Just shipped off my 4003

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:41 pm

once I got some 4003 basses I had no use at all for a 4001 ...

tomg · Post by **tomg** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:41 pm

Oh yeah, or a 4003s.

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:04 pm

See, but what if you want the large headstock and smaller body of today/the 60s, but combined with the thin neck that disappeared when the aforementioned qualities came back? I have a real problem with the small headstocks for some reason, which is why I will be very careful about deciding to purchase older Rics . . .

As for the 4003 neck, it doesn't bother me. It's incredibly comfortable, more so than anything else I've played with the exception of the Pedulla 5-stringer I played, with which it was about equal. The binding doesn't bug me, really, though I'm sure it would if I was playing unbound basses all the time . . . I do think that unbound Ric basses look better though, but none of the S basses that I know of have both the large headstock and the thin neck, unless there are some V63's that retained a thinner neck profile when the large headstock was reintroduced.

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:24 pm

Bobcat - If I wouldn't have got hooked on Ricks, I would have another Pedulla. My first was an MVP Pentabuzz. what a tone! and light too!

ricnbacker · Post by **ricnbacker** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:13 pm

john,

i sold 1 bass back in 1988 that i wish i never sold.

in 2001 i got the bass i always wanted, my 4003.
no matter what i will never , ever sell my Ric

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:23 pm

The earlier V63 have both a larger headstock and thin neck the later v63 have a smaller headstock and fatter neck.

gregson1 · Post by **gregson1** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:32 pm

John--if you can find one, try a 4004 built within the past few months. What a great neck these basses have and the body is smaller and lighter, with no binding to cut into you. I never thought I'd own a 4004, but now that I have one I wonder why I didn't get one a long time ago.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:03 pm

650 ... that's the guitar that I like ... because it is more modern ...

edski · Post by **edski** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:59 am

Jeff...the 650 is a nice guitar, but to be honest it's not as good as a good Strat IMO. Then again, my buddy's Strat is set up to the nines, and I really haven't messed with the 650 much since I started playing bass again...

But the HB1's in it are a little dark for a guitar. That *might* be my main gripe with it.

I think I'll bring it home tonight and start playing it rather than my beater 86 MIJ Strat. Have the thing, might as well use it for something.

delberthot · Post by **delberthot** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:30 am

I played 5 string for the best part of 10 years and have recently gone back to 4 so going from a Stingray 5 to a 4003 is like going from a log to a pencil

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:18 am

"The earlier V63 have both a larger headstock and thin neck the later v63 have a smaller headstock and fatter neck."

Ken, What are the cut off years for this? I have a '93 V63 that is very comfy to my small hands, But have played a 2004 4003 that felt like a tree trunk.
I have a '92 V63 on the way, that I hope has the same neck as my '93.

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:22 am

Wait, I thought the large headstock didn't reappear until like the late 90s . . . didn't all the basses have a small headstock from 1973 onwards? Or were V63's an exception?