• 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.

Davenbacker 4001-S

#41
Gilmourisgod said:
True enough, in the USA anyway, where average for an S model is something like $1700-1800. Outside the US though, you'd have trouble touching one for less than $2500. I feel sorry for the Ric buyers in Oz, prices in the high $2k not unusual.
Click to expand...
More like $5k in AUD. e.g. Rickenbacker 4003 Stereo - Jetglo

And that's when you can find one. The local agent told me they are lucky if they get half a dozen in a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod
#42
LHbassist said:
A couple of years ago, I played a new 4003. I liked the bass, except for two things. It had a strange, repaired finish glitch- something a $2500.00 bass really should have not passed quality control with. I also noticed the 33.25 scale, and I could feel it... I'm just old, and used to Fender 34" scale length.
After some thought, I decided I'd build my own, the way Rickenbacker should make one. I much prefer the simpler, less' flashy' 4001 S models, with the unbound, contoured bodies. I also like the dot position markers instead of the triangles. I actually prefer no dots or markers on the fingerboard. So, this instrument doesn't have any.
I measured a client's Rick basses, one 1974 4001, and two recent 4003 S models. I measured every possible thing, body depths, neck shapes and thicknesses, headstock dimensions, center neck billet lamination dimensions, and made some MDF templates. Rather than go into the pretty amazing differences in the shapes and features of 4000 series basses.. I'll just say, I refined all of them to get a final, pleasing to me shape to aim for. I laid out the templates, and saw that it was easily possible to build a 34" 4001-S clone/ copy.
This bass is all flamed maple, with a walnut center strip and walnut fingerboard. I made a gold anodized aluminum pickguard for it- it looks much better on this bass than a white plexi Rick factory one does. It has Hipshot ultralite clover head tuners, and a Hipshot bridge. Factory Rickenbacker pickups. Flat pickup surround with plexi finger ramp. It has a very thick fingerboard with a single dual acting truss rod. The neck is much stronger than a stock Rickenbacker bass.
I'm still waiting on the electronics, an Audere 4 band, four knob, which is the only active preamp that has pots small enough to fit inside this instrument. It should be done next week.
Click to expand...
Stunning. When done will you post some sound files?
 
#46
LHbassist said:
A couple of years ago, I played a new 4003. I liked the bass, except for two things. It had a strange, repaired finish glitch- something a $2500.00 bass really should have not passed quality control with. I also noticed the 33.25 scale, and I could feel it... I'm just old, and used to Fender 34" scale length.
After some thought, I decided I'd build my own, the way Rickenbacker should make one. I much prefer the simpler, less' flashy' 4001 S models, with the unbound, contoured bodies. I also like the dot position markers instead of the triangles. I actually prefer no dots or markers on the fingerboard. So, this instrument doesn't have any.
I measured a client's Rick basses, one 1974 4001, and two recent 4003 S models. I measured every possible thing, body depths, neck shapes and thicknesses, headstock dimensions, center neck billet lamination dimensions, and made some MDF templates. Rather than go into the pretty amazing differences in the shapes and features of 4000 series basses.. I'll just say, I refined all of them to get a final, pleasing to me shape to aim for. I laid out the templates, and saw that it was easily possible to build a 34" 4001-S clone/ copy.
This bass is all flamed maple, with a walnut center strip and walnut fingerboard. I made a gold anodized aluminum pickguard for it- it looks much better on this bass than a white plexi Rick factory one does. It has Hipshot ultralite clover head tuners, and a Hipshot bridge. Factory Rickenbacker pickups. Flat pickup surround with plexi finger ramp. It has a very thick fingerboard with a single dual acting truss rod. The neck is much stronger than a stock Rickenbacker bass.
I'm still waiting on the electronics, an Audere 4 band, four knob, which is the only active preamp that has pots small enough to fit inside this instrument. It should be done next week.
Click to expand...
Yes, simpler, and much less flashy with a highly figured flame maple neck and body! :D Congrats, it looks awesome!
 
#47
Gilmourisgod said:
True enough, in the USA anyway, where average for an S model is something like $1700-1800. Outside the US though, you'd have trouble touching one for less than $2500. I feel sorry for the Ric buyers in Oz, prices in the high $2k not unusual.
Click to expand...

