21 Fret 4001 Owners, Make Yourselves Known

banta · Post by **banta** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 9:46 am

Hey Gene, I think the point we're really just trying to make is that since it wouldn't take any serious redesign of the 4000 series bass to have at least a 21st fret, why not go ahead and make them that way? Although it may not be the biggest deal in the world, it's enough of an issue that these threads were started in the first place and you guys are showing interest.

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:49 pm

Since I have a 21 fret 4 string, I can't see the point of 20 frets either.

gregson1 · Post by **gregson1** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:31 pm

There's a lot that's odd about that instrument. We have an extra wide center shedua stripe, looks like a bound headstock, wierd toggle switch knob and a longer neck--probably an extra half inch or more, which is maybe why the center lamination was made a bit wider, for additional strength. And is that block binding? Dot fret markers on a deluxe body...odd. Rickenbacker has definitely produced some oddities...well, I don't know. Maybe it came out of the side door at the factory, along with some others that we've heard about in the not too distant past.

My 4002 has 21 frets...and the only time that last fret gets used is when I slap and the string bangs off it. I'd probably get a lot of dirty looks from the guitar players if I tried to spend any quality time in that neck of the woods.

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:44 pm

That's a Gibson bat handle. I've got the black RIC part on it now. Looks better. Checkerboard binding. The other 21 fret models I've seen have a normal width skunk stripe. The dots are bigger than the ones on a 4000. Go figure.

One of the experts explained that they were doing experiments in batches of 5 or 10, so this one should have some siblings somewhere. I won't be part of the "What people do to Ricks thread." I never met the orginal owner, but he or she had the right to do what they wanted, imo. This bass was pretty thrashed by the time it was 10 years old. I think it's representative of what happens to a lot of instruments.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 4:29 pm

The fretboard dots resemble a fretless bass fretboard. Probably a one off. Maybe an employee's instrument. Very cool in it's rarity.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 5:15 pm

In the year Rick made that bass, the center stripe lamination in the neck was still Walnut, Not shedua.As far as I know, shedua didn't appear in liu of the walnut till about mid 70s.

squirebass · Post by **squirebass** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 5:35 pm

I believe there is another thread on this very forum about this bass, but it would have been at least a year or two ago. I remember that Mark Arnquist weighed in with his opinion on it, saying the same thing about it being a one off...

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:24 pm

Sorry, James, but there's no way that instrument was produced in our factory. It's not a Rickenbacker by any stretch of the imagination.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:56 pm

Now, how about that?

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:15 am

Check Ask A Rickenbacker Luthier, '21 Fret 4001 Bass'. Plenty of pics and an interesting discussion on James Grove's 21 fret 4001.
Well, if it is not Rickenbacker-made, who made it?

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:12 am

Either Mr. Adamek or Mr. Arnquist declared it a bona fide Rick. That was based on the routing in this pic.

BTW, Mr. Hall, I sent you pics of this bass over a year ago, hoping for an explanation. I assume you were busy at the time.

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:16 am

PS. Mr. Hall, I'm within 90 miles of your factory. If you'd like to see it sometime, it wouldn't be that big a deal for me to drop in.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:56 am

That's exactly what I would do, James: show John Hall the bass. I'd like to see the mistery solved.
The routing depicted above is EXACTLY as found on my 1970 21 fret 4001.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:57 am

1. Well, no comment about the reliability or possible adgenda of THOSE sources. But I note that the photo above and the previous ones include no components that look like ours and show this instrument is made of Acer macrophyllum (which we don't use). The use of a Forstner bit for routing is typical of an older RIC but the details of this bass appear to have been copied from a much newer instrument which makes that rather inconsistent.

2. Sorry, James, but I don't see your message in my archive which goes back 3 years. Perhaps the spam or virus filter ate it? In any case, I've never seen photos of this bass before.

3. I'm only moderately interested in non-Rickenbacker instruments, frankly speaking, but you're welcome to email me about visiting sometime.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:20 am

It looks as though the bass had a factory tailpiece on it at one time, constistant with placement on other 21-fret basses; you can see where the wood was added to fill in the cavity to fit the Badass bridge, and the cavity routs for the pickup wiring do have the appearance of a factory job. Looks like the same method as used on my 1972 4001LH. In it's current configuration, James's bass is most definitely 'customized'. Maybe, the entire fretboard has been replaced at one point..Maybe not....

John Hall posted:

"Sorry, James, but there's no way that instrument was produced in our factory. It's not a Rickenbacker by any stretch of the imagination."

Why? (And I don't mean to put you on the spot JH.

)

This bass has charectaristics similar to a 4001-S that was pictured with Chris Squire in the early 1970's, also with many uncommon features: A bound body with a laminate core(Walnut?), bound headstock and possibly a bound fretboard that definitely had dot-inlays.

My point is this--it shares very little with by-the-book production Rick basses..I am in total agreement woth you here. Is it not possible that this bass may have been an evolutionary step to the mid-late 70's neck design, or an unfinished body and neck blank made up by a worker at the factory?? This bass, if truly a Rickenbacker, was supposedly made at a time when many unothodox instruments were most definitely coming out of the plant--there are many Rickenbacker instruments out in the world today to support this.

Yes this bass is odd in its construction, no doubt. Not possible that it is a Rick? Okay...

Why?? Thanks.