4001 Vs 4003

delberthot · Post by **delberthot** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:21 pm

I am looking for a second bass to act as backup for my 1974 4001 and was wondering what other rick owners thought of the difference between the 4001 and 4003. I have never been a fan of toasters and instead preferred the high gains. I have had a great number of basses ranging from Gibson EB-0 to Musicman Stingray to My own self bulit basses and all points in between.

edski · Post by **edski** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:33 pm

Well, I have a 75 4001...and after I started playing bass again, I didn't feel good taking a 30 year old bass out.

I decided to get a 4004, I wanted a different sound. Not everyone's cup of tea.

Personally, I'd get a newer Rick...all the "mojo" with none of the flakiness of the older Ricks.

My guess is, no matter what you get, you'll always think that that '74 is "special"!

But it's probably a better investment decision to have a newer one to play.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:01 pm

The long and the short of it is that the series improved over time. I love my old ones but the newer ones have better pickups are more durable and are easier to maintain. The last few years they have beefed up the neck, which is not to my liking. One thing to keep in mind is that both models have been around for so long there is no such thing as a typical 4001 or 4003. There are many changes to both over the years that it is hard to pinpoint the models as being this or that. The 4003s made today are not the same as the first ones from the early 80's. An early 60's 4001 is not the same as a late 60's version and they are both different from the 70's versions.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:19 pm

I'll take a 4003 over a 4001 any day of the week ... newer, better, stronger, louder, ...

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:56 pm

Yeah, but your '68 4001 sure was pretty, Jeff!

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:00 pm

I've always wondered . . . if you have a late 70s or early 80s 4001 with the cap bypassed, how different is it, soundwise, from a modern 4003, assuming the same strings and such? Is there really any difference in tone?

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:34 pm

I have a 96 4003 and a 72 4001 (toaster, cap removed).

The 4003 is way hotter for output so better for an overdriven sound (I use natural overdirve with my tube amp when I need it). I would also say that the 4003 has a more "boomy" sound as it tends to be more bassy (easily fixed by turning down the neck pickup a bit).

Both of mine have very thin necks... but I give the advantage to my 72... the neck plays flawless with very very low action. However, I prefer the balance of the 4003 more as the 72 balances more horizontal where my 96 balances with more of a neck up position which I prefer. I prefer the larger body size of my 96 though... probably a holdover from my fender days.

With that being said, every bass is a little different, so it is hard to generalize. You can't go wrong buying a newer 4003... the crisp white binding always draws compliments.

bob_atherton · Post by **bob_atherton** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:56 pm

Hi Dekek, I used to own a 74 JG, had to sell it years ago because I needed the money, shame.

I now have 4 RICs that I gig with. 72, 77, 80, 83FL.

The real workhorses are the 77 & 80. They are both quite different. The 77 Burgundy is really full on, lots of everything and quite wild, the 80 Azureglo is more rounded and woody, great for more jazzy sets.

After owning a 74 and a 72 I wouldn't feel right with an '05 4003 in my hands. Doesn't have the feel or tone mojo for me. YMMV.

henny · Post by **henny** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:49 pm

I don't like playing Deluxe instruments anymore.

It's S or bust, they're far easier to play and don't give you arm lacerations due to the binding.

Not to mention they seem to resonate better!

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:22 am

Sorry. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to post an S brag shot!

henny · Post by **henny** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:31 am

Grr, me too!

Even though it's getting sold soon! For a Fender!

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:42 am

I'll counter Henny by saying... contrary to what other people may argue, the "S" stands for "silly." (ducking for cover) It's all about the binding and inlays... nothing wrong with sounding AND looking good.

p.s. nothing resonates better than my deluxe models. The sustain, listen to it. You don't hear anything? Well you would though, if it was playing...

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:30 am

I think YOU are silly, John Drysdale. You are a silly, silly man.

If you were to pick up an S and try it out...you would become an S convert. The S is something that enters your very being through your ears, your fingertips, and the underside of your picking wrist. It envelops your spinal cord, fuses to it, coats it, and permeates your soul. This results in a "oneness" between instrument and self that simply cannot be achieved with a deluxe model.

You would understand all of this if you were willing to try an S, but for the time being you won't. Because you're afraid. You fear the POWER of the S.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:36 am

Go ahead, John Drysdale. Pick it up. Hold it. Play it. Embrace it. Become one with it. It calls you...yet...you are too weak.

henny · Post by **henny** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:01 am

Jeff... LMAO! SERIOUSLY crying!

He's blatently suffering from -S-deficiency-denial-syndrome, bless him.

I used to be like that when I had my '72, remember? I ranted and raved about MOP... Binding... Burgundy...

Then I found an -S... I can't continue, it's too emotional.