Rickenbacker Users: Honest thoughts on the 4001/4003?

[bobyoung53]

I wasn't the one who said it did, I responded to a guy who did. I've played all sorts of Rics too. You can call BS all you want, but a lot of people will disagree with you, myself included. I have played (and owned) several baseball bat neck Rics as well as thin neck Rics. 2012-2016 in general has been my baseball bat experience as well as a 4004 that I'm not sure what year it was.

Ever play an upright? Now those have big necks.

 

[prowla]

My Ric selection a couple of years ago; I didn't bond with the 5-er (the neck was too big), so that went, but I got another 4003 project in its place.

Yes, there is a 4004 there!

 

[prowla]

I'm also looking for a scruffy mapleglo barebones for a project and probably a 4000 at some point (I nearly got a 4000 faker a few weeks back).

 

[prowla]

On the subject of Geddy Lee, this is my Rickenberger, which spans his Ric-Steinberger transition period.

 

[prowla]

I've also got this faker, which was originally a custom 8-string made for Paul Gray of The Damned.

 

[bobyoung53]

Truth ^^^^ Most DA rods are 1/4" wide x 3/8" channel. Even allowing for 1/8" of solid wood under the trussrod, they are plenty shallow enough to allow for a "scary-thin" 4001 style neck. The double rods supposedly allowed for varying relief over the width of the neck (also known as "neck twist"), but it never really worked. Two mild steel truss rods about 3/4" apart cannot easily twist a 1-5/8" wide rock maple neck beam, overlaid witha 3/8" thick fingerboard, as many a snapped rod or chewed up truss rod nut will attest. That skinny neck didn't always work out so well on the 4001 though, my 78' 4001 had a truly scary-skinny neck, but wasn't too stable, consequently. It needed constant trussrod adjustment, and didn't stay in tune too well. The modern two-piece construction is lot more inherently rigid, and could be made dramatically more so by adding 2 CF rod stiffeners, which is what I do on all my Ric clone builds. If you are looking for logic behind the wild Ric variation in neck profile over the years..... keep looking, the Truth is Out There Somewhere.

I think it was an overreaction to the whole Rotosound/4001 thing that was happening during the 70's which turned out to be that people just didn't know how to adjust them correctly.

 

[bobyoung53]

My Ric selection a couple of years ago; I didn't bond with the 5-er (the neck was too big), so that went, but I got another 4003 project in its place.

View attachment 5015974

Yes, there is a 4004 there!

Is the white one on the left a real 60's 4001? Beautiful either way.

 

[May Cassidy]

Ever play an upright? Now those have big necks.

For the most part I don't mind the size of the neck; certain things are easier on thinner necks but I find I tire myself out when things are too skinny.

I play a smidgen of upright, and that's its own beast in a lot of ways. Beautiful instrument though, I would love to spend more time with it.

 

[Sparky Mark]

I found my 4003SW the most comfortable to play due to it's light weight, lack of body binding and natural wood finish on the neck.

 

[bobyoung53]

I'm not an apogist but the old bridges bend back just fine with careful use of a vice. Ready for another five years of use!

I've never had that problem beyond very minor uplift, maybe 1/16th" I have a theory that it's from people setting the bridge too high which makes the strings pull up on the back of the tailpiece.

 

[bobyoung53]

100%. When I play the fusion stuff on the Ric, it is not the fusion sound I want to hear when played with that intent and range of techniques. The far more focussed fully optioned frankenjazz is for that!

 

[bobyoung53]

Since we're sharing, 1982 Mapleglo.
View attachment 5015592

1979 Mapleglo

 

[Quadzilla]

Try before you buy for sure! Having said that....

For me, the 4001 trumps the 4003 in almost every regard. The 4001 necks are *typically* thinner, faster, easier to play. Every modern (last 20+ years) 4003 I've picked up has a significantly fatter, slower, chunky neck. I did have a few 1st gen 4003's (early - mid 80's) that felt quite good though.

Plus I like the fact that 4001 basses have a 3 piece neck. More laminate ls typically equals more strength and stability.

Plus, at least in my own experience, the while the old truss system may be difficult to adjust properly for someone without experience doing it, I've found that it works quite well. Between the truss system, laminated neck and great factory fretwork, practically every 4001 I've owned has been able to achieve stupid low action. Can't say the same for the 4003's I've owned and played.

And finally there are the QC issues with more modern Rics. The old 4001's didn't suffer from this IME.

Anyway, good luck!

