Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I have 4 Rickies.

2 are stringed with TI flats, 2 are with Rotosound Swing Bass roundwounds.

Hey Gary,

I’ll gladly buy back the 1972 4001S I sold you!

So do I, but if the action doesn’t go low enough it’s no good to me. And seeing as I CAN get the action low enough on most older ones (my action is about 1mm or just under 12th fret G), then I wouldn’t be buying a new one. This doesn’t just come under “quirky” like a lot of the other spec ...

Dunno…

A Ric wouldn’t a Ric without these little quirks?


That’s one way of looking at it I suppose. :lol:

Speaking as someone who has super low action, having a bridge that doesn’t go low enough would stop me buying an instrument.Or would see it immediately returned if I didn’t already ...

Dunno…

A Ric wouldn’t a Ric without these little quirks?

I wouldn’t worry too much if there is no voids that you can feel/see.

My guess is this is common on all Rickies but most people won’t be able to tell since it would not be visible against a rosewood fingerboard (or whatever wood RIC use these days.

I have a feeling that 4003s made from the time they went to the thinner neck profile until they introduced this new pickup surround will be very desirable over the coming years.


I have mine… The slim neck is nice. The new bridge is also nice but sadly, limits on how low you can lower the action ...

Yeah… Can’t say I have much love for these. The huge gap around the bridge pickup is one of these Rick idiosyncracies I enjoy as is.

fireglo wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2025 12:25 am I've had the same set of TI Jazz flats on my rick for eleven years now. I put them on back in June 2014.

Yup.

I got mine on my 4001 since about that time. They have the perfect tension for the old 4001. I got a newer set for my 4005XC.

Yes, old necks with the hairpin truss rods are tricky to adjust (for the neophytes) but from my experience, once adjusted, they just don’t move as long as you keep the same string tensions.

I’ve adjusted my old ‘73 4001 once when I bought it in 2010 and haven’t touched it once since then. By ...

It should be a rather different neck profile. The new 4003 has a very flat D profile.

Tone would also be quite different also, the new 4003 would sound meaner with more clang, though both have the unique Ric signature (obviously).

In other words, expect a different beast.


I’m really ...

Congtats.

Awesome bass indeed and I’m surprised by the lack of enthusiasm this bass did generate in the Ric community. This bass has been described quite unjustly as a cash grab from Ric grumpy purists as it wasn’t a “true” 4005. It’s actually a unique beast that has become my 2nd favorite bass ...

It should be a rather different neck profile. The new 4003 has a very flat D profile.

Tone would also be quite different also, the new 4003 would sound meaner with more clang, though both have the unique Ric signature (obviously).

In other words, expect a different beast.

Interesting comment about the chromes. I have a set on my XC, and have noticed the same thing. I even put foam under them by the tailpiece also. I might have an old set of TIs around- maybe I’ll give it a shot. I was planning on putting the factory strings back on, but I’m a flat wound guy.


The ...

I’ve put some D’Addario Chromes on. Not my favorite flatwounds but it will do until I receive a pair of Thomastik.

I definitely prefer the 4005XC with flatwounds. Obviously, a matter of taste.



I finally ordered and received a set of TI JF344. These are now installed on my 4005XC, reminding ...