• 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 Rickenbacker Club Part Five

Status
Not open for further replies.
#744
may i have a number for the rickenbacker club please. cheers george here are some pics of my 4003 2011 jetglo.
 

Attachments

  • PA300282.jpg
    PA300282.jpg
    110.9 KB · Views: 76
  • PA300289.jpg
    PA300289.jpg
    148.2 KB · Views: 64
#747
Here's a question. I'm curious about changes in size changes in the 4003/4001. I have a 05 4003 that I've had for a couple of years. I've played it a lot and know the size of it pretty well. Recently my band was recording in a local studio and the guy had a old rick sitting there. He's not sure what the year it is but it's obviously a lot older than mine. Anyway, I was amazed at the differance in the size of the neck. The neck profile was way skinier and so much more easy to play. It even seemed to me that the headstock was smaller. The body may have even been a little smaller. Now I can't play mine without thinking about the baseball bat neck profile and the overly huge headstock. I'm thinking about picking up another rick but I like the skinier neck and smaller headstock. Are there any hard and fast rules as to the neck changes?
 
#748
they vary. You can be assured that any of the mid 70's from 74-76 have skinny necks and the smaller headstocks. You will also find that the newer ones have had changes made to the size of the body wings and the pickguard. that started in 97.
 
#749
To my knowledge the body size has been fairly consistent for years, though I could be wrong, however the headstock and neck measurements have changed a lot, and continue to do so.

Over at RRF one of the guys put together a spreadsheet that's the best record of neck measurements I've seen. I don't know if you have to be a member or not to download it but there's a link to it in this thread - Invalid Link Removed
 
#750
i have a 1985 fireglo and the neck is much thicker on that bass compared to my brand new 4003 manufactured end of july 2011, it has a much thinner neck and is a different shape at the volute and again much thinner here it has a slightly flat feel to the back of the neck , the 2005 model is much rounder, also as a point of interest my new 4003 is much heavier than the 2005 model.
 
#752
68Goldfish said:
Are there any hard and fast rules as to the neck changes?
Click to expand...

The 4001/4003 have gone through a lot of changes over the years. You can probably find a lot of information about them at a Rickenbacker-specific forum.

My '72 4001 has a thin neck, a little flat on the back, like someone was spacing out and sanded it a little more than they meant to. I love it.

There have been other eras when the "baseball bat" necks were more common. I think your 2005 falls into one of those periods. It's a single-piece neck right? I think they made them a little thicker for strength. The very newest 4003s are said to be thinner, they use a two-piece neck construction that is inherently stronger.

The older Ricks were very hand-made, and thus had a lot of variation. Newer ones start out with some CNC cutting and shaping, but there's still a lot of hand finishing and opportunity for some variation.

There are people who prefer the feel of the thicker neck, as hard to believe as you and I find that. You might be able to work out a good deal with one of those people who has a thinner-necked Rick.
 
#755
I believe it is a one piece neck. Don't get me wrong, it's not uplayable I just can't get my mind off of the thinner neck. The thinner neck was also pretty flat on the back as well. Sooo much easier to play faster lines on. I guess i'ts a matter of play before you buy. Either that or I somehow pry that one off of him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back