rickfan60 wrote:Wes: Nothing slipped through the cracks! Paul did not mean it that way. Jeez Louise, these basses and some parts where still largely made by hand up until about 12 years ago. Variations over time are inevitable! There is no ONE right shape for any of the parts. Not using the the shape you prefer is hardly bad QC on the part of RIC. It is the same reason no two 60's basses look exactly alike and why most of them don't look like the v63 or c46 models.
I'm not talking quality control, I'm talking about attention to detail with regard to their designs. Has nothing to do with vintage, we're talking about 4003s rolling out of the factory today. Why do they have lumpy pickguards? Why not smooth, sloping curves like they used to have a few years ago? Did someone make the conscious decision to make lumpy pickguards, or was this something that just happened and no one in Santa Ana noticed or cared?
rickfan60 wrote:The 1" space puts the pickup where the 24th fret would be on the BASS not the 24th fret on the guitars.
I didn't mean anything like that. RIC put 24-frets on guitars to supposedly strengthen the neck joint. If they moved the neck pickup on the bass for the same reason that would be silly because they continued making basses with the .5" spacing anyways. Why not .5" on the 4003?
jps wrote:This goes for the current discussion on headstock shapes, also.
I have nothing against different headstock shapes, I just wish they would have sized TRCs accordingly instead of using the same one on everything regardless of size and proportion.