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.
- Status
I wonder if anyone has tried removing the binding on a 4003 and sanding the front edge down? Seems like it would be a common mod.
There have ben plenty of project Ricks on ebay over the years with such a mod. They usually do a crappy job so it looks nothing like an S bass and the radiusing is usually uneven, too. Better you should just find a S, V63, C64(S) or RM1999 bass and be happy.
Hey guys
I'm wondering if you could give some opinions on after market bridges?
The stock bridge is...less than impressive really.I used to play a Peavy T-40,that had a huge,heavy,weighty bridge,and I loved the sound of it.I'm wondering if a bridge with a little more beef would juice up my rick a little more?
Not to mention making adjustments far easier
I'm wondering if you could give some opinions on after market bridges?
The stock bridge is...less than impressive really.I used to play a Peavy T-40,that had a huge,heavy,weighty bridge,and I loved the sound of it.I'm wondering if a bridge with a little more beef would juice up my rick a little more?
Not to mention making adjustments far easier
I put a chrome/brass Hipshot on mine for easier adjustability. I couldn't discern a sonic difference. Besides intonation, you can adjust each string side to side.
There have ben plenty of project Ricks on ebay over the years with such a mod. They usually do a crappy job so it looks nothing like an S bass and the radiusing is usually uneven, too. Better you should just find a S, V63, C64(S) or RM1999 bass and be happy.
Oh well sure if you wanted to fork over more money.
When you post such badly incorrect diagrams of neck angles and so forth it seems pretty troll-y. If nothing else he probably just served to misinform several more people. As for his comments on tail lift, I really don't care one way or another as I'm no fanboy for the stock tailpiece but I also think it's not as problem-riddled as people say; mine has been just fine for several years now. But tailpiece aside, his comments about neck angle were badly informed if not intentionally made-up.
I recall him saying that the drawings were exagerated to show more clearly what was being described. In fact I don'tthink they were his drawings but examples pulled from the web. That's not a "troll-y" behaviour to add the disclaimer.
I recognize that bass, it is my former 4003FL.
I did that photo and some others for Dave in my studio. Photos © Jeffrey P. Scott 2008 All Rights Reserved
(Including the one posted above
)
Does anyone on this forum own a 4002? I searched the classifieds it looks like none have ever been listed for sale here.
Oh and also does anyone know how many were made roughly?
Oh and also does anyone know how many were made roughly?
I do know a couple of folks that have 4002s, and I have played a few over the years, myself. I like the tone from those bifilar-ly wound coils in the pickups and their locations on the body, gives the 4002 a sound that crossed a Rick with a Jazz Bass. I personally, prefer the walnut models over the MG version.
Paul Boyer may know how many were made. They are rare, I typically see one or two a year for sale over on the Rick Resource forum, or eBay. Some guy on eBay has been trying to sell a 4000 and a 4002, each one is in the $25000 range IIRC. The 4000 he is selling is one of the very first made, so I suppose it may be worth something, but $25K?? 4002's have been running $3000~$5000.
Well, no. The 4002 was in production from 1977 to 1984, and didn't sell well. Since RIC doesn't share production numbers (except for the certified limited editions), only educated guesses can be made. I'd say there were probably a few hundred 4002's made over the eight-year period.
That guy selling the 4000 and 4002 would be lucky to get what he's asking. I think he stated his 4000 is a '60 or '61, which would hardly make it "one of the very first made." Maybe one of the first few hundred. The 4000 bass in its original form was first marketed in 1957. I have seen a date stamp of a '59, and according to the numbering system used at the time, it can be stated that it was the 139th 4000 bass made. They changed the numbering system in 1960, and again in 1961 to a system that includes a sequential number within the production year. So my educated guess is that there were probably fewer than 1,000 of the old-style 4000's made. Very few survive, though. But at $25,000, his is not likely to change hands any time soon.
That guy selling the 4000 and 4002 would be lucky to get what he's asking. I think he stated his 4000 is a '60 or '61, which would hardly make it "one of the very first made." Maybe one of the first few hundred. The 4000 bass in its original form was first marketed in 1957. I have seen a date stamp of a '59, and according to the numbering system used at the time, it can be stated that it was the 139th 4000 bass made. They changed the numbering system in 1960, and again in 1961 to a system that includes a sequential number within the production year. So my educated guess is that there were probably fewer than 1,000 of the old-style 4000's made. Very few survive, though. But at $25,000, his is not likely to change hands any time soon.
I've had the aluminum hipshot bridge on my '74 4000,for 5-6 years now.. I believe it is the only bridge being made that replaces the factory unit without having to modify the bass. I consider it a major improvement over the stock bridge,but not everyone feels the same way. It sounds great,is rock solid,and has the added bonus of doing away with the knuckle-destroying and otherwise useless (to me) mute assembly.Point of contact with the body is the entire base of the bridge,which is a big part of why i think it is a better design,plus there is no way for it to lift...
- Status
