4003

squirefan01 · Post by **squirefan01** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:36 am

I am debating purchasing a new 4003 or getting a late 80's model, and would love to hear opinions of the pros & cons of each. It seems like the neck is one big area of difference. I am interested in the new vintage tone selector. I thought that the 2006 had the horseshoe pickup, but I guess not? The main Ric site shows the horseshoe with the 4003, as does Musician's friend site. Musician's Friend sells these for $1150 including shipping (in the USA).

anoukane · Post by **anoukane** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:50 am

http://www.rickenbacker.com/images/4003.jpg

Its just the hi gain pickup with the treble cover on it. A horseshoe pickup looks quiet different. When will you decide? Because I'm interested in Charly's 4003 too, but you were first

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:04 am

both are good basses ... both have the modern neck ... my preference would be the newer one ... but that is because I like new instruments ...

jon · Post by **jon** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:14 am

To help with the pickups/pickup covers, here are some pictures:

The first is from a 4001CS with horseshoe - note the gap in the metal. The metal actually forms part of the pickup.

The second is a normal high gain (as you would find on a 4003) with pickup cover. Although chrome effect, the cover is actually plastic and does not form part of the pickup. Although many people don't mind it, some find that it interferes with their playing position.

However it can safely be removed, as in picture three. This is a 4003 with the pickup cover and surround removed and replaced with a surround from Pickguardian.

Hope this helps.

squirefan01 · Post by **squirefan01** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:14 am

Phil,

By the end of the weekend. I don't want to hold you guys up, and I understand your dilemna, being outside of the US.

Thanks,

Greg

squirefan01 · Post by **squirefan01** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:17 am

I can see I was not looking close enough Jon. I thought the picture on the Ric site looked just like the 4001CS picture on the left. Thanks for the clarification.

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:01 pm

Rath - "the modern neck"? Maybe truss rods but the necks feel nothing alike,.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:00 pm

compared to a 60s bass the 80s and current basses are quite similar ... but the 80s model probably does have a slimmer neck ... but the c64 basses seem to have a nice slim neck and I played an early 90s 4003s that had a really slim neck ... but since I play 5 string basses pretty much any ric neck feels slim compared to some of those wide 5 string basses out there ...

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:04 pm

Amen to that. I liked my Pedulla and the Hohner as they had slim necks for a 5 string. I didn't like the Hohner because of the jazz pickups. If I gotta put up with hum, I'd better be getting a ton of mids!

mikeylc · Post by **mikeylc** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:19 pm

The new necks are huge and IMHO not playable for 4 sets a night. If I was doing originals and only had one set to do I'd live with the neck to get the RIC sound. My '04 and '05 hang on the wall and only get used for recording. I have 4 '86-87 basses that have real nice necks, far more playable than the current stuff. Lately I've been using the '73. It's got a think neck but not quite as round as '80s models. I used Rotos on it w/no problems. I recently test drove a Laredo which has a thin wide neck. I'm suprise to say I actually liked it enough to consider it as my main bass, however it's still not as comfortable as my EBMM Sterling, however all of the RICs blow the EBMM away in clarity. Bottom line for me is the RIC isn't a comfortable bass for playing 4-5 hours worth of music. I prefer the '80s stuff over the new stuff for playability. I like the new stuff for colors.

mikeyjc · Post by **mikeyjc** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:37 pm

Great thread, and thanks Jon for posting the side-by-side pics.

Looks like I'll be getting a '93 4003 to replace my CS ... for those of you who've played a bunch from different years, where would the '93 fall in terms of neck thickness, roundess, etc. ... ?

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:44 pm

Never say fall when talking about bass necks!!!!!!

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:02 pm

the slimmest Ric neck ever ... the 2030!!!

squirefan01 · Post by **squirefan01** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:59 pm

How about hand size and how that will relate to playability of different neck sizes? I think that I have fairly large hands (8 1/2" from base of palm to end of middle finger; 3 3/4" middle finger length...don't worry, I don't have this memorized but thought it might help this conversation), and wondered how the larger necks effect the distance between strings. I know that I could use a little more width between strings on my current bass. Looking at the Ric site for 4003 specs, the "neck width at nut" and "neck width at 12th fret" measurements are very close to my bass. So when you say the late 80's are smaller, are you talking about these widths?

Thanks

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:03 pm

Just thickness of the neck from front to back, not fretboard width.