That's too bad, I like dual truss rods, they scare some people I guess. Those things look almost exactly like early 70's 4001's except for the 1" spacing on the neck toaster.
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 Rickenbacker 4003
- Thread starter selowitch
- Start date
That's too bad, I like dual truss rods, they scare some people I guess. Those things look almost exactly like early 70's 4001's except for the 1" spacing on the neck toaster.
I don't mind dual truss rods either. Never had a problem setting them or the original bridge up. I just love this color. Time will tell how the single rod works for the Ricks.
I've never been bothered by the ergonomics of Ric basses. I've owned a few, and my first has been owned for 45+ years. They're kinda quirky looking, but for some reason I've always liked the looks...I favor Autumnglo and Mapleglo finishes. They are highly versatile when it comes to tone shaping.
I've never found the bound edge uncomfortable on my forearm. I've never found them heavy. Some neck dive a bit, but not over much. The pickup cover is something either easily adapted to or removed (I adapted and rather like it).
The truss rods either work as intended or need to be replaced, which can be done by a competent tech. The truss rods on the one I've owned the longest were replaced almost immediately and have presented no trouble since over the last four decades. I've found the neck to be amazingly stable, and the one I've had the longest has traveled to many different climates. My tech has never mentioned anything about the truss rods being difficult to manage.
In short, much of the negativity surrounding Ric basses is vastly over blown as a matter of personal taste, in my opinion.
The bridge, however, is no joke terrible. It's a PITA to work on, and simply doesn't have enough travel to properly intonate the instrument. Virtually every picture of a Ric with a vintage bridge, the one you show in your post included, has the E string saddle hard against the full stop toward the end pin...and that's not quite enough. Resign yourself to replacing the bridge immediately and you'll be good to go. Don't worry about resale value when replacing the terrible original...you can keep the original and include it in the price should you elect to sell later to someone nuts enough to want to reinstall it.
I've never found the bound edge uncomfortable on my forearm. I've never found them heavy. Some neck dive a bit, but not over much. The pickup cover is something either easily adapted to or removed (I adapted and rather like it).
The truss rods either work as intended or need to be replaced, which can be done by a competent tech. The truss rods on the one I've owned the longest were replaced almost immediately and have presented no trouble since over the last four decades. I've found the neck to be amazingly stable, and the one I've had the longest has traveled to many different climates. My tech has never mentioned anything about the truss rods being difficult to manage.
In short, much of the negativity surrounding Ric basses is vastly over blown as a matter of personal taste, in my opinion.
The bridge, however, is no joke terrible. It's a PITA to work on, and simply doesn't have enough travel to properly intonate the instrument. Virtually every picture of a Ric with a vintage bridge, the one you show in your post included, has the E string saddle hard against the full stop toward the end pin...and that's not quite enough. Resign yourself to replacing the bridge immediately and you'll be good to go. Don't worry about resale value when replacing the terrible original...you can keep the original and include it in the price should you elect to sell later to someone nuts enough to want to reinstall it.
Last edited:
D
I want to add two things to my previous post:
-The dual truss rod in currently manufactured Ricks is not really a problem and I honestly don't understand why people think so? If anything it can give you MORE control over relief and set it perfect for BOTH sides of the neck. It's the OLDER truss rod system used in Ricks older than cirka 1984 that can be problematic, for two reasons: 1) If you don't know what you're doing and try to adjust it like a normal truss rod you can break the neck and 2) it can be a bit of a hassle to adjust unless you've got someone to help you or have the proper tools to clamp down your bass while doing the adjustment. The currently used dual truss rod seems to get a lot of undeserved critisism based on nothing more than reputation for having a quirky truss rod system IN THE PAST. There's nothing wrong with the dual truss rod in newer Ricks IMO. Well, except that you need a special tool that isn't included with the bass to adjust it... (at least it wasn't included when I got my Rick).
-Rick 4003 neck profiles have changed CONSIDERABLY over the years so even if you have played ONE 4003 that you liked it doesn't mean you will like ALL of them. You really need to try the specific bass you are thinking of buying, especially if it's an older used one. I've played older 4003s with very slim necks but my early 2000s 4003 has a VERY chunky U-shape neck.
Of all the basses I've owned over the years I don't think any has given me more frustration without being sold. Simply because it's such a unique instruments that I will never sell it, even with all it's flaws. To be honest I rarely use it but it's just too cool to let go.
-The dual truss rod in currently manufactured Ricks is not really a problem and I honestly don't understand why people think so? If anything it can give you MORE control over relief and set it perfect for BOTH sides of the neck. It's the OLDER truss rod system used in Ricks older than cirka 1984 that can be problematic, for two reasons: 1) If you don't know what you're doing and try to adjust it like a normal truss rod you can break the neck and 2) it can be a bit of a hassle to adjust unless you've got someone to help you or have the proper tools to clamp down your bass while doing the adjustment. The currently used dual truss rod seems to get a lot of undeserved critisism based on nothing more than reputation for having a quirky truss rod system IN THE PAST. There's nothing wrong with the dual truss rod in newer Ricks IMO. Well, except that you need a special tool that isn't included with the bass to adjust it... (at least it wasn't included when I got my Rick).
-Rick 4003 neck profiles have changed CONSIDERABLY over the years so even if you have played ONE 4003 that you liked it doesn't mean you will like ALL of them. You really need to try the specific bass you are thinking of buying, especially if it's an older used one. I've played older 4003s with very slim necks but my early 2000s 4003 has a VERY chunky U-shape neck.
Of all the basses I've owned over the years I don't think any has given me more frustration without being sold. Simply because it's such a unique instruments that I will never sell it, even with all it's flaws. To be honest I rarely use it but it's just too cool to let go.
