I like the 4003, for purely cosmetic reasons. I would probably buy a 4003s body with the 4003 neck if that were a thing
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.
the eternal dilemma - Rickenbacker 4003 or 4003s? does the lack of binding help?
- Thread starter Pier_
- Start date
I bought mine (new) because it was on sale. I prefer the binding and shark fin inlays but the price was great. I didn't consider the binding being a problem. I have other basses so I don't play it allot, all get light wear.
Hi everybody, here's a new useless topic to chat a bit!
in the last year I discovered the Rickenbacker 4003, or to be precise, I gave it a chance after looking at it for plenty of years.
I had the opportunity last year to buy a 4003 fireglo for a decent price, but the first one I got had an issue with the neck, so the minimum action at the 12th fret, G string, was around 2.5mm, and it raised at the last fret to almost 3.5mm, even with the neck dead straight and the bridge all down.
I than had a wonderful fireglo 2014 in perfect conditions, but traded for a '71 Precision, this one:
and a 2009 mapleglo with the "sticky" finish (a problem in some years).
I then bought a 2011 fireglo for an impossible low price, because it had some dings and scratches, and the case was all wrecked on the shell, did some gigs with it and then sold it.
my main issue with the Rickenbacker is the binding on the body: it cuts through my right arm, so I can only play near the neck (I keep the cover on to lean my wrist on while I pick).
I LOVE the look of the Rickenbacker, I love the sound, and many friends told me that the 4003s is more comfortable due to the lack of binding, so the edge of the body are a bit more rounded.
I play also a Fender CS51 with slab body, and I've had many Mustang basses during the years, so I'm used to the slab rounded body, but I never tried a 4003s since something like 10 years ago in a shop, for something like 10 minutes, so I can't recall anything about this detail.
does the lack of binding actually help?
also, to add some spice:
which one do you prefer in terms of LOOK?
I like the 4003s because I associate it with McCartney, Chris Squire and some "vintage" italian and european bass players (like Fabio Pignatelli from the band Goblin, who in the 70's used a 4001, but then switched to a 4001s. Goblin are the band that made the famous soundtracks from Dario Argento movies "Profondo Rosso" and "Suspiria". great Rickenbacker tone!)
meanwhile, the 4003 is a bit more "edgy looking" with the binding and the blocks, looks more "glam" and less "vintage".
I can't decide. if it was for me, I'd pick both, like I did with my two Spector, an Euro4 LX in trans red, with flamed maple top, and a Euro Classic in solid white, pure 80's look.
however, they cost too much here in Italy (2400/2500€ used at the cheapest), it's not that easy to have both, and the 4003s is rare.
I’m digging the Foxton jams, but the irony is, he used an Ibanez Ric knock-off in the early days of The Jam.
The binding doesn't bother me at all. I'm honestly confused as to how it could bother anyone, though I believe them. Perhaps I ended up with some especially smooth binding? I don't know.
I guess the S is comfier, but I never really rest my forearm in a way that it hurts my arm. I only have a 2023 4003S now and it’s my main bass, I love it. As far as I’m concerned it’s the best Rickenbackers have ever been. It has a slimmer D shaped neck, single trussrod, upgraded bridge and the vintage push pull for the bridge pickup. I’ve also grown to appreciate the dot inlays. I really like the figuring in my rosewood board.
Of course you’re missing out on the Ric’O’Sound going with an S. Which I do miss, but I used to have 2 pedalboards so I could fully capitalize on it. If you got a normal set up, the S does have rounder edges and is a little more understated with the dot inlays.
Of course you’re missing out on the Ric’O’Sound going with an S. Which I do miss, but I used to have 2 pedalboards so I could fully capitalize on it. If you got a normal set up, the S does have rounder edges and is a little more understated with the dot inlays.
Attachments
One feature (the only feature) of the Chickenbacker 4003 counterfeits I like is that they added a bevel to the top edge of the bout, including the forearm area, but it's still a bound body. That's an easy detail to pull off with modern CNC, and pretty tough to do by hand. Same detail on an Aerodyne Jazz bass. I'm not holding my breath for Ric to incorporate this detail however! It IS possible to have a bound body that doesn't require a forearm callus.
