That was the 4004 series, and a better pickup should have been designed.
They tried to use the same footprint and failed.
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.
Ric 5 - Looked for a long time, finally found one
- Thread starter atb
- Start date
That was the 4004 series, and a better pickup should have been designed.
They tried to use the same footprint and failed.
That bridge lift problem is a sore point with John Hall, I brought it up as a noob over on RRF and got personally flamed by Hall himself for daring to mention it. The sad part was how much stank I got from other RRF members dissing me for "Upsetting Mr. Hall". That was right before he stopped posting on RRF, took all his toys and went home, so to speak. I haven't seen any examples of this on the newer 4003 models, maybe they finally have it licked. They discontinued the bridges with the two extra screws because people didn't like the looks, too bad. This is why Hipshot Ric style bridges sell really well. Too bad they don't make a 5-string model of the Hipshot, but I understand the OP wanting to keep it all original. Somebody could probably make a few bucks selling the aluminum tailpiece (steel maybe?) the OP's luthier came up with. Hoping to hear some sound clips and see the glamour shots when the restoration is done!
Yeah, they don't take even constructive criticism very well.
And their new bridge design had been put on indefinite hold.
+1 on the 5 string Hipshot.
Maybe we should get a poll of folks who'd like to buy one and see if they'd make a batch....count me in.
And their new bridge design had been put on indefinite hold.
+1 on the 5 string Hipshot.
Maybe we should get a poll of folks who'd like to buy one and see if they'd make a batch....count me in.
It does seem that Rickenbacker isn't responsive to design faults, but to some degree that's why we are fans right? The luthier who is making the modifications on this bass for years has asked to allow him to build me one from scratch, and design out all the faults so it would look like a Rickenbacker,(but without the name on the headstock cover) , and sound like a Rickenbacker, but be as solid as a rock. To me it just wouldn't be the same. I don't want my Ricky to have the fit and finish of an Alembic, it just wouldn't seem right. These mods should take care of the mechanical issues, but leave all the characteristics that Rick players enjoy.
I'm essentially doing that myself to re-create my long-lost 79' 4001, a wonderful bass I stupidly sold for reasons I don't even remember. it's a very slow build, as I am an amateur, but you might get a kick out of the comedy of errors. I bought a cheap Allparts Ric licensed bridge, we'll see how it holds up. If it's starts bending, I'll get a Hipshot.
The Hossenfeffer Bass Build | TalkBass.com
ATB
Continuing in the general Killjoy vein I'm well known for:
Is there any evidence of the neck bending at the neck/body joint? A lot of older Rics had the notorious "swimming pool" neck pup route that hogged all but about 1/2" of neck beam thickness right at the spot you most need the strength, not a great engineering decision, and completely unnecessary to allow for the size and depth of the neck pup. Apparently they have realized, after 40 years of doing this, that it's a bad idea, and fixed it on the new 4003s models. This problem (if present) is often much worse in 5 string basses due to the extra string tension. The accepted fix is to glue in a solid maple block with the absolute minimum route needed to allow the pickup to be adjustable for height. Here's a recent example on RRF, a 4-string with the neck bending back towards the bridge. The symptoms of this happening are very high action and body wings separating from the neck beam right where they join the body. I'm sure your luthier is aware of this possibility, might be worth a mention.
Invalid Link Removed
Continuing in the general Killjoy vein I'm well known for:
Is there any evidence of the neck bending at the neck/body joint? A lot of older Rics had the notorious "swimming pool" neck pup route that hogged all but about 1/2" of neck beam thickness right at the spot you most need the strength, not a great engineering decision, and completely unnecessary to allow for the size and depth of the neck pup. Apparently they have realized, after 40 years of doing this, that it's a bad idea, and fixed it on the new 4003s models. This problem (if present) is often much worse in 5 string basses due to the extra string tension. The accepted fix is to glue in a solid maple block with the absolute minimum route needed to allow the pickup to be adjustable for height. Here's a recent example on RRF, a 4-string with the neck bending back towards the bridge. The symptoms of this happening are very high action and body wings separating from the neck beam right where they join the body. I'm sure your luthier is aware of this possibility, might be worth a mention.
Invalid Link Removed
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,625
- 222,177
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,625
- 222,177
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
If I liked a Ric enough I'd consider it (redesigning and building a better one) but there's other inherent things about them that would have to change and by the time I was done it wouldn't be much like one anyway. I owned an '86 4003. (w/tr access at the neck butt & 2 piece pg) I liked it ok but eventually sold it w/no regrets.
