Considering a Rickenbacker 4003

[luciens]

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.

As for the price which I forgot to comment on: $1350 is suspiciously low for a 4003. If it's a 70's 4001, its the-thing-is-probably-hot-or-fake low. So if you want to flip it, I'd consider it a major risk without knowing more about it and its history.

If you want it as a player, and it isn't hot, or a Chickenbacker and doesn't have some sort of hidden problem, I'd be all over that sucker....

L

 

[selowitch]

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.

You're correct. It's largely academic at this point since I declined to purchase the bass. Nevertheless, the discussion remains very interesting.

 

[selowitch]

As for the price which I forgot to comment on: $1350 is suspiciously low for a 4003. If it's a 70's 4001, its the-thing-is-probably-hot-or-fake low. So if you want to flip it, I'd consider it a major risk without knowing more about it and its history.

Good points. I didn't talk long with the seller but I know it's a 4003 and he could probably get $1,500 or so for it under normal conditions but 1) it's COVID-19 time and 2) he probably needs/wants to sell fairly urgently.

I was tempted but ultimately decided it wasn't for me.

 

[luciens]

Good points. I didn't talk long with the seller but I know it's a 4003 and he could probably get $1,500 or so for it under normal conditions but 1) it's COVID-19 time and 2) he probably needs/wants to sell fairly urgently.

I was tempted but ultimately decided it wasn't for me.

That was the right decision then, IMO, no matter if it was a good deal or not...

For what it may be worth, there are ways to get a sound pretty close to the 4001/3 with other basses, if you're after the rick tone specifically. A fretted jazz bass can get really close to it with some EQ and plucking technique, in fact. It's a little more nasally and has a heavier bottom end than an actual 4003, but it's doable. There are videos of Geddy Lee talking about how to cop a rick sound with a jazz bass on youtube in various places in interviews.

Also, even if you don't ever get one as a player, they're not bad purchases as art pieces. The 4003s is my favorite looking bass, so I could see myself getting one literally as a work of art or as a collector.

Even from new, too, they depreciate probably the least of all new basses. Or at least mass-produced ones, not including boutiques, etc. So even if you only play one occasionally, you also park a little bit of wealth in one especially if you take care of it and it stays in good shape....

L

 

[bobyoung53]

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?

Like a 57 Chevy with a blown LS-6 454 in it!. Yup the only thing I don't like about the bridge is the inability to palm mute. Covers off in ten minutes. I'm stuck out here in Lima now until probably Sept-Oct (airports closed) but am most like going to grab a new 4003S when I get back. I haven't decided on the color yet, I've got two elderly maplglos now and haven't had a jetglo or a fireglo for years but those mapleglos still beckon to me.

 

[selowitch]

I find that I like the tone of my 2001 EBMM Sterling 4H with roundwounds a bit better than the Rick anyhow for aggressive rock or jazz tones and it also is much more suited for slap style.

 

[bobyoung53]

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.

I really don't think you can put in neck twist with truss rods, I've heard of it with single truss rod basses too such as Fenders but you can make minor adjustments to each side with two rods regardless of what people here are saying. I've owned 25 Rics at least over the years and never had a problem with a twisted neck. I also had a Ric 4001 get knocked over frontwards and while it did separate the fretboard from the neck a little bit the headstock didn't snap off, I've never heard of that happening in a Ric either, Gibson yes, Ric no. I clamped the neck down good with wood glue and it's been fine now for 10 years. I'm not attacking you personally but I feel there are a LOT of myths surrounding Rickenbacker. Some people like them, some don't, the ones who don't are usually the people who have have had one and didn't take the time to get used to it and now bash them. (I know you play them, so again this is not directed at you).

 

[bobyoung53]

I understand people that find them difficult, but for myself, I just sat down and got used to it, and it has paid off.

That's it in a nutshell, it took me a while years ago to get used to them also coming from a Fender, I love them now, they feel right at home in my arms just like a Fender. I also did the same thing with Gibsons, played them long enough to get used to them. I have driven GM cars for years and also owned a few Chrysler's, never owned a Ford, Fords always seemed strange to me and drove strange to me but I realize it was just because I never drove one long enough to get accustomed to them.

 

[Dbassmon]

Selowitch - Ricks are peculiar instruments. All of the quirks would dissuade many players from owning one.

Here is the thing, it has a unique sound, like nothing else. For that reason, it is desirable and despite being limited in its vesatility. Probably not the bass you would grab to do an R&B gig.

