72? I don't think so

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:57 pm

Bob, are you comparing heads again.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:24 am

Looking at it again maybe you're right Henny, it might be those little tuners making it look bigger than it is. I thought it was a hybrid, a medium sized headstock but with Grovers on it but I can't really tell without another bass next to it with those little tuners on it.
Incidently I've seen many 74's with the newer bigger headstocks which is what made me think it was a 74.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:54 am

http://cgi.ebay.com/1973-Rickenbacker-Jetglo-4001-Bass-FREE-SHIPPING_W0QQitemZ7346149225QQcategoryZ4713QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Here's a 73 with a newer style headstock.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:18 am

No Bob,your seeing things look at the upper tuners there horizontal with each other.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:57 am

Nope that's definitely bigger than the small headstocks. Look again Ken at the headstock not the tuners. There have been three basic styles that I have seen: 60's big headstocks which are now back again, early 70's small headstocks which were not around very long and mid 70's to mid 90's medium sized, this one is a medium sized headstock. They all vary a little of course but these are the three general shapes I have seen. There's another 73 on ebay with grovers, compare the two headstocks. this one is definitely a medium one and I think the one with the Shallers that is the topic of this post is also.
I have all three at the same time and know what to look for, but you are welcome to your opinion of course.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:03 am

You know i hate to admit your right i always thought there was just the 70s through the mid 90s.

henny · Post by **henny** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:55 am

I'll disagree.

My freind has a 70' 4001 without Skunk, with Walnut wings.

It's (was) identical in size and shape to my old Nancy gal, '72 4001.

The 72' stock was exactly the same in size and shape as my 83' 4003.

Alas, all three are/were identical in size with Baby headstocks.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:11 am

Hint,Hint,Henny[PS don't get him started]get it.anything you say bob.

henny · Post by **henny** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:45 am

Rather hazy on Chris's bass.

They're without doubt the same size baby headstocks, though.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 2:25 pm

The smaller headstocks are all approximately the same size but are somewhat different shapes, which may be what Bob is referring to. My 73 4000 has a headstock the same as the 73 above;it isn't any bigger than the baby 'stock on my 72, but the cresting part of the headstock is much thinner and more open looking as you can see in the picture, and the contouring is slightly different . My 72 is like Chris's shown above, with a chunkier shape and more "closed" crest. My 76 and my original bass (80) were approximately the same size and shape as my 73. The only one that differs appreciably in shape is my 72, but as I say the size is pretty consistent.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 2:28 pm

Oh, and bear in mind the optical illusion of the headstock being bigger on the 73 (in that picture at least) due to forshortening.....

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 2:29 pm

Er, foreshortening even....(it's getting late and I'm going to bed!)