1964 4001-S on ebay....Real, or fake??

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:21 am

It looks cool, but I doubt it's authenticity:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2515721578&category=2384

The necks were NEVER made like this in 1964, unless this is a one-off of some sort...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:40 am

What a beautiful copy ....

As far as I know Ric never did a walnut stripe in 1964, they never did a walnut strip that wide, and they never put the whole serial number on one side of the jack plate ...

The fret board looks wrong as well ...

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:46 am

From time to time, Rickenbacker DID put the sn# on one side of the jackplate, but not often; the very first 12-string ever made (CG 725) was stamped on one side only.......

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:52 am

ok ... but look at the bridge ... five screw model ... that's wrong too ...

here's a bad copy ...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2515729300&category=4713

butt ugly ... and cheap ...

wints · Post by **wints** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:15 pm

My 64, DH has the serial number stamped on one side...We also have a square heel, and if you look very carefully, (and if I,m not mistaken), on the treble P/U baseplate you can see red ink markings that mine and on one other original plate I have seen has. Correct period klusons. That stripe is something I,ve never seen on a 64, looks like a late 60,s possibility along with the neck/headstock angle. The jackplate screws on mine are not slotted. Bridge changed out...we all can see that one. We need the original fireglo finish boys from oz here to comment on that colour, thickness and serial number etc...We all know by now that there are no absolutes..(no, I did not say volutes!!) on these 64 basses. We need better pics for sure. An interesting one regardless.

bigbajo60 · Post by **bigbajo60** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:19 pm

Did 4001's from this era have that "peaky" volute behind the nut?

If so, why weren't the reissues given this detail?

If not, there's another strike against this bass.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:05 pm

I have no doubt - it is a fake. It has too many highly irregular features to be a Rickenbacker.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 5:53 pm

Has Rickenbacker ever made even one bass with a stripe that wide? I don't think so ...

Did Rickenbacker ever make necks with the walnut stripe in the early 60's? I don't think so ...

You know this brings up an interesting point ... for a few hundred bucks I could make my 1968 4001 pass for a 66 or 64 and double or triple its value ... It is a good thing I am honest ... it also makes you wonder about any bass on e-bay ... how do you know what you are getting from a total stranger and a few low quality .jpg images ...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 6:03 pm

OK ... I found a picture of a 1967 4005 with a stripe like that ...

http://www.the-music-connection.com/pics/r360b.jpg

So maybe it is real but modified

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:27 pm

"Never say never".....

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 12:05 am

A 4005 is a 4005 and a 4001 is a 4001, period. I still say that thing on Ebay is not a Rick.

headbanger · Post by **headbanger** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:53 am

Ok, the jack plate looks real enough. I just rechecked mine and it is all to one side like this one. So is my 1997. There is also a close relative listed on the RRP DD402. That walnut strip is weird as is the volute. It MUST be one of a kind if it is a '64 RM 1999. It does have walnut headstock wings & correct klusons but are those philips head screws on the tuners? They should be slotted. Colour is close to my eye but those lousy pics don't help. Neck heel is not like any other '64 1999. All 1999's I've got pics of have very thin headstocks which have no volute & no angle whatsoever. Dead straight & very thin behind the nut. There is only one exception to this I know of. All have the distinctive square heel as well. Pickguard is period correct as is the HS PU bezel which is the "other" kind to the one I have.
One thing that make me think it MIGHT be real is the sanding around the base of the headstock wings is very similar to mine. Ther are other exceptions as far as wide walnut centre strips go during this era but not on basses that I know of.
I'd have to defer to a higher authority. Like Don says "never say never".

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 8:04 am

It would be interesting if John Hall took at that bass and gave his opinion. He is I think, the only one who could say for sure if this is a real Rickenbacker or not.

wints · Post by **wints** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:25 pm

Well, the auction has finished...No longer for sale...maybe someone was paying attention to the boards. My feeling without seeing the rods and close ups, is that it is a Ric. A 64... well, a one off with that stripe, and therefore more unlikely,( but still possible), or a late 60,s hybrid that found it,s way out of the factory in that transitional period. The jackplate still puzzles. But...the colour looks similar to the 64 RM,s I,ve seen, and nothing like my 68. Maybe JH can state if this was originally a 1999 plate ...or did it come from another rose morris model. This is one very interesting bass regardless.

weemac · Post by **weemac** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 6:00 pm

It could possibly be a "reserection" some of the wood in these 64's was no too good resulting in the usual broken headstock. the only permanant repair is to remake the neck and re-attach the body wings. If this is the case with this one, perhaps the luthier decided to engineer out the possibility of the head stock breaking again (of course later on Rickenbacker did their own version of the volute)
So it may be real but just not original, or it could be original and truly rare!