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.
For the value, get a mid-to-late 1970s 4001 that is in good functional condition but not necessarily the best-looking (get ready for some dings and scratches in the finish, etc.). My 1976 4001FL has a 1 & 5/8'' nut. The fingerboard radius is supposed to be 10'' but I measured it and it seemed slightly flatter (bigger) than that.
The double truss rods are not just a "plus" with a well-made 1970s Ric, they tend to be a lifetime guarantee that the neck will be straight. The way they were made back then, they weren't designed to move the neck (you did that yourself), but were designed to lock it in place. So once you get the neck where you like it it should stay there... for decades. Come 2070 I'll be interested (if I'm alive) to see if my 1976 has shifted around any. Based on its track record, probably not.
The double truss rods are not just a "plus" with a well-made 1970s Ric, they tend to be a lifetime guarantee that the neck will be straight. The way they were made back then, they weren't designed to move the neck (you did that yourself), but were designed to lock it in place. So once you get the neck where you like it it should stay there... for decades. Come 2070 I'll be interested (if I'm alive) to see if my 1976 has shifted around any. Based on its track record, probably not.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
2010's come close but not that close and are not the best choice. If you can find a 4001 in good condition do it. I have owned both and the 4001 is far superior some may not think so because of some truss rod issues from way back when but that is why I said if you can find yourself a good 4001 go for it. 2010's tend to annoy the hell outta me cause they wanna be 4001's and are nothing of the sort.
Good Vintage > New > Most Vintage
I agree with cassius987 - I had a '76 that had a great neck, great feel, great sound (especially after dropping a bartolini in the bridge). It was a bit dinged up but for $1100 it was a real winner. My advice is to play before you buy, because I found most Rics felt terrible, both new and old, and it took me a while to find one that I really liked. It had nothing to do with the age of the instrument. You gotta get one that works, sounds good and feels good.
I agree with cassius987 - I had a '76 that had a great neck, great feel, great sound (especially after dropping a bartolini in the bridge). It was a bit dinged up but for $1100 it was a real winner. My advice is to play before you buy, because I found most Rics felt terrible, both new and old, and it took me a while to find one that I really liked. It had nothing to do with the age of the instrument. You gotta get one that works, sounds good and feels good.
T
tifftunes
Guest
Yes, this has been the problem all along... I'm still kicking myself for selling the first the first one! Loved how it felt and sounded, and "stoopidly" assumed they were all the same... OOPS!
I've had 3 since (4 total), last one being a late '09, and not one was even close to another!
I don't really care about color anymore. I just want one in decent condition, narrow FB, and smaller crown (more "curve" or smaller radius to the frets). As long as the feel is right, and the wood isn't dead, I can make everything else "right."
So, is there a particular era for the "smaller" necks? Or are they spread out throughout their history?
Pretty much any 1970s neck will be very similar to any other 1970s neck.
Personally, I really like the new 4003, but it is certainly not a 4001.
For really slim necks you need to go true vintage (1972 and earlier) from what I read online, never played one myself.
But realize that the true vintage Rick will cost you a very sizable bundle. You're then getting into the collector's market.
A 1970s 4001 will be much more reasonably priced if the owner actually wants to sell it.
Ebay prices are not a true indicator.
Personally, I really like the new 4003, but it is certainly not a 4001.
For really slim necks you need to go true vintage (1972 and earlier) from what I read online, never played one myself.
But realize that the true vintage Rick will cost you a very sizable bundle. You're then getting into the collector's market.
A 1970s 4001 will be much more reasonably priced if the owner actually wants to sell it.
Ebay prices are not a true indicator.
Before anyone considers buying a vintage Rick bass, I strongly recommend doing some in-depth research on the Rick-specific forums.
There is a LOT that you don't yet know.
Make an informed decision.
There is a LOT that you don't yet know.
Make an informed decision.
My 4000 made in 1974 has a VERY slim neck, with a narrow fret board and fast as hell. I love it!
My 4001C64 made in 2009 has the newer 2-pice neck, which is pretty flat, but slightly wider.
My 4001C64 made in 2009 has the newer 2-pice neck, which is pretty flat, but slightly wider.
I owned a 2007 4003 and a 1974 4001. Sold the 4003. It just did not have the same tone. The old pickups are something special.
There was actually a excel file with neck measurements from a while ago done by one of the rick enthusiast forums. early 70s were pretty thin, then got thicker during the 80s. Some of the recent ones are back to thin or so I've heard. My 74 is about as thin as my Geddy Lee jazz.
T
tifftunes
Guest
"Thin," "Slim," "Fat," etc... But in which direction? Slim/thin as in nut width? Neck depth?
Fat, as it applies to a Tele means "deep" from fingerboard to back, which I like. Slim/thin, as in narrow FB, and narrow nut is preferable.
Thin back to front - don't care...
Wide fretboard (wide nut) is what I want to AVOID! The '09 4003 I had was thin, back to front, and had a wide nut - wider than my P bass. Not comfortable...
All things being relative, I may be dreaming that the first 4003 I had was ideal. It was mid 80s, as I recall ('86?), and deep from front to back, and narrow nut. This is "the one that got away" for me! But the FG finish was not a burst, but more of a red stripe around the edge, which I'd heard referred to as "Bozo-Glo." I learned my lesson, and now don't care which color, even though the original FireGlo would get my vote, if properly done...
Still looking...
Fat, as it applies to a Tele means "deep" from fingerboard to back, which I like. Slim/thin, as in narrow FB, and narrow nut is preferable.
Thin back to front - don't care...
Wide fretboard (wide nut) is what I want to AVOID! The '09 4003 I had was thin, back to front, and had a wide nut - wider than my P bass. Not comfortable...