More like $4,500 rather high $2k in Australia these days. (Such is life with worldwide inflation, shortages in supplies, exchange rates and the huge shipping distances...)

While I'm not in the market for a Ric, a quick search brought up prices for a new 4003 Fireglo of $5,488 (reduced from $6,999!), $3,738 (for a 'B stock', used), $4,490 for a used, Mint, US 4003 including shipping etc. and $4,485 for a used 2018 Fireglo from Japan.

I'm not moaning, prices are always higher here, even in the best of times, that's life. There's more to life than the cost of non essentials...:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod
#48
I didnt build my Ric clones to save money, including parts, lumber and tools, I probably spent the better part of what a new one would cost in the US, but at AU prices, that would be a major incentive! The tools are a one time investment, so i guess that pays off in the long run. The Ric is a great bass in most respects, but the production models have been plagued by QC issues for years, and like a lot of brands (coughGibsoncough) some bad design features, like the double rods, got "baked in" by customer expectations. That always seemed more like marketing hype than a useable feature. It was never clear to me why you would want different relief on the E and G (isnt that called "neck twist?), or how two mild steel rods around 3/4" apart was supposed to bend a piece of rock maple across its face without tremendous stress on the rods. A google search on the phrase "Rickenbacker broken truss rod nuts" or similar tells the tale. Like the OP, i used a single modern double action rod with two CF stiffeners, and it adjusts like butter. The S models are definitely more user friendly as far as ergonomics, but if thats your first consideration, there are a lot of basses more comfortable to play. A Ric makes you work for it a little, but its worth it for that look and TONE.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: woodyng2, LHbassist and heyronbrown
#49
Gilmourisgod said:
I didnt build my Ric clones to save money, including parts, lumber and tools, I probably spent the better part of what a new one would cost in the US, but at AU prices, that would be a major incentive! The tools are a one time investment, so i guess that pays off in the long run. The Ric is a great bass in most respects, but the production models have been plagued by QC issues for years, and like a lot of brands (coughGibsoncough) some bad design features, like the double rods, got "baked in" by customer expectations.
Click to expand...
Hey now - yes, the double rods aren't the most functional relative to a DA truss rod, but the structure of the instrument isn't compromised by them (unlike Gibson's Schrödinger headstock), and their field replaceability is part of the charm. They aren't a great design choice, but they're not a bad one either -- they just require a bit more futzing on the part of the user, and a lot more process and supporting structure during the instrument's manufacture.

I'd argue that over-engineering is one of those Rickenbacker "things" -- the V2 bridge is a great example of this. Rather than a Schaller bridge, which would have been more than fine for the purpose, we've designed a crazy elaborate highly finished multi-part assembly that's anchored solidly enough in the body (8 screws) that you could probably suspend 400-500lbs from it.

Apart from being a highly functional bass, a Rickenbacker is also an impractical piece of jewellery. Kind of like a mechanical watch - less functional and less accurate than the modern equivalent (i.e. Ibanez), but WAAAAY more charm, and close enough for ridiculously complex progressive art music, like Renaissance.

But yeah, this Davenbacker looks awesome! I'd love to hear it!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wilmingtonian
#51
Id argue that the big trc pocket required to house (barely) double rods was in no way worth the loss of all that wood right at the point of maximum stress. It leaves two little "bridges" of short grain wood either side of the trc, just like a Gibson. Ive personally witnessed a Ric lose its headstock when dropped on its back (not mine, thank God) and it broke right where you'd expect it, shearing off either side of the trc pocket. In practice, theres no reason a modern DA rod cant be removable if its a consistent width along its whole length, like the LMI rods. With that long TRC, a Ric is a perfect candidate to just cut the adjustment slot long until it "daylights" out the headstock as it pitches down. The TRC is long enough to cover the slot. At any rate, Ric has Voted with Its Feet, so to speak, and ditched the double rods, which, were they truly superior, they wouldnt have done. AFAIK, Alembic is now the only company left that does double rods on a 4 string bass.
 
#53
What color are you going to paint it?
PS-I came cross as too gruff in earlier posts even as I tried to make sure I complimented the work, which remains excellent.
Koshchei seems to have the most reasonable take on the modern Ric, appreciative without fanboying over their ... quirks
 
  • Like
Reactions: LHbassist
#55
Wilmingtonian said:
Again, the published "retail" price for an off-the-rack 4003 is $2399. It's hard to find a way to spend that much, but $2600 is just bizarre.

