pickup. My bass also happened to come with older stock 4001 pickups and wavy Grover tuners (81-85 was the approximate transition period where 4001s were phased out and 4003s introduced, and seemingly a lot of leftover 70s stock parts ended up on these 4003 models), as well as the original style of truss rods. Which, IMHO, are functionally *far* superior to anything being made these days, but also very different to adjust!

Might be that my bass is considered "less desirable" by some cork sniffers/collectors, but it's put all the new 4003s to shame that I've played it against, in terms of tone and build quality.
 
#17
The lack of desirability should keep the price down to a reasonable level.
If not, don't buy.
Less collectable means no premium price due to 'vintage' status.

An early 4003 is a good bass, check the neck at the nut for possible separation/repair (still had the old style rods-nothing wrong with them, they just adjust differently than new style rods) due to improper truss rod adjustment, and make sure everything works properly.
If the frets aren't too worn and you're happy with the overall condition and price, scoop it up.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back