I had a 4003s5 that I bought new from my local RIC dealer back around 1999. I never got use to the very tight string spacing nor did I get use to the 115 gauge B-string that RIC was installing on the 4003s5. After just two months of owning the bass, the finish started to cloud turning some of the black body cloudy grey (not good). Took the bass back to my dealer who contacted RIC and they agreed to issue a AR, but only after months of fighting with RIC. The dealer was so pissed off with RIC they stopped ordering any instruments from them for the next few years.
Just have a heads up on replacing that 115 gauge B-string with a 130 gauge. But since you've got MA on the job, I'm sure he'll make sure the 130 gauge plays, feels and sings for you.
TD
More updates from the lab:
Tail piece set in the body and access holes for the ball ends to fit through:
Clearanced and looking good. You'd never be able to tell there's a tail piece hiding under there.
Front view:
Tail view - Mark is going out of town for awhile so he wants to get all the "mechanics" done before he leaves. The cosmetic stuff, like fixing the bend in the stock tail piece, and doing the refinish, will have to wait for a later date.
This bass will be receiving the minimum route mod that Gisg describes. Probably happen tomorrow.
Tail piece set in the body and access holes for the ball ends to fit through:
Clearanced and looking good. You'd never be able to tell there's a tail piece hiding under there.
Front view:
Tail view - Mark is going out of town for awhile so he wants to get all the "mechanics" done before he leaves. The cosmetic stuff, like fixing the bend in the stock tail piece, and doing the refinish, will have to wait for a later date.
This bass will be receiving the minimum route mod that Gisg describes. Probably happen tomorrow.
Perhaps the uneven string-to-string spacing could be fixed as well. The strings also do not line up over the pole pieces.
Hey Thornton,
I'm looking to running the following set:
RS665LC
-
40
60
75
95
125
Not looking for the heavy thump on the B, its still a Rickenbacker after all....ha ha
With all the mods, I'm confident that it'll be able to handle whatever I decide to throw at it though, its a pretty comprehensive make over.
I'm looking to running the following set:
RS665LC
-
40
60
75
95
125
Not looking for the heavy thump on the B, its still a Rickenbacker after all....ha ha
With all the mods, I'm confident that it'll be able to handle whatever I decide to throw at it though, its a pretty comprehensive make over.
No, no it's not, really. That's what is sad.
Look, I love my 4003, out of a whole pile of basses I acquired over the years, it and my Fullerton Jazz are the only ones that remain. That said, the company attitude is quite remarkable. Their 5 string attempt was really half.......baked across the board, not just the bridge "design". Their bridge isn't even up to a good DIY job. Just take a look at the work @Ric5 5 does, much better.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,625
- 222,177
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Oh yah - I've always felt that odd bridge was more 'iconic looking' than functional - it's a really poor design from the start. Again, if it were mine to solve w/o losing the nostalgic vibe… a redesign would look more like Hipshot's. At least a 60+ year old design (Fender bent-plate bridge) is still relevant and regardless of all the debate over HM bridges - it still works. It's why a Ric is marginable when put in the larger arena of Fender/Gibson.
Yeah - I dig the nostalgia thing, but hell, I'd be happy if they scrapped the old school bridge design and went with the bridge they use on the 4004 or whatever it is. And the bridge pup cover and all that crapola - they should again, take a page from their 4004 and mount it to the body. That would result in a good place to put yer thumb too.
When playing fingerstyle, my thumb generally rests on the chrome piece surrounding the bridge pickup on my 4001. The cover was long gone when I got it.... And the bridge pup cover and all that crapola - they should again, take a page from their 4004 and mount it to the body. That would result in a good place to put yer thumb too.
Last edited:
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
I just add extra screws to the Ric tailpiece. I also replace the saddles to get a wider string spacing.
Right, I don't mean just the cover, I mean the whole chrome surround too, the whole bit should go. There has been zero need for it since they got rid of the horseshoe. I actually find it odd they didn't get rid of it back in the day. I guess they have always been resistant to change.
As for resting your thumb on the surround, that's too high for my taste.
I just add extra screws to the Ric tailpiece. I also replace the saddles to get a wider string spacing.
Hmmm....OK. I always thought you did more than that, because it just seemed to look like a cleaner solution. Maybe it's the saddles/spacing that do it.
