4001 huh? looks like a 4003 to me

foolycooly · Post by **foolycooly** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:07 pm

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4713&item=7335641226&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Anyone else see this?
He says its a 1999, but that would totally make it a 4003. I was bummed when I saw it cause I was looking to price out the going rate for a jetglo 4001. I'm hoping to pick one up later winter early spring of next year.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:34 pm

what he means its a 99 4003.right??

bob_the_bass · Post by **bob_the_bass** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:11 am

For sure thats a 4003, & looks to be in pretty good condition

foolycooly · Post by **foolycooly** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:14 am

Then This auction is obviously not as it seems, because he listed it as a 4001. I hate it when people do that.

edski · Post by **edski** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:29 am

OK, so the guy doesn't know the difference between a 4001 and 4003. He probably doesn't know what a 4000, 4002, or 4004 is either. Or what difference the "S" series had.

IOW, he's not a Rick freak like us. I can overlook his mistake, since nothing else looks awry with his listing.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:22 am

That happens a lot of ebay, they haven't made a 4001 since 1980 although they sold them up until about 1985, they were NOS.

foolycooly · Post by **foolycooly** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:26 am

Yeah I used to have an 81 4001 and I loved it, basically I'm trying to price out a replacement so I know how much I'll need to shell out for it.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:36 am

I also had an '81 4001 Jetglo. I wish I still had it.
I think that seller just doesn't know the difference between the 4001 and 4003.
I hope he is honest where he says that the bass wasn't is the case when the damage from the heater occurred.

bassduke49 · Post by **bassduke49** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:34 am

I can sympathize about not knowing about the 4003. I didn't know about the "new" model until early 2003 when I joined this forum. I didn't even know about the differences in 4001, 4000, 4001s, and Rose Morris 1999. Not to mention the 4002, 4004 series. I guess I did know about the hollow body, but didn't know its model number was 4005. Now I'm writing "the book." Learning is an ongoing process.

Interesting tale: Back in 1985, I was on a Trivial Pursuit team (for Easter Seals) preparing for a tournament. The four guys were going through all the cards and questions in several card sets. My turn. Team member pulls a card from the Baby Boomer edition, category RPM (as in records), and asks ME "what is a Rickenbacker 4001?" I said "wait here." I go under the guest bed and pull out my woefully unused Mapleglo '72 and bring it to the table and point to the TRC. True story. Oh, by the way, my team was state (Wisconsin) champs two year running, but that question never came up in the tourneys.

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:56 am

Rickenbacker basses have gone through a lot of little changes through the years. So it's understandable that someone might not be aware of all the changes. I didn't know until I joined this forum either. I used to think that the old headstock wings were made from rosewood instead of walnut for example.

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:19 am

Does anyone know exactly why they changed the shape of the 4001? I remember reading that the 4003 was made to use round wound strings, which I thought was odd, since they worked fine on my '72 mapleglo 4001.

I think the 4003 just doesn't look as elegant.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:40 am

Roto Swingbass 66's killed a lot of 4001's back then, the basses are not around anymore, they're in the big guitar store in the sky. Now 500 people are going to say I've had RW's on my 4001 for 25 years. Yes I have too on some but some of mine handled the tension well and some didn't. Now 500 people are going to say well it's because of people who didn't know how to adjust the truss rods in them, that may also be true of some, but some Ric 4001's just couldn't handle the tension and were stressed beyond their design with Rotos which were the predominant RW of the day, there are much lighter tension RW's made today. the shape of a 4003 is pretty close to a 4001, the big change was in the truss rod system, I own both and like both.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:20 am

4 outta five dentists' prefer...

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:26 am

Yeah, I used Rotos on mine, until they had eaten what little frets the 4001 had! Then I switched to nickel RWs.

I do notice that the 4003 has more surface area where the body meets the neck. I remember thinking that with the neck pickup so close to the fingerboard, and with the routing done to accommodate the six long magnets on the toaster PU, there wasn't much wood left in that area!

I actually put a Gibson EB-0 pickup on one of my Ricks (yeah.. I know...) and after removing the extra wood, the neck angle changed!

I'm in the process of restoring that bass...

I'm lucky that I never had neck problems with either of my basses.

Interestingly my '72 bass wont fit in the 60's bass' case. The body is actually wider.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:50 am

My 2000 won't fit in my 70's cases. Rots love frets, especially if your action is low and you play hard, I ruined a 66 jazz neck in about a year with them. My dentist doesn't play bass.