Any horror stories on early 4003 basses?

banta · Post by **banta** » Sat Jun 29, 2002 6:08 pm

I've heard scattered reports of trouble with the early ('79-'84) model 4003s. I have actually played very few of these early models and the ones I saw seemed ok to me. Can anyone relate any true life problems they've encountered with them? And are there any serious drawbacks to the truss rod adjustment at the body?

4003seagreen · Post by **4003seagreen** » Sat Jun 29, 2002 8:06 pm

I used to have an early model 4003 with the split-pickguard (truss rod under the fingerboard at the neck pickup). It never gave me any problems.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Sun Jun 30, 2002 2:01 am

Ditto here. Back in 1994 I bought a 2nd-hand 4003 bass (serial number UB 465) which gave me no problems in any respect. If this particular bass is anything to go by, I'd say early 4003 basses are totally reliable instruments. I wish I could find more in this country.

iamthebassman · Post by **iamthebassman** » Sun Jun 30, 2002 7:28 am

I have a lefty '80 4003FG with two piece pickguard
that I have had for 15 years. I have never even had to adjust the neck, and I switch between roundwound and flatwounds, different string brands, etc. Finish still looks great too. You'd never guess it was over 20 years old.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Jun 30, 2002 9:44 am

Brad, as you know very well, as much as I love Rick basses, I'm not a fan of the early 4003 basses. I've owned two 4001 basses, and three 4003 basses. My very first one, ordered from the factory ( jetglo ) in 1981, came with the white trim yellowed more than a 15 year old one. Fish - eye bubbles and white marks in the finish. It was very gray looking. It's sound was also disappointing. In cooperaration with Sam Ash and F.C.Hall, I kept it a short time until a new one was in production for me. Finally, after months of waiting, I got the second one. The white trim was slightly yellowed, the black was a bit grayed. It sounded a little better than the first one. I kept it, still kicking myself for selling my first 4001 to get a 4003. After 6 months of hearing from people that it was the worst sounding Rick they ever heard, and worst looking new one they ever saw, I bought a used '79 4001. It did not disappoint me with it's sound. I installed Seymour Duncan pickups in the 4003 hoping it would give me a unique sound........ it sounded worse! When the 4003 was about 2 years old, the finish started peeling off. That was it for me......I sold it, cheap. I had heard and seen other early 4003's, I didn't think they had the sound of the 4001 basses. I think RIC might have had problems with the finishing process because of the state of California tough environment laws.
In 1986, I became a RIC dealer, I saw that the 4003's were more 4001 like - the pickguard, the truss rod adjustments, and the sound. I wished my 4003 bass was like them. I got myself a '88 4003 and was very happy with it. I did sell it a few years ago only to help scale down the amount of gear I had to move to CA. I was a RIC dealer until I gave up my music store business in 1990. I'd love to do it again, and carry RIC's. The newest Ricks may be the best ever.

banta · Post by **banta** » Sun Jun 30, 2002 12:40 pm

Hey Joey! Yeah, I remember you talking about your trouble with that '81 model. I was just wondering if any of the folks that frequent this site had similar disappointing experiences with the early 4003s since I am new here. I guess I'm hoping that your experience was the exception, but would like to know if there were many problems with them. Back when I bought my third Ric (a new '78 4001,) they told me I could wait a little while and get the first of the 4003s, but I opted to go with the 4001. I've only had experience with older 4001s and newer 4003s myself.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 2:34 pm

I would hope for the sake of others, that my experience would be an exception. When I ordered my first 4003, people in music stores never even heard of them, they thought I was crazy. They kept telling me,"You must mean 4001".
I've known a few other people disappointed with early 4003's. If they were fine the way they were, why did RIC eventually modify them?

banta · Post by **banta** » Mon Jul 01, 2002 4:26 pm

"I've known a few other people disappointed with early 4003's. If they were fine the way they were, why did RIC eventually modify them?"

That's what I'm thinking too. I figured this would be a good place to hear more Ric stories - more so than HC, MP or TB.

syncop8r · Post by **syncop8r** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 10:45 pm

I have an '82 4003s and I love it. I have had it for seven years and will never part with it.
I did the cap mod recently and WOW!

Horror stories? Well, there was that time it was in bits for months and I couldn't play it.... had to play guitar instead...

gaboik · Post by **gaboik** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 4:24 pm

It's essentially the same bass. I still cannot figure out why RIC changed the model number. Just because they changed the truss rod system? That makes no sense. Fender and Gibson do extensive modifications to their instruments, but they're still called Les Pauls and Strats.

banta · Post by **banta** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 4:52 pm

Charlie, the 4003 has a 1/8" wider neck than the 4001 and is proportionately thicker as well. That's essentially the difference. Unless you're really used to the smaller 4001 neck, you'll have a hard time telling the difference. I played a 4001 as my main bass for ten years until getting my first 4003 in '86. Actually a '93 4003S/5 is my main bass now.

gaboik · Post by **gaboik** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 6:06 pm

I didn't know that. being that necks got fatter between the 60's and the 80's, didn't influence RIC from changing the models then, why, aside from truss rods and neck width do you think they decided to change the model number. When the 4003 was introduced, I thought that the 4003 had active electronics, or something significant enough to change the model number altogether. I thought that it was a modern version of an old standard. I was not the only one confused about this one. Did you ever notice that all ric basses, for the last several years, have the headstock tilted back more than before? Even my 4001 CS has its headstock tilted.