4-2-5 conversions

Vintage, Modern, V & C series, Fretless, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

mikeyjc
New member
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:45 pm

4-2-5 conversions

Post by mikeyjc »

I had planned to e-mail Jeff R. directly on this, but I then thought that others in the Forum might find this Q and A helpful ...

I've been following another recent thread here, and noticed posts that indicate there was a time period in the 1990s where Ric was making 4003 basses with, if I may quote, "dinky" headstocks.

This was new info to me, being a noob and all here.

Just wondering if these basses with "dinky" headstocks are still suitable for a 4-2-5 conversion?

Also wondering if someone can either post comparative pics of headstocks and/or provide the dimensions of the "dinky" vs. "non-dinky" headstocks ...?

As always, thanks in advance for your help!
User avatar
atomic_punk
Senior Member
Posts: 5093
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by atomic_punk »

Mike, from what Jeff told me, the "dinky" headstocks are not ideal for this kind of thing. The bigger ones are much better.
"They make great f***'n basses". - Lemmy, NAMM 2009
User avatar
sloop_john_b
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 13843
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am

Post by sloop_john_b »

I'm also curious to see exactly what the dinky headstocks look like, and to find out if my 4003 has one or not (8/99)!
jwr2

Post by jwr2 »

here's a 2030 headstock 4 and 5 ...

Image Image

4003 headstock

Image

Image

4003s5 headstock

Image

and a mid 90s dinky headstock ...

Image

and another 4003s5 headstock ...

Image

I can get a 5th tuner in pretty much any 4003 bass ...
jwr2

Post by jwr2 »

somewhere in the early 70s the headstock got shortened ... this is also the same time as the walnut skunk stripe ... this smaller/dinky headstock was used until about 1997 when they went back to the 60s shape ... the 4004, v63, and cs models got the 60s shape headstock before 97 ...
User avatar
leftyguitars
Advanced Member
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:44 am
Contact:

Post by leftyguitars »

3 at the top looks better than 3 at the bottom in my opinion!
"If only quilted maple grew on trees!"
http://www.leftyguitars.co.uk
User avatar
rickenbrother
RRF Moderator
Posts: 13197
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 am

Post by rickenbrother »

I agree with you Peter, but that would take a lot more work, plugging 2 holes, drilling 3 new ones, then refinishing.
JETGLO should officially be renamed JETGLO ROCKS! :-)
mikeyjc
New member
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:45 pm

Post by mikeyjc »

Thanks all! Sounds like the '93 4003 I may have a shot at buying most certainly has the "dinky" headstock then.

How "dinkier" is it than the later ones?
User avatar
sloop_john_b
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 13843
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am

Post by sloop_john_b »

The modern headstocks aren't *exactly* the size of 60's headstocks, are they? The CS headstock looks HUGE!
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6651
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by aceonbass »

By now I'm sure I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but drilling the new hole on the bottom and canting the tuners at an angle looks less than optimum. Plugging holes, re-drilling to mount the tuners on the top and refinishing is the way to go and looks way more professional. You get what you pay for.
User avatar
incubus2432
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:26 am

Post by incubus2432 »

I was tempted to plug and redrill the holes in my Laredo before I sent it to Paul for the neck treatment. I was somewhat concerned that the spacing would still be too tight for my liking so I left it a 4 banger.

I realize it is purely aesthetics but I think the 3 over 2 is the only way to go and it looks wrong to me with the 3 on the bottom. I know why Jeff does it and it suits his needs so that is all that matters.
jwr2

Post by jwr2 »

the oversized 4003s5 headstock always looked goofy to me ... and 3 on the top or bottom really doesn't matter to me ... and remember I am not a professional luthier ... I am very skilled at setting up basses and I can make a few modifications ...
User avatar
rickenbrother
RRF Moderator
Posts: 13197
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 am

Post by rickenbrother »

The 3 on the treble side looks best on the Goth 4003 4-2-5 that Jeff did, IMHO. Since it's all black, it all blends and still looks cool.

I'm getting some ideas for when I do a 4-2-5.
JETGLO should officially be renamed JETGLO ROCKS! :-)
User avatar
banta
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 5:00 am

Post by banta »

Jeff does a nice job, but I still think the 4003S/5 & 4004cii5 headstocks look much better.
User avatar
atomic_punk
Senior Member
Posts: 5093
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by atomic_punk »

So do I, Brad, but you can't get 'em like that anymore...so if you want a 5, you have very few options...
"They make great f***'n basses". - Lemmy, NAMM 2009
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Basses: by Joey Vasco & Tony Cabibe”