Essentially the 4003 is a vintage spec bass that never went out of production. There's been a bit of evolution over the decades, but it's been marginal. The new bridge and two-way truss rod are positively revolutionary.
Given that, I don't see them as being any harder to maintain than a Fender reissue with that wonderfully inaccessible truss rod nut. I can set up a Rick faster than my '62 RI J.
Given that, I don't see them as being any harder to maintain than a Fender reissue with that wonderfully inaccessible truss rod nut. I can set up a Rick faster than my '62 RI J.
Agreed. A friend of mine has an '86 4003 with a neck so thin you wouldn't think two truss rods could even fit inside it, and that neck doesn't budge, it is perfectly stable. My Gibson Thunderbird has the same pencil-thin neck, as did a MM Sterling I owned a while back, and I had to adjust those things constantly to keep them straight. The double truss rod should be looked at as a positive feature, not a negative IMO.
Last edited:
Kinda like a 57' chevy, the brakes suck, it's a gas hog, and has no airbags........but there's nothing else like it. It's worth putting up with the all the idiosyncrasies so fully described above for that TONE. You can get close with other basses, but never equal what a Ric will do right off the shelf. Unless you constantly fiddle with your action, the hood ornament bridge and double rods are no big deal. The new bridge looks better to adjust, but still blocks palm mute behind the pup. Nearly everybody takes the useless bridge pup cover off, Tubeampology makes a nice widget to infill the opening. If Telecasters or acoustic guitars irritate your forearm, you won't like a bound Ric. A walnut 4003s with a Hipshot would eliminate 90% of the common gripes, but I'm a sucker for a blinged out bass, love that bound neck and body. And yes, that figured Wildwood special run with Checker Binding is indeed the nicest looking Ric I've ever seen. But.....$3k?
Regarding the double rods, it's a subject of debate. Having different relief on both sides of the neck has a more common name: "neck twist", which most guitar builders avoid like the plague, but hey, it's a "feature". The other downside of two rods is the big hunk of wood removed under the TRC to accommodate the two nuts. Combined with no volute and short grain either side of the pocket, it's exactly where a Ric headstock will snap off if dropped or (as I witnessed personally) gets knocked off a stand. Any competent Luthier can tell you that's a bad design, so.....don't drop it. To my knowledge there are only two major builders who use two rods on a 4 string, Ric and Alembic, and Alembic uses a volute, because they are competent luthiers. The big advantage of the older rods was not inherent strength, it was that they were Removable, which turned out to be really handy when people routinely broke them by inept adjustment, trying to move a 24" long piece of rock maple with two little mild-steel rods. It looks like they are at least floating trial balloons on changing to a single DA rod, Like the vast majority of other builders, time will tell.
^That. They're super cool, and nothing else really looks, sounds, or feels like them, so if they're your thing they're your only really good option. They're also utterly bizarre, hopelessly finicky, way more expensive than they really should be, and uncomfortable as all hell for someone very accustomed to more traditional (Fender-ish) bass designs. For the price, issues, and heartache, make damn sure you just have to have one first.
It's less of a big deal than TBers make out. The bridge is legitimately horrendous (in context, it was designed when racial segregation was still a thing in the US), but everything else is fine. Ricks are strange in that while they haven't changed much over the years, they're at a happy median between modern and vintage as far as playability, aesthetic, and sound go. They play as well as an Ibanez, sound better than a Fender, and the look is pure jet age. They're very special instruments.
My 77 has needed exactly ONE truss rod adjustment due to me changing string gauges back in the 90's. Other than that, there has been no "maintanence" at all. Many other ric owners will tell you the same.
Should've said yes to a 4003S. No binding, so your arm won't hurt from playing it. Personally, I love mine. I understand people that find them difficult, but for myself, I just sat down and got used to it, and it has paid off.
I understand why people trash the bridge, but mine has not given me any issues yet (probably because I take care of it).
If you play sitting down a lot you might find it very uncomfortable - this is the reason I sold both of the 4003s I have owned. The new 2020 bridge by all accounts is a massive improvement (not a surprise given the uselessness of the old design). Both 4003s I have owned needed very little truss rod adjustment once they were dialed in. Like, once every few years or upon change of string brand/gauge. You can be a zero-mod bezel for the bridge pickup that doesn't leave a gaping hole in your bass or get in the way. Ultimately it will be about whether the trade-offs are unacceptable for the Ric sound, for you.
Of all of the complaints about the 4003, I have never understood people complaining about the binding. It seems you'd have to unnaturally press your forearm into it for it to hurt.
Well you have to play a 2 hour gig with it to start to see what's up with it. Than another 2 hour gig and then another... and you'll get the idea...
But seriously, if your technique is to play towards the neck with the arm resting on the bass, it will start to dig into your forearm. If you don't rest your arm on it that way, of course, it won't be a bother.
The real problem with the binding though, is at the fretboard. If you ever need to refret the bass there's virtually no way to do it without tearing the hell out of the binding. Typically you'll see the new frets simply smashed in there with the edges covering up the chewed-up binding.
Not a mechanical problem, but it sure is ugly as sin after a refret.
Don't ask me why I know this.
A dress of the edges has to be done super carefully too to avoid passes over the binding and grubbing up the area at the frets.
The S model removes the binding at the fingerboard also, which solves the problem.
Not a huge deal, but something to be aware of if you really love the way the binding looks at the fretboard edges. It won't stay that way in the unlikely, but possible, event of a refret.
L
Ok I'll bite. Your OP asked 'Is this a good deal"? IOW - 'Is this bass cheaper than I can flip it for'? You should have asked 'what do I need to look out for on this bass that I know very little about'. Fortunately for you the group responded to the real question and largely ignored the financial aspect of this bass.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Curious what the percentage of bass players use rounds vs flats is.- Latest: UntitledProject