The specific bass in question is a 1976 Rickenbacker 4001. Cosmetically very nice. Sounds right. Only non-original parts are the tuners, but they appear to be decades old as well and look fine. Tom Brantley rewound the neck pickup. The rewind and installation cost less than $140, so not too bad. That's all I have into it so far. Changed strings, and now have some buzz that I can't shake. Replaced the stripped bridge set screws so I could adjust bridge height. (Cost: $0.32) This helped some. Also need to build up or replace the nut. A Rickenbacker nut costs $6.00, and the installation is another $120. The big thing is that the frets need to be replaced, which costs $325. They're too far gone to recrown. The luthier says this likely will do the trick, but there's no guarantee. Neck and truss rods are fine. In summary, I'm looking at another $445. I have no illusions about the expense associated with the maintenance and repair of Rickenbackers, and of older instruments in general. Every bass that's played eventually will need a refret. I like the bass quite a bit, but not more than others I have. Here's my questions: Would I be better off (1) avoiding the expense of the repairs and selling as is (with full disclosure of the issues), or (2) getting the repairs done and enjoying the bass? Does a refret increase or decrease the value of a 40 year old bass? Assume the value of a 1976 Rickenbacker in good condition is a somewhat arbitrary $1,500. Would the value "as is" be $1,055 ($1,500 - $445) or more? Would the proverbial "someone" be willing to pay more than $1,500 after the refret and nut replacement? Thanks for your comments!