Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Considering a 1978 Rickenbacker 4001...
- Thread starter LostJohnny
- Start date
I’m surprised folks are still finding these types of deals. I didn’t pay too much less than this when completely rebuilding mine from a husk.
Yes, yes they did use a forstner! Its one of the surefire "tells" of an older 4001. Has a kind of hacky charm to it, dont it? Im not sure when they switched to.a routed channel, sometime in the 80's I think. One of the Ric Historians probably knows.
Last edited:
Yes - it was a special anti-counterfeit feature!Not to derail the thread but did Rickenbacker really route wire channels with a forstner bit?
Cool looking bass, I hope it works out for you!
It’s been refretted, with larger fretwire and the frets cut to extend out over the binding. Not necessarily a bad thing but definitely not original.
This bass actually looks like my old 70’s-era 4001 that I sold over 25 years ago. It had been refretted the same way and had a Seymour Duncan blade humbucker in the bridge position IIRC. If it’s the same bass, buy it—that thing was amazing and I miss it to this day.
This bass actually looks like my old 70’s-era 4001 that I sold over 25 years ago. It had been refretted the same way and had a Seymour Duncan blade humbucker in the bridge position IIRC. If it’s the same bass, buy it—that thing was amazing and I miss it to this day.
Is that Azureglo? If so I had a '78 Azureglo I sold (like an idiot) about 10-12 years ago. I've only seen one or two Rics with tail lift severe enough to have to replace it. It was high enough that the strings were above the bridge, one was bent in half. I've owned more than 30 Rics in my time and never had it severe enough to have it affect the bass in any way. I think that happens from having the neck too straight with consequent bridge very high which pulls up the end of the tail piece, Just my opinion though but I think it makes sense, because I've had some heavy strings on both 4001's and 4003's and have never caused any tail lift.
Last edited:
Not to derail the thread but did Rickenbacker really route wire channels with a forstner bit?
Cool looking bass, I hope it works out for you!
The old ones, yes.
My '79 4001 was also refretted with larger fretwire before I bought it and the neck was left bare with no finish, it really sounds good though, but not sure if that has anything to do with no varnish on the neck or not, I wish it had the smaller fretwire though. You have good eyes, I'm not seeing it on this one but mine is hard to see too in that picture except for the darker neck but the picture is dark and lousy like most of mine.
It can happen, but you just have to be LUCKY as all hell, and really quick on the craigslist replies. My midnight blue 4003 was an absolute steal. I asked the guy why so cheap and he said "I marked it up $200 from what I paid 15 years ago, I just made $200!" It can happen.
In my extensive craigslist trolling I've seen a beat up sticker covered jetglo 4003 for practically nothing, and the occasional 4001 in the same price range as this thread. It's out there, but you have to be patient.
Yes. I'm not sure when they stopped, but pretty sure all 4001s were routed that way. Mine ('72) is.
Damn, you've got a good eye. I went and looked at a whole bunch more pictures, and yeah, the frets look slightly different from most others out there. It wouldn't be terribly surprising for a 40-odd-year-old instrument with a lot of use to be refretted, of course.
Yep - Azureglo, which has aged rather nicely.
I don't think it's the string angle to blame; it's simply the frailty of the tailpiece.
They could've fixed it by machining one from a block of aluminium with little or no change to its profile, but they chose not to.
I looked at getting a batch made, but companies weren't interested (on was too busy making fittings for airlines at the time; I never got round to trying them again during the lockdowns downturn).
Hipshot showed it can be done, but their replacement is not particularly to my liking.
The new v2 bridge is an interesting RIC take on things; I may get a couple of them at some point, for my 2010 Rics which won't mind having holes drilled in them.
No I meant when the bridge is raised way up high to compensate for a very flat neck, the string angle pulls up on the back of the tailpiece, I'm not positive about that but would bet that has a lot to do with it. I never raise the bridge high enough so that it tips for example. I've never had any trouble with any Ric tailpiece and I've owned quite a few over the years. I have no explanation other than that as I've used some pretty heavy strings at times and never had more than a moderate amount (1/8"?) of tail lift on any of them. I bought a new 4003S last year but left it back in the US so I haven't had a lot of experience with the new bridge yet.
Ive read that the early bridges were cast aluminum, and not likely to bend, but never seen one in person. The V2 seems like a roundabout way around a simple solution: a solid casting. They may have been worried about weight, but it doesnt seem to be a problem with the aluminum cast Hipshots, not clear why they didnt just go that route instead of the separate string anchor. I cant see many people bothering to upgrade from V1 to V2 at $190, and having to drill more holes in your bass. At least they fixed the lift issue once and for all, and definitely easier to intonate.
I don't understand how a flat neck can require the bridge to be raised.
The string angle at the bridge on a Ric is less than on a Fender.
I bought the pots and the cap for the 4003 from Rickenbacker ("Boutique" on their web page), and had the certified RIC tech at the Rick dealer where I lived at the time (Las Vegas, NV) do the work. And, of course I have the original parts. Rick publishes the wiring diagrams for all their instruments if you want to do it yourself. I had it done, mainly because I'm such a menace with a soldering iron, that it's a Class B misdemeanor if you hand me one. And, my Ricks are lefty's - kinda scarce. The '01 4003 is a COY (Desert Gold), and it's either very rare - or possibly unique. There are very few instruments in this color on the RickRegister; I'm pretty sure mine is the only lefty anything - certainly the only lefty 4003. So, I didn't want to screw it up...
I bought the pots and the cap for the 4003 from Rickenbacker ("Boutique" on their web page), and had the certified RIC tech at the Rick dealer where I lived at the time (Las Vegas, NV) do the work. And, of course I have the original parts. Rick publishes the wiring diagrams for all their instruments if you want to do it yourself. I had it done, mainly because I'm such a menace with a soldering iron, that it's a Class B misdemeanor if you hand me one. And, my Ricks are lefty's - kinda scarce. The '01 4003 is a COY (Desert Gold), and it's either very rare - or possibly unique. There are very few instruments in this color on the RickRegister; I'm pretty sure mine is the only lefty anything - certainly the only lefty 4003. So, I didn't want to screw it up...
I've been wanting to do this to mine, sadly, they don't seem to sell the pushpull pots anymore.
Have just skimmed through this thread. Everybody knows it has an Allparts tailpiece on this, right?