As for the truss rod statements, well, there is a lot to go into there but I won't except to say it sure sounds like you haven't adjusted a 4003 cause that's not how it works.
Click to expand...

I understand the adjustment procedure, according to Rickenbacker's instructions. I've been doing repairs for half a Century. Are you a Luthier/ repair person?
With all due respect, if you know something I don't, enlighten me. P.S., I just removed and replaced the rods on a mid seventies 4000. My opinion on them still holds, they're really bad. Both rods were stripped, and the amount of flex in them once removed was unlike even a standard single acting Gibson rod. In addition, the owner tried to remove the rods himself, they were stripped, and locked into backbow, and as he pulled on them, he broke the neck under the first couple of frets. I've fixed Ricks with that break many times, so I just repaired it, installed new rods, and it's back in service. Two crap rods are not better than one GOOD rod.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod and woodyng2
#57
Avezzano said:
About the headstock: did you select a personal shaping or copied the RC one?
Click to expand...

I made a composite template using three Ricks. two were the same era 4003-S models, and one was a 1974 4001-3. The main difference in Rick headstocks seems to be overall size, while retaining the same basic shape. The other surprise, is that the 74 had a 'scooped down' headstock, like a Fender bass- with no pitchback angle. The recent 's' models both have an angle to the headstock, like a PRS- shallow, not like a Gibson pitchback angle- but its there. I decided to put a pitchback angle in my build. Here's my original template. As with the rest of the bass- I altered it after looking at it and deciding what the final shape should be. The headstock still looks quite large to me.
 

Attachments

  • 20221004_202942.jpg
    20221004_202942.jpg
    859.8 KB · Views: 38
  • Headstock cropped.jpg
    Headstock cropped.jpg
    210.5 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod, woodyng2 and Avezzano
#59
Gilmourisgod said:
I didnt build my Ric clones to save money, including parts, lumber and tools, I probably spent the better part of what a new one would cost in the US, but at AU prices, that would be a major incentive! The tools are a one time investment, so i guess that pays off in the long run. The Ric is a great bass in most respects, but the production models have been plagued by QC issues for years, and like a lot of brands (coughGibsoncough) some bad design features, like the double rods, got "baked in" by customer expectations. That always seemed more like marketing hype than a useable feature. It was never clear to me why you would want different relief on the E and G (isnt that called "neck twist?), or how two mild steel rods around 3/4" apart was supposed to bend a piece of rock maple across its face without tremendous stress on the rods. A google search on the phrase "Rickenbacker broken truss rod nuts" or similar tells the tale. Like the OP, i used a single modern double action rod with two CF stiffeners, and it adjusts like butter. The S models are definitely more user friendly as far as ergonomics, but if thats your first consideration, there are a lot of basses more comfortable to play. A Ric makes you work for it a little, but its worth it for that look and TONE.
Click to expand...

I see that you totally understand why I decided to build my own. I'm old school. I used to hang a bit at Carl Thompson's shop in Brooklyn, in the mid- seventies, when he was building my bass. I also spent time at the Brooklyn Woodworker's co-op.. the guys there are all stars in the Luthiery world now. Stuart Spector, Ned Steinberger, Vinnie Fodera.. all working in the same loft in Park Slope. Amazing. I never worked there, I watched, listened, and learned. Stuart helped me with a couple of things, as did Carl Thompson. They were all inspirations. In addition, I've been making model cars/ slot cars, since I'm about 8 years old. I started soldering at 11. I'm 70 now. I still have some of my slot car stuff- one car from 1966. So, making things is kinda natural for me. Being left handed, and a bass player, made it a necessity.
I've ALWAYS had issues with many design aspects of Rick basses. You obviously know what those are. The hogging out of all that wood to install metal rods in the channels took away from the intrinsic strength of the billet. One rod, is better. Now with the advent of the modern dual acting rods with a strong steel square bar on top- you can get good strength, and full adjustability in two directions, and maintain the billet rigidity. I WAS going to install carbon fiber rods, I even have two cut to length... but decided against it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back