4001C64 Help!

helterskelter · Post by **helterskelter** » Mon May 02, 2005 9:37 am

Firstly Great forum guys! very informative! Im new here and thinking of upgrading my 4003 to a 4001c64 and have a few questions about them if someone could be so kind and fill me in? Ive been told that the body shape is the same as a 4003 and not the same as an original 4001 style (barr binding etc) is this true? and also the horseshoe pickup is a standard brige pickup underneath but is a replica to look like one? The same guy I spoke to about this also said it has a white nut (when it should be black on a 4001c64)Aswell as the Rickenbacker logo isnt raised lettering as it is nowadays. Sorry to be a pain but I havnt found much info about the bodyshape and horseshoe as Ive been told conflicting storys about it! cheers guys

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Tue May 03, 2005 2:53 am

Welcome Alan,

Is this a specific bass that this guy has for sale? If it is, can you get some pictures to post on here?
Here is a link to Rickenbacker's web sight.
http://www.rickenbacker.com/us/4001c64.htm
The body should be closer to the sixty's shape, but what difference there maybe, I don't know.
The bridge pick-up is different from the original horseshoe of the 60's. The new pu has magnetized pole pieces and the shoes can be removed. This is also a different design from the new hi-gain pu's that your 4003 has.
The shoes get in the way for some people. It took me some time to get used to them, but now I wouldn't think of removing them.
The C64 nut should be black. My V63's is white. The truss rod cover should be clear and flat with the paint on the back, not raised.
Does it have the reversed peghead like the C64 in the link above? If not then it's probably a V63, which isn't a bad thing.
This is my V63 for comparison.

This is a C64 with the shoes removed.

Another of my V63.

helterskelter · Post by **helterskelter** » Tue May 03, 2005 3:40 am

Thanks for the info Kevin Yea it is the c64 reversed headstock

Great looking V63 you have there!
The guy who I talked to is a dealer in ricks here in the UK and dosent have any in stock so has to order one so I cant provide a link for a pic sorry, I kind of got the idea the was sort of dissing the C64 heres what he said... Heres what you get,upside down headstock with terrible logo graphics, Dot neck ,no body binding , 7.4K scatterwound toaster pickup (£100 option) and a replica Horseshoe pickup which is not a true horseshoe , but a regular pickup with metal pieces that look ok but ,which can be removed and the pickup still works. On the originals these were the actual magnets and if removed the pickup would not work. A vintage case, is included . The construction is also as a 4003, not a 4001 , the necks are slimmer on a true 4001, oh yes and a white nut

was the last 2 bits about the body and nut that made me think hmmm? but maybe the sellers confused?

kevin · Post by **kevin** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:13 am

Here's info on the 4001C64 horseshoe pickup from "whrIII" as posted on Voxtalks earlier this year:

---------------------------

So the question is, Can the Horseshoes be removed from the Bridge pickups? I said you can't do it without screwing up the pickup (if at all) and now that I have the "latest" version of the reissue in front of me, I can tell you, that it probably CAN be done, but I'll repeat, you will probably screw up the pickup.

Here is what you have: The two Horseshoe shaped pieces of metal that are "chrome plated" make up the underside and top part of the pickup. They are sandwiched in between the black plastic base of the unit (the part that has the springloaded adjustment screws at each end) and the the coil part of the pickup that holds the 4 alnico magnets. There are 4 screws on the underside of the black base that appears to hold this whole "Sandwich" together. The alnico magnets are highly magnitized... the two "Horseshoes" are slightly magnetized. So therefore the removal of the 2 "horseshoe" parts would eliminate the magnetic field that the string sits in while you're playing it. I think that would definitely effect the output and overall performance of that pickup as well as the sound. That sincgle coil isn't likely would to perform "alone" without the other two pieces. So maybe these "Horseshoes" are not the exact reproductions of the original "Frying pan" Horseshoes Rickenbacker is famous for, but they are a direct decendant and are in fact "True" Horseshoe pickups.

--------------------------------

So, the horeshoe part is NOT fake and IS magnetized. Removing it will change the characteristics of the pickup.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:40 am

Ayling, it's obvious the dealer you're speaking to hasn't a clue. Virtually nothing he's said is accurate.

Kevin Teed's suggestion to look at the website was an excellent one- it's too bad the dealer has not done so.

