Hi all,
The (re)finish on my 4000 is started to get soft on the back of the neck and so I have the choice of either having the finish stripped and a new clear coat applied or getting a full restoration done.
When I bought the bass in 1980 it was totally stripped and beaten to hell, with numerous dents and gouges. It had also been the victim of a sanding job that makes McCartney's 4001S look pristine, and is so thin that the jack plate has overhang on both side of the bass. Some genius had also changed the tuners for large Schalleresque items and added a brass nut. To restore the bass, veneers will have to be applied front and back to cover the hacks and get back towards the original thickness and shape. The bass would probably have to be painted painted a solid colour, like sea green, unless I can find some cool figured maple for the veneer. I would also try to find some more appropriate tuners and a new 'guard - the current black number is a shoddy hack - the original had been cut down to just the control plate, leaving the neck joint exposed.
This bass has done everything from punk gigs through alt-rock and pop to jazz and swing. It was the first decent instrument I ever owned and a bit of a go-to bass if there ever was one.
Now for the big hypothetical - ignoring the value equation, what would you do in my shoes? Patch or restore?
Many thanks in advance for your sage advice!
'74 4000 Beater - restore or patch?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
- antipodean
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:27 am
'74 4000 Beater - restore or patch?
"I don't want to sound incredulous but I can't believe it" Rex Mossop
Re: '74 4000 Beater - restore or patch?
You call it a "go-to" bass. It looks like a player to me.
Assuming everything works and it plays decently, if it were mine, I'd refinish it and keep playing it proudly!
Yes, you could spend a lot of time and/or money and make it look a little better, but would it play any better? Would you still want to gig it after investing that much?
Assuming everything works and it plays decently, if it were mine, I'd refinish it and keep playing it proudly!
Yes, you could spend a lot of time and/or money and make it look a little better, but would it play any better? Would you still want to gig it after investing that much?
Turn on, tune up, rock out!
Re: '74 4000 Beater - restore or patch?
If it is your goto bass... then I'd leave it as is.
The only thing we can perceive are our perceptions - George Berkeley
- antipodean
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:27 am
Re: '74 4000 Beater - restore or patch?
Thanks guys - in retrospect it's obvious, but my luthier is a great salesman and had me semi-hooked....
New clear coat here we come!
New clear coat here we come!
"I don't want to sound incredulous but I can't believe it" Rex Mossop
Re: '74 4000 Beater - restore or patch?
My first Rickenbacker was a beaten-up but perfectly playable 4000. I will never be happier with a bass as with that one when I got it. She will stay the way I got it.
68 4001|73 4001 MG|75 4000 MG|79 4001 JG FL|81 4001S AZG|86 4003 MID/BT|86 4003 Shadow|88 4003s Blackstar|89 4003 Grey/BT FL|93 4004 Ci|96 4003S/8 FG|98 4003S/5 JG|05 650D|05 4004Cii/5 TG|08 660/12 JG|18 4003S/5 MID|19 4003S/5 WAL ||TR35B|RB 30||