Yes - if you play with your arm against the edge of the body, rounded is definitely more comfortable. Most FSO's have a cutout AND a round, which makes them even more comfortable, but a rounded Rick is better than one with sharp edged binding. Doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
Don't the 4003 and 4003s also differ in output?
4003 ric-o-sound, 4003s is a regular plug. Or am I mis-remembering? I've played a 4003 a bunch, but 4003s only one time.
4003 ric-o-sound, 4003s is a regular plug. Or am I mis-remembering? I've played a 4003 a bunch, but 4003s only one time.
My first Ric was a 4001. Bought it new in the early 70's. I loved it. It got stolen. 
The binding never bothered me but it was also the quirkiest of beasts so I didn't get another for a couple or three decades. Got a black 4001 and now the quirks drove me nuts! Binding was still a non-issue. Had to part with it after a while. It's like a toxic relationship I just couldn't quit. Several years ago I pulled the trigger again, this time a 4003SW. The quality was lousy and try as I might I could not love it, so off it went. I do like the dot neck, as I am a HUGE fan of bound dot neck Jazz Bass necks. One of my Xmas presents to myself this past year was a Mapleglo 4003. New bridge but dual truss rods. The quirks still abound and the binding still is OK for me. I guess I'm mellowing in my dotage because I seem to have come to terms with the "Rickenbacker-ness" of Rics. 
A couple of notes:
You mentioned the "G" string action issue. I, too, had a big problem with that and took it upon myself to grind down the underside of the "G" string saddle as much as possible without cutting into the threads for the intonation adjustment screw and I'm at about 1mm at the 12th fret.
As for the '51 P slab body - As much as the Ric binding doesn't bother me, the P slab body was very uncomfortable. I had a MIJ slab P. Ultimately had to bid it farewell and now have a Squier CV 50's with the contoured body that suits me just fine. I'll be gigging it tonight!
BBB
The binding never bothered me but it was also the quirkiest of beasts so I didn't get another for a couple or three decades. Got a black 4001 and now the quirks drove me nuts! Binding was still a non-issue. Had to part with it after a while. It's like a toxic relationship I just couldn't quit. Several years ago I pulled the trigger again, this time a 4003SW. The quality was lousy and try as I might I could not love it, so off it went. I do like the dot neck, as I am a HUGE fan of bound dot neck Jazz Bass necks. One of my Xmas presents to myself this past year was a Mapleglo 4003. New bridge but dual truss rods. The quirks still abound and the binding still is OK for me. I guess I'm mellowing in my dotage because I seem to have come to terms with the "Rickenbacker-ness" of Rics. A couple of notes:
You mentioned the "G" string action issue. I, too, had a big problem with that and took it upon myself to grind down the underside of the "G" string saddle as much as possible without cutting into the threads for the intonation adjustment screw and I'm at about 1mm at the 12th fret.
As for the '51 P slab body - As much as the Ric binding doesn't bother me, the P slab body was very uncomfortable. I had a MIJ slab P. Ultimately had to bid it farewell and now have a Squier CV 50's with the contoured body that suits me just fine. I'll be gigging it tonight!
BBB
Last edited:
Love my 4003. The binding doesn't bother me a bit. If it did I'd surely go with the 4003s.
The contours of the S model helps but it might not be enough for some people. I have ‘23-24 model with the single truss rod, modern bridge, push/pull vintage circuit, slim D neck, and the pickup cover. IMO, it’s one of the coolest basses ever. Sounds great, looks great, and is more comfortable than the two 4003 models I previously owned.
This is where the 4004 body contours really shines. Much better even than the 4001S/4003S.
@Pier_ I bought my first Ric 4001 brand new in 1975. I've had a number of Ric's since then, and I much prefer the 4003 "s" version for a couple of reasons: no body binding, which I find much more comfortable, and I prefer the look of the "s" version. I know the "s" version isn't stereo, but I never used that feature even though some of the Rics I owned had that.
Hi everybody, here's a new useless topic to chat a bit!
in the last year I discovered the Rickenbacker 4003, or to be precise, I gave it a chance after looking at it for plenty of years.
