4003/4001 Swap ?

gareth · Post by **gareth** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:18 am

I've decided that I really like the playability and sound of my '79 4001 better than my 4003 (S/N MO 9510). Is there there anyone out there that wants a perfect mapleglo 4003 in exchange for a 4001 ? I'll consider any year of 4001 for a swap, with cash adjustment in either direction for year, condition etc.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:24 am

if you add a .0047 bass cut capacitor for the bridge pickup and put a toaster in the neck it will sound more like a 4001 ...

gareth · Post by **gareth** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:50 am

Yep Jeff, and that's my plan B. The thing I like more about the 4001 is the neck profile though.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:00 am

ya but the thing about the 4003 is modern truss rods that won't pop your fret board off ... but I must admit a 4001 in mpaleglo looks better than a 4003 mapleglo because ot the walnut neck through stripe ...

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:19 am

Maybe it wants to become a 5 string?

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:48 am

my 96' 4003 has the same neck profile as my 72' 4001 (i.e. very slim). You may want to look for a mid to late 90's 4003...

henny · Post by **henny** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:50 am

96' 4003 the same profile as a '72?

Very odd...

My 82' 4003, Cii and my mate's 98' 4003 were all a tad chunkier compared to my old '72. It felt very 60's, not so much tiny-thin... but very skinny...

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:52 pm

I was very impressed with the neck profile of my '97 4003. I was expecting a ball bat from what everyone was saying here. This is a good deal for someone with a decent but not rare 4001.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:57 pm

After reading Ben Hall's comments regarding the finishing of the C64 vs C64S, I'm beginning to think all my observations were subjective.

I THOUGHT I could tell the difference between a C64S & C64 neck, but apparently the finishing/shaping is identical.

Therefore my thoughts regarding my ole 4001 MG and newer 4003 are suspect.

I still like them older necks!

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:04 am

Don't overlook the fact that the 4001C64S has a satin finish conversion varnish. That feels completely different.

However, you can accomplish the same feel on any instrument with some 800 or 1200 sandpaper or ultrafine ScotchBrite and a little labor.

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:46 am

"but I must admit a 4001 in mpaleglo looks better than a 4003 mapleglo because ot the walnut neck through stripe"

I agree... and also they changed the body shape slightly on the 4003's... the horns are fatter and not as elegant looking in my opinion.

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:56 am

Do the new 4003' have a longer headstock profile... or is it just me looking at the above image wrong?

Mark... the fretboard width of my 72 and 96 necks are identical (used a ruler). I am not so sure about the thickness... but if anything the 72 is slightly thicker, but I am pretty sure they are the same. A fellow forumite (Morrow) said that he thought that my 96 had one of the slimmer ric necks that he has played.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:11 am

starting in 1997 or 1998 the 4003 basses adopted the 60s headstock and the 60s narrower body wings so the horns are slimmer as well ... and neck profiles have varied a little though the years ... If you find one you like keep it ...

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:52 am

Well...it's kind of the 60's headstock. I think it looks like a 60's headstock that was left in the oven a little too long and melted!

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:41 am

I compared my 72 body to my 96 body and to my surprise the 4003 body is bigger (mind you it is also slightly better balanced). When I first got the 72 I thought the body was smaller, but I just figured it was due to an illusion of the thicker checkerboard binding.

The small changes over time are interesting.