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.
Rickenbacker......older vs. todays???
- Thread starter sleevey55
- Start date
I was able to grab a 2010 4003 mg from mf for about 1700. That was a little over a year ago. Some sale they had going applied. That was cheaper than any of the used ones i saw around online.. cheaper for new might be a factor.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Don't the old ones avoid tailpiece lift?
My 1968 4001 did not lift ... but pretty much all of my 70s 4001s lifted a little.
Somewhere around 2000 they strengthened the tailpiece design so it will lift less.
The old-style sand-cast tailpieces (with gap tooth) will not lift. These were standard until about May or June of '73. I didn't realize that around 2000 the piece was strengthened.
I think for a person contemplating his first Rick bass,a better question of choice might be whether to get a 4003 vs 4004. I do think all their current basses are great,i own 2 '04 models,and a '74 as well.
I didn't realize the problem went back that far.
I simply can't understand why that hasn't been completely resolved by now. I'm just flabbergasted.
4004s are what I play primarily, these days, too. an '11 (Ruby) and a '13 (Snowglo), one with flats, the other with rounds, along with my early '73 4001 with rounds
.
The post aluminum tailpieces lifted with regularity. I owned a may 73 and it the "second pattern" tail piece and it had a little lift. The black powdercoated ones lifted like crazy!! That's why you'll see most black tailpieces with the 7 screw design. As for the "third pattern" tail pieces, I've yet to see them lift on non 5 string instruments. The structural webbing they put in is far superior to the first pattern. I've had far more problems with inconsistent bridges and saddles than the newer tailpieces. Many new pattern tailpieces have the appearance of a little lift but it's actually the surface of the bass has been sanded a bit vigorously at the rear edge. Put a straightedge on the body and you'll see what I'm talking about. This distance is the thickness of a pick and does not mean the tail piece is lifting, especially on "out of the box" basses.
Sepp
4004s are what I play primarily, these days, too. an '11 (Ruby) and a '13 (Snowglo), one with flats, the other with rounds, along with my early '73 4001 with rounds
Jeff,
Did you not get the memo?? You CAN'T put rounds on a 70's Rickenbacker! An alarm sounds at RIC HQ and they push a button that makes your bass self destruct!!
I have rounds on all my Rickenbackers!! Yes, even the 60's!! I just watch the tension. They are all different so you just have to find what works best and what is best for the instrument.
Sepp
Not only did they NOT strengthen the tailpiece, as someone suggested, as I recall, John Hall has never even acknowledged there was an issue with the tailpiece. And they ALL lift. My early 70s and the ones that are less than a few years old.
I guess I'll post a little against the grain here. I own a transition-era 4003 loaded with all 70s stock 4001 parts (pickups, 250k pots, truss rods, tuners) which I outfitted with a push/pull knob like the current stock of 4003s. I've played a couple different 2012/3 models Ricks (including one of those Snowglo 4004s!!!), and I've got to say that my preference lies in the past. The newer ones are built to a high standard, and have a good beefy tone, but when A/B'd with mine, I get 'that' Ricky sound on mine whereas it remains a little elusive on the new ones. Adding the push/pull has made my bass much more versatile, though. I doubt I could use it in as many situations as I do without it; seems the majority of music I play these days doesn't really benefit from the supreme growl. Although it is most definitely there when I need/want it!
Just do your research, OP. There are lots of things to love about both the new and the old, and plenty of things to be watchful for, too! I agree with Sepp that the new basses are a 'safer' purchase, but if you can find an old one in the right fit and form, I think that would be the keeper IMHO
Just do your research, OP. There are lots of things to love about both the new and the old, and plenty of things to be watchful for, too! I agree with Sepp that the new basses are a 'safer' purchase, but if you can find an old one in the right fit and form, I think that would be the keeper IMHO
Really? That is pure rubbish.
I don't care what John hall says, all anyone needs to do is flip over an early non aluminum tailpiece and a newer one and the difference is readily apparent. The difference does not "kick you in the nuts" but the webbing is wider and taller.What RIC says and what is known to be truth are sometimes two very different things.