I had the opportunity last year to buy a 4003 fireglo for a decent price, but the first one I got had an issue with the neck, so the minimum action at the 12th fret, G string, was around 2.5mm, and it raised at the last fret to almost 3.5mm, even with the neck dead straight and the bridge all down.
I than had a wonderful fireglo 2014 in perfect conditions, but traded for a '71 Precision, this one:
and a 2009 mapleglo with the "sticky" finish (a problem in some years).
I then bought a 2011 fireglo for an impossible low price, because it had some dings and scratches, and the case was all wrecked on the shell, did some gigs with it and then sold it.
my main issue with the Rickenbacker is the binding on the body: it cuts through my right arm, so I can only play near the neck (I keep the cover on to lean my wrist on while I pick).
I LOVE the look of the Rickenbacker, I love the sound, and many friends told me that the 4003s is more comfortable due to the lack of binding, so the edge of the body are a bit more rounded.
I play also a Fender CS51 with slab body, and I've had many Mustang basses during the years, so I'm used to the slab rounded body, but I never tried a 4003s since something like 10 years ago in a shop, for something like 10 minutes, so I can't recall anything about this detail.
does the lack of binding actually help?
also, to add some spice:
which one do you prefer in terms of LOOK?
I like the 4003s because I associate it with McCartney, Chris Squire and some "vintage" italian and european bass players (like Fabio Pignatelli from the band Goblin, who in the 70's used a 4001, but then switched to a 4001s. Goblin are the band that made the famous soundtracks from Dario Argento movies "Profondo Rosso" and "Suspiria". great Rickenbacker tone!)
meanwhile, the 4003 is a bit more "edgy looking" with the binding and the blocks, looks more "glam" and less "vintage".
I can't decide. if it was for me, I'd pick both, like I did with my two Spector, an Euro4 LX in trans red, with flamed maple top, and a Euro Classic in solid white, pure 80's look.
however, they cost too much here in Italy (2400/2500€ used at the cheapest), it's not that easy to have both, and the 4003s is rare.
In terms of looks, I prefer the 4003 over the 4003S. The shark fin inlays and binding give the 4003 an element of sophistication that the 4003S doesn't have.
But in terms of feel and ergonomics, it depends on the bassist.
Personally, the deal breaker for me is the fret markers - and given that Rickenbackers have rosewood boards, I insist on high visibility in low light conditions: so it has to be the full fat big boy 4003 (the fact that the neck has a white binding, with black dots is probably the most important, but I also prefer the aesthetic of the large MOP shark fins, to the small fret markers).
I also really dig the look of checkerboard binding.
Furthermore, a Ric just doesn't seem like a Ric, unless it features Ric-O-Sound (even if I only use it occasionally, and only in the studio).
Re. the binding eating into your arm: a common solution is to wear a sweatband (or two) on your forearm.
Another thing worth digging into is one of the old acoustic guitar companies (maybe Martin, but I can't remember off the top of my head) makes a sort of boomerang shaped forearm cushion, designed to be attached to the front of large bodied acoustic guitars - I'm sure one could be modified to fit a Rickenbacker.
If you look at old photos / footage (1990 - 1995~ish) of Ned's Atomic Dustbin playing live, you'll see the guy who played the Rickenbacker bass has both a DIY forearm cushion, and some appropriate sweatbands.
I also really dig the look of checkerboard binding.
Furthermore, a Ric just doesn't seem like a Ric, unless it features Ric-O-Sound (even if I only use it occasionally, and only in the studio).
Re. the binding eating into your arm: a common solution is to wear a sweatband (or two) on your forearm.
Another thing worth digging into is one of the old acoustic guitar companies (maybe Martin, but I can't remember off the top of my head) makes a sort of boomerang shaped forearm cushion, designed to be attached to the front of large bodied acoustic guitars - I'm sure one could be modified to fit a Rickenbacker.
If you look at old photos / footage (1990 - 1995~ish) of Ned's Atomic Dustbin playing live, you'll see the guy who played the Rickenbacker bass has both a DIY forearm cushion, and some appropriate sweatbands.
G&L (RIP) had an even better idea, where they had “binding” that was actually just the natural wood color showing as a ring
around the edges of the very contoured body.