I am fortunate to own one as part of a rather large herd, which contains all of the classic basses. If I were not able to afford all those basses, it would not be a bass I would choose as a workhorse main ax or only ax.

I agree that EBMM will get you sort of in a similar space sonically and is a lot more useful and practical.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

@bobyoung53 .
Well, nothing "mythical" about the headstock break I witnessed in person, it broke exactly where you see a Gibson break, either side of the TRC, leaving a thin little bridge of wood either side. It's undeniably bad basic carpentry, any furniture maker or framer can tell you that, yet somehow Gibson and Ric keep doing it. Sometimes bad design just gets "baked in" to a brand by customer expectation. That's not limited to Ric and Gibson, or course. Ric finally realized that using a "swimming pool" pup route 1/2" away from the neck heel was a bad idea when necks started developing " negative neck angle", literally the neck beam folding at that point. The mystery is why it took them so long to realize this was just basic Bad Design 101. I deliberately fixed both of those two inherent design flaws in my own Ric clone builds, it's stupid easy and basic common sense. As to the utility of two rods, either Ric has discovered some magical Special Sauce that virtually every other major builder somehow overlooked, or its just a marketing ploy that people like the sound of, but most people rarely or never actually use. The most common scenario among guitar techs is finding one rod tight and the other loose, doing nothing, so they adjust them to equal tightness. It makes sense on a 6 string where the width of the neck increases the likelihood of twist, but virtually the entire industry has decided a single DA rod makes more sense.

 

[bobyoung53]

@bobyoung53 .
Well, nothing "mythical" about the headstock break I witnessed in person, it broke exactly where you see a Gibson break, either side of the TRC, leaving a thin little bridge of wood either side. It's undeniably bad basic carpentry, any furniture maker or framer can tell you that, yet somehow Gibson and Ric keep doing it. Sometimes bad design just gets "baked in" to a brand by customer expectation. That's not limited to Ric and Gibson, or course. Ric finally realized that using a "swimming pool" pup route 1/2" away from the neck heel was a bad idea when necks started developing " negative neck angle", literally the neck beam folding at that point. The mystery is why it took them so long to realize this was just basic Bad Design 101. I deliberately fixed both of those two inherent design flaws in my own Ric clone builds, it's stupid easy and basic common sense. As to the utility of two rods, either Ric has discovered some magical Special Sauce that virtually every other major builder somehow overlooked, or its just a marketing ploy that people like the sound of, but most people rarely or never actually use. The most common scenario among guitar techs is finding one rod tight and the other loose, doing nothing, so they adjust them to equal tightness. It makes sense on a 6 string where the width of the neck increases the likelihood of twist, but virtually the entire industry has decided a single DA rod makes more sense.

Well it can't be that common as I've never heard of a Ric headstock snapping before and double truss rods can be used to make minor adjustments like if one side is buzzing and the other side isn't. Twin truss rods are not rocket science, you put them approximately equal during set up although the E string side usually is a little tighter and go from there. I did have a V-63 start to develop negative neck angle years ago though I had very heavy strings on it. I have bought many used Rics and can only remember once I think when one had one side tight and the other side loose. The stuff that's been mentioned here as design flaws in the many posts I've read I have not seen often if at all in my 43 years of buying, selling and playing Rics.

 

[mapleglo]

@bobyoung53 .
Well, nothing "mythical" about the headstock break I witnessed in person, it broke exactly where you see a Gibson break, either side of the TRC, leaving a thin little bridge of wood either side. It's undeniably bad basic carpentry, any furniture maker or framer can tell you that, yet somehow Gibson and Ric keep doing it. Sometimes bad design just gets "baked in" to a brand by customer expectation. That's not limited to Ric and Gibson, or course. Ric finally realized that using a "swimming pool" pup route 1/2" away from the neck heel was a bad idea when necks started developing " negative neck angle", literally the neck beam folding at that point. The mystery is why it took them so long to realize this was just basic Bad Design 101. I deliberately fixed both of those two inherent design flaws in my own Ric clone builds, it's stupid easy and basic common sense. As to the utility of two rods, either Ric has discovered some magical Special Sauce that virtually every other major builder somehow overlooked, or its just a marketing ploy that people like the sound of, but most people rarely or never actually use. The most common scenario among guitar techs is finding one rod tight and the other loose, doing nothing, so they adjust them to equal tightness. It makes sense on a 6 string where the width of the neck increases the likelihood of twist, but virtually the entire industry has decided a single DA rod makes more sense.