Things like certain early 70's Mapleglo instruments don't turn "Glueglo", There is no pup coverage issue with 4003 5 strings, First quarter 2011 Jetglo 4003's don't have finish issues, and mid 70's tail pieces don't lift are all RIC standard answers but we all know differently.
Sepp
I never claimed they were the same. I said he never admitted there was an issue. I also said that I have older AND new ones that exhibit lift. I don't care what subtle changes they made, the design is flawed and unless you mod the tailpiece with extra screws, it will lift, to some degree. Those are facts, just as it is a fact that John Hall flatly denied there was an issue with tail lift. Even on his own web forums threads about it mysteriously disappear.
If you re-read your post, you certainly seem to be saying you believe the tailpieces were never strengthened. Perhaps next time phrase your reply, "according to so and so...." Then maybe the possibility of you being "mis quoted" can be minimized.
I'm going to stand by my initial statement that the newer tailpieces holding 4 strings don't lift, at least to the degree the old style did. Most confuse tail lift with the phenomenon I described in my earlier post. While I'm not from Missouri, if you have proof that says otherwise, show me! Examples with serial number to either prove your claim or disprove mine, please.
Sepp
I've got a 1982 4001, and have had absolutely no problems with it, aside from some electronic repairs. I replaced the wiring harness and rewound the pickups, a couple of years ago. The neck is super stable and the the tail has never lifted. In fact, I've only had to make some very minor truss rod adjustments, twice in it's lifetime. It's worth pointing out, though, that it's only ever had 100 gauge strings on it.
If you're looking to use heavy strings, alternate tunings, or just won't take the time to learn how to properly adjust the truss rods, you should pass on a 4001. Used within Ric's design parameters, it's a truly great instrument. But, if you treat it like just another bass, things can go south, quickly. However, if you can get past all that, it's got a thin fast neck, and overall, it's just a joy to play.
If you're looking to use heavy strings, alternate tunings, or just won't take the time to learn how to properly adjust the truss rods, you should pass on a 4001. Used within Ric's design parameters, it's a truly great instrument. But, if you treat it like just another bass, things can go south, quickly. However, if you can get past all that, it's got a thin fast neck, and overall, it's just a joy to play.
On my 1983 4001 it had major lift on the tailpiece and it even had the original factory flat wounds on it when I bought it from it's original owner who was this old gentleman, and I knew it was the original owner because when I received the bass it still had all the receipt's in the case from the music store he bought it from back in 1983, so I guess what I'm trying to say is the original tailpiece had lift on it even though it had the factory flats on it, so I had to buy a newer tailpiece from Rickenbacker to put on the bass, I flipped over both tailpieces and noticed a difference in structure, the newer tailpiece was definitely more solid than the original 1983 tailpiece.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Ya I had a 73 that I had to replace the tailpiece.
The modern Rickenbacker, the 4004 has no tailpice to pull up. Also in the 80s Ric added 2 extra screws that completely resolved the problem. But the purists don't like the 2 extra screws. Supposedly John Hall has a design on his desk that fixes the problem, but it has never been implemented.
If I was going to get another Rick, I'd get a 4004 without a doubt. They really seem to have most of the bugs worked out. Better bridge, better pickups, better tuners, nicer wood.
All this is subject to personal preferences, I suppose, but after playing two 4003s and a 4001, that's how I'd go today if I were going to do it.
All this is subject to personal preferences, I suppose, but after playing two 4003s and a 4001, that's how I'd go today if I were going to do it.
Eh, well, I sure ain't figuring out how to put photos up here, breaking out a camera or taking anything apart to prove to you what I already know. You don't have to believe me. I can tell you that a 2012 I had lifted. I can also tell you a replacement from Rickenbacker which was put on a '75 I had came already 1/4" lifted. Within 2 months it was easily 1/2" or better. This was a tailpiece I bought from Rickenbacker.com last year.
Believe what you want my friend, but I assure you John Hall will in no way acknowledge that there is a problem with this design and I assure you that the tail lift issue has NOT been resolved, which is the claim that was made which prompted my reply in the first place.