The pickup will work without the horseshoe polepieces, just not as intended. In addition to a volume drop, especially in the mid range, the pickup no longer has the string sensitivity that's part of "the" sound. Without the wrap-around poles, the magnetic field is not concentrated around the strings.

helterskelter · Post by **helterskelter** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:56 am

Thanks Mr Hall, Yes I had a feeling that something wasnt quite right about the dealers description. Apparently hes been dealing in them 30 odd years, So I think maybe he might have had a better idea! lol

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Tue May 03, 2005 6:58 am

Thanks, it's a sweetheart, and has all but replaced my Jazz Bass!
When he says it is like a 4003 and not a 4001, I bet he is talking about the neck / truss rod design. That's not a bad thing. The necks should be stronger now.
There's nothing wrong with the truss rod graphics.
Based on only one that I've heard, the removal of the shoes doesn't hurt the sound. The C64 that I posted sounded great with or without them.
My V63 horseshoe has major punch, and blends well with the toaster. I got used to the shoes in the way, and wouldn't have it any other way now. I play with both fingers and pick right behind the shoes. It's very comfy.
I prefer the normal peghead, but think the C64 is cool too. Hey, it was good enough for Sir Paul!
It sounds like that dealer is trying to sell you something else.

helterskelter · Post by **helterskelter** » Tue May 03, 2005 7:17 am

Yea Im thinking maybe he was confused with the C64S or bits and bobs from god knows what! Or just plain didnt like them
Ive always fancied a V63 But abit hard to come by over here and worth about the same as a new C64, even though here in the UK we pay far too much for them, Ive never looked back since getting my 4003 you cant beat a Ric!

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Thu May 26, 2005 12:05 pm

I just put down a deposit with Mike Parks on a C64FG. I'm looking forward to seeing how it compares with my V63MG,and 4003MB. The fireglo finishes I've seen on them are real nice. The picture on the RIC website dosen't do it justice.

helterskelter · Post by **helterskelter** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:29 am

You will love it... My C64 arrived 2 weeks ago, the fireglo on mine is alot darker than the fireglo on the 4003 basses I own and the sound is completely different, and to be honest it knocks spots off the 4003 soundwise and i prefer the c64 better personally. Im not sure what it sounds like compared to the V63 as ive never heard one... but hey one day maybe!!! lol

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Sun May 29, 2005 12:29 pm

Alan, You've really got me looking forward to my C64FG even more now!!!!!! My V63 and 4003 sound great. Both of them are very strong sounding basses. I like the fact that the C64 will sound a little different too. I'll have different tones to play and experiment with! I'll probably have to wait about 6 months to get it, but it will be well worth it!

helterskelter · Post by **helterskelter** » Sun May 29, 2005 3:07 pm

Its well worth the wait Randy.. Im in the UK and luckily I snapped up the last one from the UK distributer otherwise it was going to be a 4 to 6 month wait... One thing I noticed is it seems to feel abit lighter than my 4003 or it maybe just the neck which is different in giving it some sort of different feel, I havnt compared weights yet but it seems a little lighter. Its probably similar to your V63 weight wise? But the thing I like about it the most besides the Horseshoe, dot neck and reverse headstock is the colour, its just abosolutely brilliant.. Im a big fan of Paul McCartney so ive got the exact sound,and that original darker fireglo just thinking about putting some flatwounds on it now!! hehe... I will try to post a pic of it on this thread asap

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Mon May 30, 2005 4:55 am

Thanks Alan, I was going to ask you what strings you had on it. I have DR nickel Lo-Riders on my RIC's. They work great, and are nice and easy on the neck and frets. I'm probably going to put DR Sunbeams on my C64 whan it comes. My band likes the sound of the DR's with the RIC'S,I do too. Though I'm also considering D'Addario half-rounds.
SIT's Silencers or Power Flats are another option. For flats, I like D'Addario Chromes the best. I'm a big McCartney fan too, I love that crunch he got on his bass on "The End" on Abbey Road. The WOA sound was great too I think!

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:23 am

I just went back to using the Chromes on my V63. I still have the DR'S on my 4003 and they work great, but the V63 needed something different. I didn't want the two to sound too much alike. I'm probably going to put flats on the C64 whan I get it.