Why is the C64 shape so wrong?

[1965]

For a "more accurate" reissue than the V63, why is the 4001C64 shaped so non-vintage correctly? Right now I'm debating whether to carve up my C64 or just live with it. With CNC you'd think this would be easy stuff, but I guess not. The C64's upper horn is significantly fatter than vintage and V63 basses, while the "comfort carve" doesn't travel up the horn far enough. Also the waist bump on the upper bout sticks out awkwardly. I love how this bass sounds, but did RIC get the shape right?

[jps]

I think there have been many slight (and not so slight) variation over the decades that it is impossible to say which shape is the one and only correct shape.

[admin]

Wes: Do we have any way of knowing how many of the 4001C64s produced were the same as yours? Is yours an aberration within the 4001C64 sample?

[rickenbrother]

I think there have been many slight (and not so slight) variation over the decades that it is impossible to say one shape is the only correct shape.

+1

[paologregorio]

Exactly; stand four or five different Ricks of the same model from back in the 1960s next to each other and check out the variation in shape between the five. The instruments were all shaped by hand and there were many different pairs of hands that did the shaping, so there will be variations.

[johnallg]

I would tend to think the C64 are the constant shaped ones (being CNC cut on very precise machines) and the RM1999 the ones that vary all over the place. Before CNC, basses were hand cut on a bandsaw using a template/jig and it was up to the one cutting to follow the pattern, then hand shaping would be done to the basses and necks that would arbitrarily vary with the person and the individual strokes they use. I would think that with the old basses, finding two that would overlay like your picture would be next to impossible. Get exact outlines of 5 RMs and no two would be alike. IMHO

[johnallg]

I would tend to think the C64 are the constant shaped ones (being CNC cut on very precise machines) and the RM1999 the ones that vary all over the place. Before CNC, basses were hand cut on a bandsaw using a template/jig and it was up to the one cutting to follow the pattern, then hand shaping would be done to the basses and necks that would arbitrarily vary with the person and the individual strokes they use. I would think that with the old basses, finding two that would overlay like your picture would be next to impossible. Get exact outlines of 5 RMs and no two would be alike. IMHO

Ahh, just read Paul's post - like minds.

[nukebass]

Are the C64s shaped differently from the current 4003s (besides the contour, I mean)?

[ajish4]

I don't know how these things are done, but it sure looks pretty close to me.

I'd imagine that even if you traced one, it would be slightly off just due to the fact the tracing is slightly larger than the original.

I had this very same problem when I had a pickguard traced. It was just SLIGHTLY larger than the original.

Then factor in the hand sanding part, and I can't see how any two would be exactly alike.

I didn't realize that they were that close.

[1965]

Wes: Do we have any way of knowing how many of the 4001C64s produced were the same as yours? Is yours an aberration within the 4001C64 sample?

No, I've done my research and the C64's are consistent. This makes sense as they do start with the CNC machine. I agree that the '60s basses vary, but you try and find me one where the horns are as fat as the C64's. They just don't exist. Not to mention, the C64's horns don't look at all like the bass they're supposed to be modeled after (Paul's). All the 60's basses horns are considerably pointier at the crest, and all of them have the longer comfort contour. The butt end of the guitar I don't mind, but the horns being significantly different than any vintage 4001s/RM1999 bugs me for a $3000 reissue bass.

[rickenbrother]

They look right enough to me.

[1965]

They look right enough to me.

Is that supposed to be some sort of consolation? Right enough for you doesn't mean that it's right.

[rickenbrother]

Wes, if you put a bunch of Rick basses together, you'll see lots of variation in the shape.

[tennis_nick]

They look right enough to me.

Is that supposed to be some sort of consolation? Right enough for you doesn't mean that it's right.

Historically accurate doesn't mean "good" either, but you could be fooled into thinking otherwise.

I'm starting to find all these "historically accurate" models to be a waste of resource. The past is gone, take your product and move it forward....

[1965]

Wes, if you put a bunch of Rick basses together, you'll see lots of variation in the shape.

I know that, we all know that. But the C64 is significantly different than any vintage model it's supposed to be based on. Not to mention it doesn't look like Paul's, which we all know it's supposed to be based on even though not explicitly stated. I'd like to know what vintage bass they based the C64's shape on, as we know that they have a vintage model for the 325C58 and such.