2005 4003 vs older

frode · Post by **frode** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:24 am

I´m planning to get me a brand new rick. I´m used to my 1975 4001 and 1984 4003. I want a standard 4003JG. Does anyone know the main difference between new 4003 and those from early 80´s? I tried one at the store, and I felt it was some smaller than my old ones.

green_us90 · Post by **green_us90** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:27 am

In my experience, the more recent 4003 basses have larger body wings than the earlier 4003's and 4001's. Also, the neck is wider and thicker, front to back vs. the 4001.

To compare, I have a 1975 4001 and a 1997 4003.

The width at nut for the 4001 is 1 7/16".

Width of nut for 4003 is 1 3/4"

Body thickness is much the same, but the 4003 feels heavier.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:40 am

If it feels smaller thats a good thing,the new high gains really sound good, very full,getting used to the neck for me is the whole battle other than a thicker neck that is uncomfortable for me the new 4003's are awesome.

henny · Post by **henny** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:08 am

Indeed, I must agree with the other chaps, I find the newer necks a tad different. The 4003 put some weight on its neck.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:18 am

I really like the 4003 bass from the last 7 years ... some of the best they have ever made ... starting about 97-98 they went back to a 60's body shape and headstock shape ... the color of the fretboard and triangle inlays is very nice and the necks are strong and straight ... the pickups are hot and full and still maintain a treble bite and mid growl ...

I like newer basses ... no fretware, no yellowing, fewer scratches and dings, and more reliable electronics ...

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:41 am

Quote: "Body thickness is much the same, but the 4003 feels heavier".

Whilst I'm sure that this is true of your particular basses Dave, it's not necessarily true across the board.

I've played many, many 4001s and several 4003s. The weight of both has varied enormously. A friend has a recent (2003) 4003 that is one of the two lightest Ricks I've ever played, much lighter than all but 1 of the 4001s I've owned. However I've played a couple of others that are extremely heavy, and from the same year. Depends on the individual instrument, not the model designation.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:51 am

the newer ones have more slender body wings ...

henny · Post by **henny** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:04 am

Which aren't to everybody's taste...

On the 4003, they're now extremely narrow, near hook-like.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:16 am

I love the necks and pups on the current 4003s.

"Roundwounds"?? Nooooooo problem.

I just wish they'd reinstate the "S" model.

green_us90 · Post by **green_us90** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:24 am

Yeah, there is quite a bit of variability on the weight of assorted basses.

In my case I would say my 4001 is about 8 lbs where the 4003 is closer to 9 lbs.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:27 am

Wider neck = perfect for becoming a 5 string.

frode · Post by **frode** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:35 am

I feel my 4001(1975) is more lighter than the 4003(1984). But the output gain and sound on the 4003 is much more powerful. I will soon try to bypass the 0047 cap on one of them to compare.

I still want a new rick where I´m the first owner, (and the only:-)) I hope they bring back black trim soon. Then I will bee the first in line to get it.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:32 pm

Kevin ... you got that right ... for me it is all about 5 strings on a bass ...

4001 basses sound really good with 4003 pickups and no .0047 capacitor ...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:00 pm

What we all want is a 4003s brand new in white with black hardware pickguard and trc.....Now that would be the s--t.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:25 pm

it is hard to beat a brand new unplayed 4003 jetglo ...