I'm after a 4003 Fireglo with a small neck profile. Advice?

[chev59]

Hi, I'm new to the site and planning to buy my first Rick.

For years I've wanted a 4003 Fireglo and now it's time to make it happen! I'm used to playing a 62 Jazz, so the narrower and shallower the neck, the better. But I've read enough posts to know that there's no real comparison in neck profiles between Fender & Rick and that the 4003 necks can vary within years. Also, I know I should try before I buy that's not possible as there aren't any for sale near me.

So, the $64... if I was to buy one online, what years are most likely to have a smaller profile? I don't have big hands, so if I can, I'd like to try and avoid ending up with a chunky "bassball" bat.

Cheers,

Simon

[Isaac]

FWIW, my 1986 4003 has the smallest neck of any of my Rics.

[Ratwax]

Hi Simon,

Good luck with your hunt, that can often be the most fun part.

Try as many as you can as a starter, kicking tyres in stores is a good starting point. Everyone's idea of comfortable is subjective. Reaching our for ideas and advice is good, too. FWIW, I am also a small-handed bass player. I've got a '03 4003 and a Squier Jag Bass, which has a JB-style neck, and my Rick for me is comfortable to play. It's different to my Jag, but comfortable to play all the same.

Like I said, good luck and enjoy the ride.

Cheers.

[chev59]

Thanks for replies guys!

Try as many as you can as a starter, kicking tyres in stores is a good starting point.

I wish I could try a few, but unfortunately there are none for sale anywhere near me! I'm in Sydney Australia and the only one I know of that's vaguely close is a '64 4001 for $20K!

Online is pretty much my only option, hence me asking for advice about what years to look out for.

[Dirk]

Not that this will help, but my '69 4001 was the thinnest/quickest Ric neck I've ever played.
Even the early 4003's will still feel more baseball bat-like in comparison.

[Ratwax]

I feel your pain, Simon, I'm just North of you on the Central Coast. Sometimes Oz feels like the pimple on the backside of the planet, when it comes to getting gear.

Your best bets to find one instore (all secondhand) would be Global Vintage in Annandale or Pete's Musicians Market in Newtown. Sometimes Wild Horse Guitars in Surry Hills will have one, too. At this point they look like they're all out of stock (although Pete's could be worth a walk-up). Global have a '16 4003s on hold, which could fall through (you never know with these things). Global is the only one of those which (sporadically) imports them for sale in Sydney, the rest will be local sales and trades.

What I can suggest is I'll try and find my Wife's vernier guage tomorrow (somewhere in her storage) and post the measurements of my '03 neck. It's not an answer to your question, but if no one has any definitive info on neck size over time maybe other Register members could post measurements of their necks for comparison.

Best of luck, Mate.

[thisismusicinc]

There's a long thread on the topic
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=280979&hilit=girth, and I think you can find a document with the measurements somewhere in there.
Good luck with your search!
I haven't measured mine, but from thin to thick:
71 4001
78 4001
95 4001 v63
98 4003
08 4004 which is extremely wide compared with all the others.

[lumgimfong]

My 2016 4003 profile is very shallow and comfortable. But very wide at the nut. But because it is so shallow it makes it easy to play near the nut unless you’re a thumb wrap kind of guy.Very flat and comfy the higher up the neck you go. I think once you play above the fifth fret you’ll do fine.But I don’t think any 4003 will give you that broomstick feeling of a narrow jazz neck below the fifth fret.
Mine is 1 6/8” at nut
2 1/4” at highest fret
7/8” shallow profile at 1st fret.
I am 5’8” tall and a 4003 feels luxuriant to play and the sound is amazing but it feels like too big a sized bass on me. Headstock is unnecessarily made huge and bass is neck heavy.

[Happyface]

I was waiting for the more august and revered members to pipe in before commenting.

I was given small hands which triggered a years-long quest to find the best small profile necks.

My conclusions from a limited sample size were, thinest to slighly fatter: Shadow, Tuxedo/Blackstar and then others. . But the older guys who played them all often point at the early 70s 4001 as the best in that regard. But they are mighty pricey.

I recall that early 00s had chunkier necks which I did not take well to. But others will, no doubt, confuse you further on this.

