My new 4003

johnnyb · Post by **johnnyb** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:49 pm

Hello everyone, can one or any of you wonderful people illuminate me in reguards to my 4003 headstock...i used to own a 4001 from '82 and the head one this new 4003 is wider and longer..i have followed other threads in this reguard and my question is...if new 4003 basses have walnut wings...does that make my bass (sn#05 11993) manufactured near the end of production for solid maple headstocks?...thanks to all in advance.

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:40 pm

The bass has undergone a few subtle changes in shape over the years, some years have smaller headstocks, some have bigger, some have narrower necks, horns, all those little tiny details.

If you JUST got it, it might be toward the end, maybe Ben could tell you when the changeover occurred, but the newer walnut ones are already shipping out.

henny · Post by **henny** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:42 am

The "baby" headstock shape (which you're referring to) lasted between 1970 and 1997 on all models, 4000, 4001, 4001S, 4002, 4003, 4003S and some 4005s.

The body horns were also "beefed up" and were more muscular on the 4000-series during this period.

In early 1997 Rickenbacker went back to the 60s shapes on standard instruments; thinner, hook-like body horns and the longer headstock which is the norm on new Ric basses today.

Also, no 4000-series headstock was ever "solid" - they all had wings, matching maple/walnut or otherwise.

green_us90 · Post by **green_us90** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:06 am

Yep, Mark, my Sept. 1997 4003 has the 60's shapes- Personally I think they both look cool, though I think I like the 60's shapes better.

http://www.fenderforum.com/userphotos/index.html?recid=14630

lars · Post by **lars** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:56 am

Hey Dave, we have the same taste in basses!

rikk · Post by **rikk** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:13 am

Has anybody put together a photo montage of the changing headstocks and bodies? It's hard to see on photos of varying angles and sources.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:49 am

the headstock got shorter and the body wings got thicker to balance the instrument ... the neck got thicker and stronger in the 70s ... to stop neck dive the headstock got smaller and the body got heavier ... and in the late 90s the headstock and body came back to the 60s shape ...

here is a 2001 and a 96 4003 ...

here is a 2002 headstock ...

90s 4004 headstock ...

4005 6 string headstock ...

73 4001 headstock ...

96 4003 4-2-5 headstock ...

93 4004L 4-2-5 headstock ...

68 4001 headstock ...

98 4005s5 headstock ...

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:11 pm

4005s5?

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:22 pm

ok typo ... 4003s5 ...

ben_hall · Post by **ben_hall** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:57 am

The walnut ears started going on 4003's towards the end of October.

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:58 am

Whoa, why does that '73 4001 have such a weird-looking headstock? Is it just at a bad angle?

henny · Post by **henny** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:01 am

That particular one does look pretty bad, I must admit.

The upper crest looks... er, stubbed.

henny · Post by **henny** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:06 am

This pic shows it better.

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:54 am

Much better.

It's weird, but, sometimes, I like the smaller headstock, and other times, I like the larger one. Like, the first time I saw a picture of Chris Squire, I thought, "Wow, the bass looks so cool with that long, thin 2x2 headstock . . ." and then I saw some 70s 4001 headstocks and wondered why they were so different . . . now I know why.

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:07 am

Welcome to RIC History - 101

LOL! This place is priceless.....