A few questions regarding 60's Ricks...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:13 pm

Lets ask the brits.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:43 pm

I believe John Hall has said that S stood for 'special', as in special model. Even though the 4001-S was plain, it wasn't a standard model in the USA for sure...to have one meant a special-order had to be placed, whereas the 4001 bass with binding and full-width inlays was the regular model two-pickup bass in the States.

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:15 pm

Why do you suppose Rickenbacker presented Macca with a 4001s rather then a model with deluxe features?

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:35 pm

one of the reasons the "S" models were exported was they were less expensive ... they cost less to make because there is no binding and no triangle inlays ...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:42 pm

Jeff ,thats what i wrote a page or two back everyone jumped all over it.seems logical to me with the exchange rate the way it must have been plus shipping Wow.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:18 pm

yep that's my take on it ... even in the 80's and 90's the 4003s was a less expensive model because of less labor and less materials ... then finally Ric quit making them because they weren't selling ... and now they are collectable and expensive ...

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:23 pm

yeah that sucks. I'd rather have an "S" bass than a normal model. the binding gets on my nerves sometimes. But if I have an itch it comes in handy.

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:30 pm

I think Mr. Ted has a deluxe '63, if I am not mistaken...where is Ted, by the way?