[bassduke49]

When measuring the "girth" of Rick necks was all the rage, one RRF member started a database. Don't know if it is still active, but I did measurements on my collection (16-20 at the time), and the 1986 Shadow came in with the smallest numbers. I heard from others that in general the 85-86 Ricks had slim necks. The Shadow's neck was even slimmer than my vaunted '72!

Measuring the "girth" was done by wrapping a non-stretching string around the neck at certain points like the nut and at certain frets. This method combines the width and depth measurements into a baseline for comparison.

[jps]

1st, 3rd, and 12th frets were the measurement points. I am pretty sure the chart is posted somewhere, here. I do have .xls (Windows) and Numbers (Mac) file of it, but they are not allowable files to attach on the RRF.

[Benjamin]

Fellow Aussie here, just North of Melbourne.

I didn't have a great frame of reference for Ric necks before I purchased my 2K 4003. I had tried a 4003 maybe 5-10 years earlier when I knew nothing. I knew they were typically wider at the nut than other basses and they could vary in thickness. I did try a really old 4001 and remember it being reasonably thin, probably a little thinner than mine from memory but not a huge difference.

I wanted a Ric and heart would likely rule. When I picked up mine before buying, it had the sound, the look and the price. It was definitely played, action was medium-high with average strings. I knew I could get it closer to my liking with some new strings and adjustment, so I accepted I could adapt the bass and me! If it really played like rubbish, I would have been in a spot of bother.

For context, my first Epiphone Ripper had a very very skinny Jazz profile. My second and current Epi Ripper is somewhere between Jazz and P, probably 3-5mm skinnier than the Ric and a little thinner.

I definitely believe each person is allowed to have preference, for comfort and body health etc. I am not much of a fan of Warwick necks, but since I am not in love with them, I don't have to worry about that hypothetical.

I also accept that some instruments are what they are. In the case of Ric basses, you can expect they will "very likely" be thicker than a Jazz and definitely wider. It is up to you whether you feel you need to search for a unicorn. I guess if you can find one to try, and the neck isn't quite for you, others you encounter might be slightly thinner or thicker, but will average around that mark - especially if they are new or made in the last 15 years or so. There are apparently some wild examples like the guys have said.

It didn't take too long to adapt to my 4003. I can more or less play the same things on the Ric and Epi. Honestly I don't give it much thought. Mine isn't baseball-bat-like, but it is solid. It is set to play low but not too buzzy. I use DR Lo-Riders (45-105), which bring some tension back thanks to hex-core, but not quite as much as the Roto Swing 66LD I used to play. I use DR Hi-Beams (round core) on the Epi. We're talking 33 1/4" Ric scale vs Epi 34" scale. The tension on the Ric with Lo-Riders vs Epi with Hi-Beams is almost dead even.

So if you throw your preferred Jazz strings on the Ric, I can say from experience they will feel a little less taut. This might actually be something that makes it easier to play. If you find a Ric to test, you could even loosen the strings slightly to simulate using a slightly lighter gauge - like 100s instead of 105s, or even 95s. If you find that feels great, maybe that's good for you.

I guess if the string tension was higher on the Ric I would find its thicker neck harder work, but relative to the Epi, it feels just as good, I play and enjoy. I hope my rambling is encouraging in that you might surprise yourself with how easily you adapt, especially if your heart is happy with the rest of the Ric show

[Ratwax]

Hi Folks,

'03 4003;
1st Fret - Depth 25mm/1" Width 44mm/1.73"
7th Fret - Depth 25mm/1" Width 50mm/1.95"
12th Fret - Depth 25mm/1" Width 54.5mm/2.15"

Until I'd measured it I hadn't considered the depth of the neck would be the same all the way up to the 16th fret. I'd describe the neck shape as being a D.

I hope that helps.

Cheers,

[jdogric12]

OP - the 60's would be best but the prices on those are insane. The 70's aren't much bigger, and the mid 80's had a nice thin period around 85-88. Good luck!

[lumgimfong]

Another issue to consider is that the Jazz fingerboard enters the body at the 17th fret.

But a 4003 fingerboard enters the body at the end of the fingerboard. The entire fingerboard sits outside the body.

So the neck may feel longer to you than your Jazz bass.

I know the headstock feels way out there to me over my other basses. But I got used to it. But I still wish it sat closer.

However, the sound of the 4003 is so amazing that you will be willing to put up with what you may consider to be these minor inconveniences. I don't think any of these things are deal breakers. They really are great basses and have such a unique sound..