Squire's action

bottom4 · Post by **bottom4** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:55 am

Ah yes! The V63!

Especially when it comes with one of these!

chefothefuture · Post by **chefothefuture** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:10 am

Ok gang- It 's like this-
Starting in with the incept of the 4000 in '57,
the neck-thru had no angle;the face was straight
from end to end (I think they tried a little peg-head angle,
but it never seemed to be more than a degree or two...)
The comparatively small heal didn't offer much support.
This improved when Rick changed to Maple for the wood.
However- In their ever increasing efforts to carve really
thin pieces of wood(that's a joke) , the adding of a neck PU
and the enormous rout that they did( you could fit a Gibson PU in there with NO mod) they succeeded in creating a true
weak spot. Combine that with the use of Roto-Sounds (unbelievably high tension!!!!) and viola! It folds up just like yer favorite book! No wonder the good ole Red Box o' strings had that warning.
By the late '60s , Rick started adding more wood and by 75,
moved the neck PU aft 1/2 inch.
Neck fold was also a problem with the Guitar line as well....

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:30 am

I tried Roto's once & didn't like 'em much for the cost. It's a good thing too!

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:52 am

If anyone *doesn't* want to hold on to their V63, I'll gladly take it off their hands . . . how does $500 sound? Heheheh . . .

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:12 am

What was that???? I cant hear you.

wints · Post by **wints** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:14 am

You can't just apply one rule for all here. Ted's forward tilt assumption is correct, and with headstock angle probably, along with years of Roto's is why Squire's action was/is high.

They were all hand crafted, leading to varying angles. All my 60's basses have a different neck profile too.

Here's a visual...

My white 64RM, with a it's practically straight headstock...

Wore Roto's for over 20 years, low action and never had a problem. Now, wearing 40-95,s with far less tension and an even lower action.

The other 64RM...

More of a headstock forward tilt and as a result far more problems with the higher action and usual neck problems. The figured birds eye maple neck on this didn't help either, so I'm told.

The compromise...

A 68 neck that is straighter, with maybe just a hint of back tilt and at the headstock\neck area much thicker wood, leading to no issues with this bass. Actually, the neck on this 68 is thinner than both 64's...

Most of the 60's basses had problems with the headstock angle when combined with a heavy tension string, which was the norm in the 70's after Squire. The necks are painfully thin and there just isn't enough there to keep it all stable.

That's basically why it's so hard today to find an original that has never had a problem...

rpmartino · Post by **rpmartino** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:52 am

I've found DR Lo Riders stainless steel to be a good alternative to Rotosounds for similar tone, they seem to last longer too and supposedly easier on the fretboard. Tried the DR Hi Beams first and they were way too bright and zingy.

Rob
http://robmartino.com

rpmartino · Post by **rpmartino** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:06 am

Oh and just to give my point a little more validity since I'm just a nobody

if you look on the Spock's Beard website Dave Meros uses Lo Riders on his Rick too (and he's got the Chris Squire-like tone going for him) He also put two extra pickups on it where Jazz pickups would normally be... interesting.

Rob
http://robmartino.com

henny · Post by **henny** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:26 pm

Nice necks!

henny · Post by **henny** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:30 pm

snap! er?

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:37 pm

LOL! Funny!

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:45 pm

They look good on red leather, don't they?

kbhag · Post by **kbhag** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:25 pm

I've figured this: In the 80's I recall seeing CS's Bass with string trees, then the story of how the headstock 'busted almost completely off. I figured that guitar had some serious Headstock/neck work done. The Conspiracy Vid seems to confirm that the headstock now appears to have a rearward tilt (angle looks about the same angle as my '75) That would solve the problem my old '68 had of almost no string pressure across the nut because of the straight headstock tending to lean forward because of high (Roto) tension. I think someone re-worked the headstock angle. Check out the Vid.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:33 pm

I used Rotos in the 70's and 80's with no problems whatsoever (I have never used them on the '63). Back then, I had numerous JG 4001s, my AG and my 4002. All worked perfectly with Rotos. The strings that did stress out my Ricks were Fender flats. Now they are the real neck stressers.

Of course my basses were not going from plane to plane, city to city, climate to climate like Squire's bass was. That is what really wears them out.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:10 pm

Kenneth, thats one of the first things I noticed. I didnt mention it because I have never seen a real RM. I still thought that it looked more "modern"

But yeah, it does have a definate "rearward" tilt.