Your report of a headstock break on a Ric is the only one I've ever heard of. My first Ric, a Jetglo, fell off a chair at band practice one day. No damage. So I'm not sure what would have to be done to break a headstock. The one you witnessed must have been hit pretty hard. Seems to me one could break off any headstock if you hit it hard enough.

People like to bash Rics, that's for sure. But the truth is, they are very desirable instruments, and there's often a wait between the time one is ordered and the time it is received. And nothing sports that sound, or has such a rich variety of sound, from a Chris Squire grind, to a Paul McCartney thump.

 

[bobyoung53]

For anyone who thinks Rics are not versatile, all played with Ric basses, either 4001 or 4003.

 

[rickdog]

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.

I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience with having your Ric refretted.

I'd tend to blame the person who worked on it, not the bass. I had my 4001 refretted, you have to put on your glasses and get close to see any traces of the work.

Of course, it wasn't cheap. It was done by the late, great Mike Lull, and he took time to explain in detail what was involved and why it cost what it did. It does take someone of his skill level to do it right, but it can be done.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

@mapleglo
You should know as well as anyone that I LOVE Rics, and pointing out design flaws isn't "bashing", it's pointing out the obvious. I believe you included volutes on your Ric clone builds for the same exact reason, correct? I love how a volute looks, but I didnt do all that work just for aesthetics alone. Here's the problem inherent to Rics and Gibsons:

And here's the soution. If Ric and Gibson were some cheesy Indonesian brand that didn't know any better, I'd cut them some slack, but they arent, and they DO know better:

 

[mapleglo]

I make necks with volutes because I like how they look and feel. Though any neck is subject to breaking if enough force is applied, and a volute adds strength, especially to any neck with a truss rod.

 

[farace]

I will point out again that most or all of the much-maligned faults were indeed addressed by Rickenbacker when they built a bass without binding, contoured the body, installed highly thought-of humbucking pickups, no pickup cover, installed a “normal” bridge, and called it the 4004. And relatively few were sold. Granted, part of the problem was that Ric didn’t put enough of them out in the wild for people to actually get their hands on them and try them out, but still, it makes one wonder why the complainers didn’t buy them. If you were a manufacturer and the market rejected your improvements and kept buying the older model, what would you do?

 

[selowitch]

Perhaps one reason the 4004 was not widely adopted is the relatively high cost of Rickenbackers in general.

 

[halfwound121]

Wait, you’re supposed to wipe down your bass? I have never done that in 35+ years of playing and never noticed any consequences whatsoever.
Yeah, but doesn’t it lacking the binding that makes the bass—especially the neck—look so cool?

Most of the Rics you see in 60’s and 70’s Brit bands were similar in style to the S model. No binding or Ric-O-Sound, dot markers instead of sharks-teeth, and contours. Chris Squire’s looked pretty cool. They were a special run specifically for Rose Morris who I think had and exclusive distribution deal to sell them in the UK. If they wanted a standard model they had to leave the country. Anyway, I think they look awesome, I’ve owned both and have and S model, and it’s much easier to play. Just get a $30 bridge cavity thumb rest and throw away the cover and you’re good to go. Sounds great with rounds and flats. If you want a simpler, but less noisy and boomier model, the 4004 is great. Had mine for 10 years, and it will be my wife’s problem when I go.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I will point out again that most or all of the much-maligned faults were indeed addressed by Rickenbacker when they built a bass without binding, contoured the body, installed highly thought-of humbucking pickups, no pickup cover, installed a “normal” bridge, and called it the 4004. And relatively few were sold. Granted, part of the problem was that Ric didn’t put enough of them out in the wild for people to actually get their hands on them and try them out, but still, it makes one wonder why the complainers didn’t buy them. If you were a manufacturer and the market rejected your improvements and kept buying the older model, what would you do?

^^^^What he said, I never undestood why the 4004 didn't take off, though I will say I literally NEVER, not EVER saw one for sale in a store ANYWHERE. I have NEVER seen one in person. If you can't play it, you probably arent going to buy it. I think @Ric5 is right, the new 5 string seems to address all the problems noted, except for that pesky extra string! I still don't love the "Dorito" pups aesthetically, but you can't argue with the tone. They sound great. I'm hoping they (or somebody else) comes up with a chrome pup ring for those, that would be more in keeping with the other chrome hardware. I think it's safe to say that the current production Rics are overall better made then their predecessors, now if they could just fix that flaking finish problem......meh. Get a W model.