Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Vintage, Modern, V & C series, Fretless, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

User avatar
Captain Bob
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by Captain Bob »

I'm in...

As John Fay suggested, the ability to lower the action to a greater degree would be helpful. Moreover, the sand cast bridge sometimes sits on the 3 tailpiece screw heads that may raise it ever so slightly impeding the ability for it to rest fully on the floor of the tailpiece.
1964 4001S Fireglo
Gilmourisgod
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by Gilmourisgod »

Any conjecture on what the brass tubes are where the mute screws would be? Some kind of over-the string mute assembly, perchance? it's beautifully machined, and better looking then the Hipshot, wish Ric would license something like this if they don't want to make an upgraded bridge themselves. I can't see any downside to an arrangement like that, they get a piece of it for doing nothing, players get a more easily adjustable bridge that looks unlikey to ever tail lift. Win/Win.
User avatar
Kopfjaeger
Advanced Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by Kopfjaeger »

No idea about any of the features of this tail piece. i wish the luthier would have responded to the repeated messages I sent him about it. Sadly, he did not.

It's a bit of a departure from the current design with keeping the same foot print. More aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion, than the Hipshot. In having a new "sandcast" type replacement made perhaps think outside of the box a little and design a better one. My two cents.

Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
User avatar
DriftSpace
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by DriftSpace »

Kopfjaeger wrote:In having a new "sandcast" type replacement made perhaps think outside of the box a little and design a better one.
+1

It would be a huge opportunity missed to not do this.
User avatar
woodyng
Senior Member
Posts: 4454
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:11 am

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by woodyng »

Kopfjaeger wrote:Perhaps something lie this??
1619240_1092128730813230_2739321616300756143_n.jpg
That's very interesting,and uber-cool-looking.
Don't see what the point of the 2 brass tubes might be. (nostalgia for scraped knuckles?)
I do prefer the design concept to the separate piece design of the factory bridge/tailpiece.
User avatar
chefothefuture
Advanced Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:00 am

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by chefothefuture »

I would even welcome a redisign of the bridge insert.
Insetting the saddles to compensate for neck lift....
callofcthulhu
New member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by callofcthulhu »

Do it in brass, and you'll have my interest.
1STNAMEBASSIST
New member
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by 1STNAMEBASSIST »

I'm thinking maybe those brass tubes are there for an optional mute assembly? Maybe they are removable if you would choose not to use the mute?
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6651
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by aceonbass »

Something as massive as a 4001/3 tailpiece cast in brass would weigh at least a pound, and change the tone of the instrument. Brass is fine for the 4003S5 bridge inserts, and BadAss bridges because they're not that big, but I'm trying to keep my basses at 9lbs or less these days.
teeder
Senior Member
Posts: 6315
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:00 am

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by teeder »

+1!

I wouldn't do it in anything except aluminum.
User avatar
DriftSpace
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by DriftSpace »

However, that's another advantage of CNC over sand casting; with CNC you already have a CAD file, so -- in the event that someone wanted a brass tail as opposed to aluminum -- it's just a matter of putting different material in the machine, as opposed to properly preparing a sand mold, preparing the alloy, and then having to clean-up each individual piece afterwards. There's little reason someone wouldn't be able to get a tail made out of whatever material they want if someone already has a CNC machine set-up to do it.

I'm also in the aluminum camp, but if someone wants a 1-pound brass tail on their instrument: go nuts.
callofcthulhu
New member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by callofcthulhu »

aceonbass wrote:Something as massive as a 4001/3 tailpiece cast in brass would weigh at least a pound, and change the tone of the instrument. Brass is fine for the 4003S5 bridge inserts, and BadAss bridges because they're not that big, but I'm trying to keep my basses at 9lbs or less these days.
I'm more than willing to take on an extra pound in exchange for tone and balance. Hell, I'd take on 10 pounds.

Extra weight on the tail is less noticeable when you're playing than weight added anywhere else, anyway.
User avatar
jdogric12
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 10854
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:00 am

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by jdogric12 »

I wonder if that much of a change would make the tone so different that the pickups wouldn't sound as good. I've heard Rick pickups don't sound great on other kinds of guitars because they are voiced for those bright all-maple bodies.
bobbolux
New member
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by bobbolux »

Captain Bob wrote:I'm in...

As John Fay suggested, the ability to lower the action to a greater degree would be helpful. Moreover, the sand cast bridge sometimes sits on the 3 tailpiece screw heads that may raise it ever so slightly impeding the ability for it to rest fully on the floor of the tailpiece.
yes, when the saddles are all the way back, unfortunately something almost every Ric requires, the bottom of the saddle rocks on the oval screw heads in the base.
easy fix, this is what I do...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136764860 ... datetaken/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/136764860 ... datetaken/
User avatar
Captain Bob
Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 6:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Reproduction Pre-1974 Aluminum Tailpiece / Bridge

Post by Captain Bob »

For some reason, I couldn't open those links without having to create a Yahoo acct. I'll simply guess you have replaced them with flatheads. This what I have done on the '64. Actually, mine are factory screw's with the crown of the screw ground more flat, leaving the same area of purchase securing the tailpiece.

Also, brass castings were mentioned ...these are to be pre-74 aluminum reproductions like the originals. Hopefully, contributing to a portion of that era's instrument tone and appearance.
Recall, this is restorer Larry Davis who seeks to gather and poll everyone's thoughts, and not Hipshot.
1964 4001S Fireglo
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Basses: by Joey Vasco & Tony Cabibe”