4001C64 - I'm confused ?

Nick_Thiel · Post by **Nick_Thiel** » Tue May 15, 2001 2:38 am

Yeah, the price went up, but you can still order a new 4001C64 for under 2k delivered to your door from many dealers. It's hard not to get spooked by those suggested retail prices. You could always order a Gibson reissue at triple what you would pay for a Ric.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Wed May 16, 2001 3:30 am

Maybe this will answer the question once and for all on the headstock issue for the 4001C64 and 4001C64S. This is from Gary at North Coast Music, who by the way has been fantastic to deal with.

Brian,

"I have the final answer for you. I spoke with Henry McGuinn, Roger's kid, who is the main customer service guy at RIC. He told me that both the 4001C64 and 4001C64S have reversed head stocks, for absolutely certain."

Thanks.

Gary
NCM

I hope this helps.

SixtyFour · Post by **SixtyFour** » Wed May 16, 2001 11:00 am

Gary & Brian, thanks for the info ! May i also say, Amen .....................

gt76 · Post by **gt76** » Fri Jan 25, 2002 6:51 pm

I've seen adverts that state the 4001c63 will be released in MG and FG. From what I could tell at the Ric site, it will be issued in FG only. If you want a MG finish you'll also have to accept the shaved horns on the 4001c64s.(yuk) Is this correct?? I'm seriously considering purchasing one but I'm a fan of the JG and MG finishes. I'm still undecided on the reverse headstock on the right hand models.

gpatt5762 · Post by **gpatt5762** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:21 pm

What would really be the crowning touch on these basses, what would make them look more "McCartney-esque" than all RIC has done so far, and what I'm just about to email Gary@ NCM about, is to issue these FG 4001C64's, since the headstock has been reversed, and reverse them all the way by fitting them with what I call a "True-Blue Lefty Nameplate", or, truss rod cover. One which the lettering reads upside down, in the direction of the nut, arcing downwards.

I've about decided the upward-arcing "felt-tip Font" Rickenbacker logo doesn't quite do it for me. The benefit of doing this is that it would complete the lefty - head treatment all the way.

Your thoughts on this???

God Bless,
Garry

qiktune · Post by **qiktune** » Mon Mar 18, 2002 8:42 pm

Neil, I would love to know where to get a 4001C64 for under 2k, please post or email.Thanks

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 4:33 pm

That would be very cool!

landon · Post by **landon** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 3:50 pm

Anyone heard maybe a date when these basses will be out. Has anyone asked RIC about the "C"status recently??

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:05 pm

Musician's Friend is indicating an October 2002 delivery date of "C" Series instruments.

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Fri Nov 01, 2002 10:23 am

Does anyone know what the differences are between the 4001C64 series basses, and the 4001V63? Other than the reversed headstock and the product name? They both seem basically the same.

bottom4 · Post by **bottom4** » Sat Nov 02, 2002 8:32 am

Randy, Being an original owner of a V63 since 1985, this is a question I've asked sometime ago. I was told by North coast music that the C64 is truer to the bass of that time than the V63 is. However, if you look at the early McCartney pixs (Beatles Gear book) you'll see that his horse shoe pickup is not the plain rectangular one as the C64 but the horse shoe on the V63. It seems to me that the V63 is closer to the bass of that time than the C64. Maybe someone with some technical knowledge can shed some light. I'd like to know also.

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Mon Nov 04, 2002 9:12 am

Andy, I agree with you totally. I have a 1989 V63 and I've seen early pics of McCartney's bass, and you are right. Other than the differences you pointed out,the C64 and the V63 are basically the same. Based on the pictures, the V63 is closer to Paul's bass in its original condition, the only exception I see is the C64s the "Wings" bass that is sanded down like Paul's was after the "flower power" phase ended.

bigbajo60 · Post by **bigbajo60** » Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:15 pm

What I'd like to know is this: Wasn't Paul's original 4001S a set-neck instrument? Twenty five years ago, I was informed by a dealer that the "S" designation indicated a "SET" neck. I see vintage 4001S's here and there, and they all have SET-NECKS. Now I see some descriptions for the "C" series basses saying that the "S" in 4001C64S stands for "sanded". I would really like to have this point clarified, so that if it's a "set-neck" sound I'm after, I can just buy an old 4001s, and sand it down myself, horn re-shaping and all!

headbanger · Post by **headbanger** » Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:33 am

No, S meant "special". My '64 4001S which is the same as Paul's but a righty is neck through.
From what I understand, 4001C64=as delivered to Paul in '65. 4001C64S=Wings era sanded, modded etc.