They truly are works of art! Not the most practical or uilitarian, but who cares? They look AMAZING!
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.
NBD - 1968 Rickenbacker 4005
- Thread starter GodsLove66
- Start date
For many years the 4005 was one on my "Grail" basses, until I accepted that it was just too big and long for me. Most long-scale hollows and semi-hollows are. But on a brighter note, all of my other Grail basses I either have now or have had in the past.
i love me some kitty cat 
and that is a gorgeous bass, not really my style of Ric but from 68 it looks well cared for, with minimal, but tasty amount of mojo. Bet it sounds stellar..congrats man!
and that is a gorgeous bass, not really my style of Ric but from 68 it looks well cared for, with minimal, but tasty amount of mojo. Bet it sounds stellar..congrats man!
Looks almost new for a 68!
Glad it is cat approved.
Glad it is cat approved.
Worked just fine for me for gigging and recording for 38 years.
So Anyway, nice bass.
Just curious, if it's the same price as a new one, why not get a new one? Quality?
Serious question.
Just curious, if it's the same price as a new one, why not get a new one? Quality?
Serious question.
The value of the old ones are typically TWICE the cost of a new one. I much prefer the older ones anyways. It has a thinner nut width and as such is more comfortable to play. It actually has a 4 saddle tailpiece vs the new ones which just use six string saddle tailpieces. I prefer the way they used to do the Fireglo as well versus how it's done now.
SOOOOOOOOOO Beautiful!
Is the nut width a bit more narrow on the original 60's 4005 basses?
I do know the necks on both the 60's & current 4005V basses are wonderfully shallow and both feel GREAT!
BTW, the first three 4005V basses (including the prototype) were built with NOS 4-string R-tailpieces. Truth be told, the modified 6-string
R-tailpieces used on the remainder of the 4005 basses built over the past few years are actually easier to string than the originals (my experience was some silk string winding had to be stripped and lubrication was required as well for at least 2 of the strings.)
I do agree that the Fireglo finishes of the mid-late 60's were KILLER!
Last edited:
That's certainly my understanding, Jeff. We also know for sure that the 4-string tailpieces were not recast, so the modified 6-string versions were the solution.
The model 4000 started with a 6-string bridge/tailpiece so there is a sense of symmetry here.That's certainly my understanding, Jeff. We also know for sure that the 4-string tailpieces were not recast, so the modified 6-string versions were the solution.
A few days in and I’m loving the sounds this produces!!! Those who diss on it just don’t have the patience to work with it and find what works for them. The blend knob itself a revelation!!!Worked just fine for me for gigging and recording for 38 years.
It was the 60s! Manufacturers were still discovering all the idiosyncrasies and nuances of these electrified instruments. It makes for a fun, unique sounding instrument however. Like a Hofner on Roids!!!! The blend knob is by far the most unique and useful thing on it though!
As @GodsLove66 mentioned, I agree, it was likely Rickenbacker's experimentation. The bass is certainly more versatile than most people assume, and it sounds absolutely wonderful when strung with flats (IMO.) As he also mentioned, the blend knob is also a secret weapon here - the thing to understand is that it's reverse-wired, so dialing it back towards the bridge means that you're dialing in the front pickup (and vice versa.)
+1