 

[bobyoung53]

a very cool blue boy 4003 (aka the urinal cake Rick)

I've never heard that, I ordered a Blue Boy fretless, waited months and it came with dots on the side in the wrong place (middle of notes), drove me nuts so I sold it (wish I hadn't)

And overtones move as you go up the neck so I don't understand your point.

 

[bobyoung53]

I've owned two. A 1982 4003 and a 2017 4003s, which means I've had the more vintage version and the modern version.

What I Like:

• The tone
• How it looks
• The tone
• They finally redesigned the bridge

What I Don't Like:

• The tone of modern their pickups. The vintage tone has been slowly designed out of them. You can make a modern Ric sound like a vintage, but never exactly like a vintage (e.g. the bobbin size and shape has changed, the pole pieces have changed, and most importantly - overwinding, overwinding, and overwinding - which bleeds off the high-mids and highs that Rics are known for
• Ergonomics (see next bullet)
• The unnecessary dual truss rods. The dual rods that, by design, require having a thick neck profile near the headstock to allow access for adjustment. And that you have to adjust two instead of one - and again, for no valid reason. They could easily change the design to use a single truss rod and two stabilizing rods (e.g. graphite), then change the neck profile to be more comfortable

Thickness of the neck is nothing to do with two truss rods, I've owned a lot of Rics that had very thin necks both 4003 and 4001 with double truss rods, I don't know where that myth is coming from but it's a fairly new one. Incidentally they did change to a single truss rod I guess, I don't see that as an improvement.

 

[woodyng2]

The 4004 fixes everything wrong with the 4003.

• Body contouring
• Hum-canceling pickups (that still have the Rick growl)
• A sane bridge
• No ridiculous bridge pickup cover
• No tacky plastic on the body

It's basically the grown-up version of the pimply-faced adolescent 4003.

View attachment 5015738

(Random photo from the Internet)

…And on the 7th day (page of this thread), the Light Dawneth!
Been playing various Rickenbacker 4000 series basses since I started 48 years ago.
Have owned a handful of 4000 models, several 4001, a 4002, a V63, and a 4005, both set neck and neckthrough types.
(Never a 4003 oddly). Once I got my hands on a 4004, I kind of lost interest in the older style Ricks.
The 4004s also varied greatly on neck feel, but I love the contoured bodies,great sounding pickups, and improved ergonomics.
No going back for me…..

 

[prowla]

Is the white one on the left a real 60's 4001? Beautiful either way.

Cheers!
Yep - Jan '64; I bought it in 1977.

…And on the 7th day (page of this thread), the Light Dawneth!
Been playing various Rickenbacker 4000 series basses since I started 48 years ago.
Have owned a handful of 4000 models, several 4001, a 4002, a V63, and a 4005, both set neck and neckthrough types.
(Never a 4003 oddly). Once I got my hands on a 4004, I kind of lost interest in the older style Ricks.
The 4004s also varied greatly on neck feel, but I love the contoured bodies,great sounding pickups, and improved ergonomics.
No going back for me…..

I like the finish on my 4004.
However, my go-to basses are my two 2010 4003 ones.

 

[incubus2432]

I agree with the overwhelming sentiment that you should try before you buy if possible. They aren't for everyone which I kinda like but for me there really is no other. I find it odd when people say they aren't versatile as I haven't found them limiting at all especially with having relatively cheap access to digital multi effects and modelers. I get the complaints with the truss rods, bridge, pickup trim ring/cover, and binding but I have found that once I get 'em set up they are rock solid and since my formative playing years were on a '73 4001 the "sharp" ergonomics are a non-issue.

IMO the 4004 series kept all of the best Ric qualities and jettisoned the quirky stuff. I have owned 7 (IIRC) 4004s and they, IMO, were the pinnacle. Finding one currently is the problem and it's baffling to me that they are no longer being made. Oh well.

 

[May Cassidy]

Well this is a wealth of answers in a matter of hours! I'm sure there's still more nuggets to come but I thank those who've so far responded for sharing what they know. I think I'll keep my eyes open for a Rick available in person and try it out before I just go and buy one.

 

[Deleted member 394181]

What he said ^^^^^^ an incredible bass... that very few people bought, so they are hard to find used. I have literally NEVER seen one for sale in a store or in the hands a of a bass player on stage. I believe they do actually exist based on photographic evidence, but it's an article of faith I acquired on TB. If you can find one BUY IT FOR GOD's SAKE!

I traded mine towards a 4003. The neck.