Is this the real deal?

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 8:50 am

Here are photos for comparison purposes.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 10:52 am

Many thanks for the fine forensic analysis, Peter. You have pointed out details which even I had overlooked. Still, allow me to reply to your question "What else should we add to the list?". How about the conspicuous (for a 4001 bass purportedly made in either 1978, if we are to believe the 'serial number', or l974/75 if we look at the type and position of the neck pickup) absence of a 'SKUNK' STRIPE? Do I have a point?

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 11:34 am

Rickcrazy: Yes you have a point and thanks for bringing it up. It must also be remembered, I guess, that 1979 and perhaps 1978 (John Hall helps us here) was the transition period for the introduction of the 4003. As an outside chance this instrument on Ebay might be the beginning of the 4001 redesigned for round wound strings. As such, the Skunk Stripe would not be expected. OK, who is going to call this guy to get better photos of all angles and pot codes!

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:06 pm

You do have a point too, Peter. However, I think we can rule out the possibility of a 4003 here, as the early 4003 basses sported noticeably wider body horns - from that detail alone you could tell you were looking at a 4003.
Yes, have the seller post better pics and disclose the pot codes, anyone. Like you said, Peter, this exercise has been fun.

bigbajo60 · Post by **bigbajo60** » Tue Nov 19, 2002 4:11 pm

Like I said to begin with... something's just not right! Little did I realize that there'd be so MANY somethings!

Geez, youse guys is good!

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 12:07 am

Just one last hint: even if the nameplate was legit it would be period-incorrect because it is of the longer type. Am I right or am I right?

iamthebassman · Post by **iamthebassman** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 12:34 am

I emailed the high bidder today and told him of this forum, and this thread. I just checked, and he's retracted his bid. Hope that was OK.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Wed Nov 20, 2002 12:59 am

Many thanks, Nigel. Since we can't make Rick copies self-destruct in five seconds, the least we can do is tip off potential buyers.
More fakes on Ebay: check item 923790641, "Rickenbacker Bass Bridge 4001/4003". Are those screws legit? No way. Not to mention the chrome saddles, each with a suspicious looking notch, and the tailpiece string holes which in no way look like the real thing. To me this is undeniably, certifiably, get the documents up on the wall and everything, a FAKE.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:03 pm

And here we go again. Check Ebay item 927922412, "Rare 1972 Rickenbacker 4001 Bass Guitar".
Rare 1972? l972??? Don't these guys know anything about Rickenbackers? This is almost like trying to pass off a fake for the genuine article.
This particular bass obviously is not a fake, but it was not made in 1972 either!
And how convenient to depict the jackplate without showing the serial number on it...
Boy, this is getting better all the time...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:24 pm

Ya ... it is rare that I see someone try to put a badass bridge on a ric ... and the hand scrached on serial number is a rare feature as well ... but what is worse is the guy who thinks his '77 ric is rare and has the opening bid set at $2500 .. gee he seems to think it's book value is $4000 ... hey if Rics start selling for that much I will unload my '74 ....

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 10:55 am

Incidentally, today I spotted a near mint used 1979 Mapleglo 4001 at a local music store. They're asking about two grand for it. Ain't that a bit on the high side? Your views, please. The Rick is an absolute temptation - well, what else is new? - but I feel they are overpricing it. What do you think? They told me they bought it in London.

wints · Post by **wints** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 11:14 am

We are talking euro,s here I presume...although with the exchange rate at parity with the dollar, that,s a LOT of money for a 79....I was very fortunate to pick up a near mint 68 4001 for similar last week...Those U.K. prices..expensive!!

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 12:32 pm

Hm... I thought so.
Andrew, you mention a near mint '68 4001. Care to describe it for us or even post some pics?

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:27 pm

Here in Michigan the local Guitar Center sells used Rics usually for less than a grand They just sold a 2001 4003 for a hair under $1000 ....

A near mint '79 mapleglo .... sounds like a refinish

Hey if you can get a '68 ric do it ... they are wonderful instruments ... I have one that I have owned since 1973 .... yes I string it with round wounds .... walnut head wings, checkered binding, sweet neck, nice fireglo finish ... and it kicks *** when plugged in .... now there's a bass worth $2000 to $4000

dminer · Post by **dminer** » Fri Dec 06, 2002 3:24 pm

Yea $2,000 is way overpriced for the American market. Europe might be a different story. Vintage Guitar Price Guide puts a 79 MG in excellent condition at $600-$800, and, thats about what they sell for on ebay all the time (closer to $800)...right now the market is pretty good for buyers and although they weren't in mint condition I saw 2 mid 70's 4001's go for around $500 this week with the "buy it now" option. Maybe people (sellers) are scrambling to get xmas money.