Model of the Week 26: 4004Cii/5 "Cheyenne II"

[(bottom4)]

I recall your TB obsession, Joey

[(rickenbrother)]

I recall your TB obsession, Joey

Yeah, ever since seeing E r i k's TB Cii in person for the first time. The Blueburst Cii satisfies my obsession very well!

[(aceonbass)]

The neck on the Cii5 is a lot wider than a Cii. I converted my 4004L into a 5 string the "right" way as well as gave it a 4001 cosmetic conversion. The HB1 and Hb2 pickups have identical magnetic fields. The B and G strings pass over where the height adjusting screws would be on an HB1 when an HB2 is being used. The basses that were manufactured with the pickups in the forward position have the strings passing over where the edge of an HB1 would be. This is apparently right at the edge of the magnetic field. My "4004L5" has the B and G strings passing just over the inside edge of the HB1's pickup bezel on the neck pickup, and about 1/16" further out on the bridge pickup. I removed the bridge pickup's bezel so it would not dampen the magnetic field. I recently widened the opening in the bezel and had it replated for future reinstallation. I've since had the headstock refinished to hide the work.

[(incubus2432)]

I briefly owned the FG 4004Cii/5 that currently is in Erik's stable. The wide fretboard, even for a 5 string IMO, was a bit of an adjustment but certainly easier to deal with for my sloppy finger plucking than a 4003s5. I passed it on since. foolishly. at the time I didn't want to modify with p/u's to get even string to string coverage.....it wasn't bad, it could just use some improvement. Also the flatness of the fretboard felt a little odd......but I should have given it more time.



Awaiting Paul W.'s touch is my Blackened Laredo. Some specifics are still yet to be determined but it's getting a new wider neck (different than the Cii/5.....I have to find the specs for the Wal 5-er I had, that neck was dreamy) with full width silver tinged inlays, 21 or 24 frets (possible scale change), JetGlo finish (fretboard as well) and very subtle silver ghost flames. The ACG preamp i installed will still be in use and p/u's will likely be Nordstrand soapbars.

All this may change of course......maybe white with a maple board and FWI or lime green with purple flames and inlays or...........

[(aceonbass)]

If the body wings and truss rod cover are the only parts from Rickenbacker being used, then I don't think the finished product could be considered a Rickenbacker. The neck, sans fretboard, could be sectioned to work though. The scale could even be stretched and the fretboard lengthened a bit too. This is the approach I'll be taking to build the 4004Cii6 .

[(incubus2432)]

I talked to Paul about the sectioning of the neck (basically split the Laredo right up the middle) and he thought a new neck would be a better way to go (I'd just leave it at 20 frets if that were the case). Who am I to argue? I agree about the lack of original Ric left and have posed the question before of "how much must remain for it to still be a Ric?" and there were no definitive answers. Honestly, i don't really care....what other option is there? He's as close to a Ric custom shop as you can get and does scratch build acoustics with a Ric TRC so it's as "Rickenbacker" as the acoustics are.

Plus this way I'll get a cool Rickenbacker 4004 headstock paperweight out of the deal.

[(aceonbass)]

Well in that case, why not at least build new body wings for the unused neck blank, tuners, bridge, pickups and electronics and have a 4004 to sell to help make up expenses. Then you'll just need a truss rod cover, which I'll bet Paul is okay to make. Sectioning the neck, does not limit you to the stock fretboard length or scale by any means. With so little actual RIC content, why not just build a custom bass from scratch anyway? I'm sure it will be an awesome world class instrument when Paul get's done, I just don't see how it could be a Rick.

[(cassius987)]

I bet it wouldn't be at all difficult to put some slightly wider-range pickups in a 4004Cii/5. We were just talking about Nordstrand in another thread, they have some really nice soapbar types that aren't as "fat" as MusicMan soapbars (about as wide as two Jazz pups smooshed together). I bet they'd do really well on one of these fellas if the HB2 weren't cutting it right.

Interesting that the forward spacing does less well than the back spacing for magnetic field coverage, I guess that means the treble pickup is basically useless in both cases [because it implies that the nut is cut closer than the bridge, so over delta-x the string spacing increases]?? Joey, what say you?

[(sloop_john_b)]

[(aceonbass)]

Actually, the forward spacing ( both pickups closer to the neck) does better due to the fact that the strings are closer together at these points due to the string taper. It would actually be easy to change out the HB2's for Bartolini P2's. The existing pickup routes would only need to be enlarged to 1.25"X4.25". The original hardware along with some Epoxy and four rubber well nuts with brass inserts could be used to mount them. If the routing were done carefully, the work would appear stock.

[(incubus2432)]

Well then don't call it a Ric if you don't want to I don't care. Converting/Modifying a Ric to anything that didn't come from the RIc factory is also not a Ric....strictly speaking. It's only wood and plenty of restorations have been done where much of the bass was replaced......how much is too much? What conversions are "acceptable?" The serial # is what makes it a Ric (IMO)......any modifications after that to some/any of the original instrument either as a restoration or wacky conversion make it just that.......a modified to whatever extent Ric.

I'm sure I'll get the full neck back and I have a TRC and all of the electronics/hardware.....it may become my new 8 string project.....who knows. There are still options and a few evil thoughts that I'd like to discuss with Paul and I'll do that once my Laredo is higher up in his queue. I don't want just any custom......I want a five string Laredo and the other options to get it aren't acceptable to me. Period.

This has drifted from Cii/5 discussion enough so I'm done. I only mentioned my conversion plan and things got all sidetracked......sorry I brought it up.

[(Tarrbot)]

Don't be sorry Brian.

This is interesting stuff. Does it belong in MOW? Probably not.

Is it of interest to people interested in a 4004Cii/5? Probably.

It's all good. I'm enjoying the thread and I bet I'm not the only one.

[(rickenbrother)]

Interesting that the forward spacing does less well than the back spacing for magnetic field coverage, I guess that means the treble pickup is basically useless in both cases [because it implies that the nut is cut closer than the bridge, so over delta-x the string spacing increases]?? Joey, what say you?

In my experience, the magnetic field of the pickups with the forward spacing (trans red) cover the string much better than the pickups of the MG with the pickups closer to the bridge.

This has drifted from Cii/5 discussion enough so I'm done. I only mentioned my conversion plan and things got all sidetracked......sorry I brought it up.

Don't be sorry you brought it up. I'm looking forward to the completion of your 4004L5

[(cassius987)]

I'm pretty sure Dane was just giving advice so you could save $$$, not passing judgement.

Joey: interesting, thanks for the info..

[(gshadoan)]

Well, there you go Joey. FINNALLY a civilized disscussion about the CII5. All the issues I have had with my paticular unit aside, It is THEE best bass I have ever had, and is always the first one I pickup. Thats says alot considering in the last 40 years or so, I have owned upwards of about 200, 150 or so being RICS. The CII5 has (for me) the perfect 5 string neck. The wood working is beyond awesome. To me, as rare as they are, it is priceless. 10K wouldn't be enough. Seriously.
I think when they go back into production, RIC will be hard pressed to keep up with demand. Another "her we go again" moment
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t262 ... enbass.jpg