All things being relative, I may be dreaming that the first 4003 I had was ideal. It was mid 80s, as I recall ('86?), and deep from front to back, and narrow nut. This is "the one that got away" for me! But the FG finish was not a burst, but more of a red stripe around the edge, which I'd heard referred to as "Bozo-Glo." I learned my lesson, and now don't care which color, even though the original FireGlo would get my vote, if properly done...
Still looking...
All rics have the same wide nut, and the size stays pretty much the same all the way down.
You are not going to find what you are looking for, the only thing that varies with rics is the front-to-back chunkyness.
The width at the heel end has varied over the years; the '08 4003 I used to have was about 1/4" wider than my '67 4005WB at the 20th fret. My '73 4001 and '98 4001V63 are about in the middle of the two of those.
Jaymi
Pink Bass Man
- Feb 11, 2008
- 6,813
- 490
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Ampeg , Jaydee, Kalium
it has been hit or miss with me. Since I have had so many, I can tell you that for the most part the ones with the smaller necks are quite spread out. I have had at least one of each year from 72-92 and some others afterwards. the ones that I have seen as the smallest were 73,75, SOME 76, 81, 88 and 91. They were mixed in as I had some that were almost twins off the production line and they were as different as night and day. It is REALLY important that you try before you hand over the $$$$
Hi, i have a 1976 4001, and i'm planning to sold it and but a new 4003, what are you thinking about it.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
I have owned a lot of Rics ...
60s 4001 - They really feel good in your hands but they have weak necks and weak pickups. With a 60s bass put in modern 4003 11k ohm high gain pickups and remove the .0047 capacitor and you have a in your face sounding Ric that can do all of the Squire, Geddy, and McCartney tones. Any old horseshoe pickup still around today will be at best weak and at worst dead.
70s 4001 - Stronger necks and better pickups. If you rewire a 70s 4001 with the 2 original 8k omh pickups (or an optional neck toaster) and remove the .0047 capacitor and use all 250k ohm pots you will have a nice warm sounding versatile bass that still retains the classic Rick treble bite.
Early 80s 4003. Probably the least desireable of all Rics but still good.
1896 to 1989 4003. These are good basses with hot pickups and the modern truss rod system. They also have 500k ohm tone pots for more treble bite. Also the .0047 capacitor was removed so the bridge pickup can have bass response.
1990 to 1996 4003. These basses have all 250k ohm pots for a warmer tone.
1997 to 2005 4003. These basses went back to more of a 60s body shape and headstock shape. This may be when the 4003 became mostly cnc machine made and not as much hand made. These basses have better looking inlays than the older 4003 models, and they seem to resonate better.
2006 to 2008 4003. These basses got the push pull vintage circuit to engauge and disengauge the .0047 capacitor. You can pull the knob and remove the bass from the bridge pickup.
2009 - 2010 4003. These basses now have the full width inlays and a different neck design that allows the neck to be slimmer.
Note: Neck profiles for the 4003 go from fat to slim without respect to the year. So from 1980 to 2007 you have to handle the bass to see what the profile is. The new ones all have the slimmer profile. Also the 4001cs and the 4001 c64 all seem to have the slimmer necks. Some people prefer the ole 4001 necks. I prefer the 60s neck profile for feel, but the 60s necks don't really flatten out. You can literally bend them as you play.
Disclaimer ... I can't confirm that all of the dates are exact. And there are more changes that I did not list. Like the 70s neck skunk stripe.
The last 15 to 20 years the changes to the 4003 have all been nice improvements. The newest ones are pretty much the best.
60s 4001 - They really feel good in your hands but they have weak necks and weak pickups. With a 60s bass put in modern 4003 11k ohm high gain pickups and remove the .0047 capacitor and you have a in your face sounding Ric that can do all of the Squire, Geddy, and McCartney tones. Any old horseshoe pickup still around today will be at best weak and at worst dead.
70s 4001 - Stronger necks and better pickups. If you rewire a 70s 4001 with the 2 original 8k omh pickups (or an optional neck toaster) and remove the .0047 capacitor and use all 250k ohm pots you will have a nice warm sounding versatile bass that still retains the classic Rick treble bite.
Early 80s 4003. Probably the least desireable of all Rics but still good.
1896 to 1989 4003. These are good basses with hot pickups and the modern truss rod system. They also have 500k ohm tone pots for more treble bite. Also the .0047 capacitor was removed so the bridge pickup can have bass response.
1990 to 1996 4003. These basses have all 250k ohm pots for a warmer tone.
1997 to 2005 4003. These basses went back to more of a 60s body shape and headstock shape. This may be when the 4003 became mostly cnc machine made and not as much hand made. These basses have better looking inlays than the older 4003 models, and they seem to resonate better.
2006 to 2008 4003. These basses got the push pull vintage circuit to engauge and disengauge the .0047 capacitor. You can pull the knob and remove the bass from the bridge pickup.
2009 - 2010 4003. These basses now have the full width inlays and a different neck design that allows the neck to be slimmer.
Note: Neck profiles for the 4003 go from fat to slim without respect to the year. So from 1980 to 2007 you have to handle the bass to see what the profile is. The new ones all have the slimmer profile. Also the 4001cs and the 4001 c64 all seem to have the slimmer necks. Some people prefer the ole 4001 necks. I prefer the 60s neck profile for feel, but the 60s necks don't really flatten out. You can literally bend them as you play.
Disclaimer ... I can't confirm that all of the dates are exact. And there are more changes that I did not list. Like the 70s neck skunk stripe.
The last 15 to 20 years the changes to the 4003 have all been nice improvements. The newest ones are pretty much the best.
