Here is a great example of a pre-British Invasion Rickenbacker 4001; from what I can tell it is original and unaltered, but the mute on the bridge asy. has been removed.
Interesting that the bass doesn't have a finger rest---I don't think it ever did; The pickguard looks original to the bass. A very well preserved bass...and wouldn't ya know, I have a birthday coming up!!!! You don't even have to wrap it.
Gerry: From what I can see, I'm gonna say its original...I have a re-issue horseshoe pickup on my 1972 4001LH and the casting of the housing seems to be far superior to the one on the '63. That is one thing I have noticed on early 4001 basses is many different dimensions on the bridge pickup housings...some I have seen have quite a long taper on the front side. I have also seen them appear much more squared in dimension as opposed to the 'rounded' look on the ebay bass. It would be interesting to know why it varied so much in the early '60's when production was minimal, when compared to post 1964 figures...
There,s no doubt that the early 60,s basses have differences from bass to bass. The horseshoe looks "new" enough to be a reissue, but the gap is very similar to my 64 which looks much wider than the reissues. There seems little doubt that the basses coming out at this time were much more "individual" at times. Quality control....give me originality any day!!
My $ 0.02 on this. Maybe what I'll say is stupid, but a few details make me wonder about this bass.
1/ As said above, it has no finger rest, and it seems to me all 60's 4001's had one. But I must acknowledge I'm not quite sure about this point.
2/ Also, the triange inlays put me in doubt. The genuine 4001's owned by Chris Squire and Paul McCartney clearly show dot inlay fingerboards. It seems to me (but I won't claim it though) that the triangle inlays were featured a bit later, circa 1967 or 1968... But once again, I may be wrong.
McCartneys original 4001s had No fingergrip on it.
From what I've been able to figure out, it was kinda hit and miss whether theses basses got them or not. Another friend of mine had a stock Burgundyglo Deluxe 4001 from '69, and his had no fingergrip either.But 4001 basses from '71-'72 have them. Go figure.
The photos on ebay make it look as though the inlays are a single texture (no sparkles).That would make me question if it is really from the infamous transition year of 1973. There is a '64 in "The Bass Book" by Tony Bacon and it has the sparkled triangles and a clear fingergrip.
In it's defense, George Harrison's first 360/12 which was also manufactured in '63 didn't have sparkles. Maybe they made their grand appearance in '64.
If you look at the available data concerning production of 4000 series basses in 1963, there were on average only around six basses (4000 and 4001 combined) leaving the factory every month. Rickenbacker wasn't producing instruments in the same numbers as Fender or Gibson at the time, and it is possible that workmanship could vary from one instrument to another.
The horseshoe surround on the 1992 4001CS I used to have had a longer taper on its front flange, just like the 1964 4001 pictured in The Bass Book. IMO this long vs. short variance is still something that happens even to this day.....
Crushed-pearl inlay made its debut in early 1964, about a year after this bass was made. One of the first Ricks to have crushed-pearl inlay was the 360/12O.S. made for Gerry Marsden. This guitar is pictured in color on the back cover of Richard Smith's Rickenbacker book. In the same book on pg.67 a Rickenbacker sales rep is holding a 1963 4001 that is nearly identical to the one on ebay...no finger rest, and short-taper on the pickup housing...the 1963 4001 in Mapleglo pictured in detail within the bass section of the same book has a long taper on the horseshoe p/up housing. And a finger-rest. Go Figure!!!!!
