4003

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:39 pm

The new Rics have a much more solid, present sound and feel and are a more solid instrument and the necks are really not that different and are easy to get used to and I don't have large hands. I think the 90's and up are the best Rics ever made. Set up is everything on these basses as any bass.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:40 pm

I have small to medium sized hands and pretty much any Ric neck feels ok to me ... if you want a wide neck try a fender jazz v ...

thinneckrick · Post by **thinneckrick** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:24 pm

mid to late 80's and 90 Have the thinnest necks of the 4003 models i have seen . To me its not the looks but the feel .

green_us90 · Post by **green_us90** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:23 am

My '97 4003 neck is no bigger then the necks on my 1974 Fender Precision, and 90's '51 and '54 Reissue Precisions. THOSE are big necks, and still with small hands they are comfortable to me.

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:23 pm

Fender Jazz-V. Ugh. Nastiest neck-width ever. I love Rics because they don't fan out much from the nut to the body. Fenders do, but it's hardly a problem. Except with the 5-string models. So wide at the body, it's ridiculous.

As far as Ric necks go, has the width always been pretty much the same? Is it only the depth that really changed over the years? Or are the older ones thinner AND shallower? The depth is not a problem for me, but width is . . . my recent 4003 is fine, so it's not like I have a problem with it, but if they had necks that were even thinner (less wide), that would be really comfortable.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:23 am

I played my '94 4003S last night for a while and then compared the neck with my '80 4001. No measurements taken, but I wrapped my hand around each neck at the 1st and 3rd frets. I was surprised to find that there was little, if any difference.

One thing that people tend to overlook is the setup. Sometime in the early 90's, RIC changed how they do the nut. In the 70's and 80's they hand-filed a V-shaped slot in the nut that usually went down VERY close to the fretboard(if not all the way down). Beginning sometime in the early 90's RIC started using a chunkier nut with the slots machine-cut to a standard depth that is not as deep as it was in the 70's and 80's. This put the strings quite a bit higher off the fretboard at the nut side and heavily contributes to the feeling of a chunky neck. A little careful effort with a set of nut files can make a huge difference.

My '98 V63 didn't play well at all until I filed the nut slots down. Now she's a sweetheart. I took her to two different "guitar techs" and told them that the action was too high at the nut side for me. One of them was supposed to be the "best in Chicago!" But they didn't listen to what I was telling them and the problem wasn't cured until I tackled the job myself.

That being said, Rick necks are hand sanded and do tend to vary from one 4003 to the next. And the necks from the 200X's are larger than the necks of the '70's and '80's.

thumper · Post by **thumper** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:28 pm

i had a 4003 (85/90 model) and recently tried a 2005 model. the sound was still there but the feel wasn't. the older was alot thinner, not as fat (front to back) as the newer one. i have to say i was disapointed.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:09 pm

The new ones are a tiny bit wider than the older ones, this you can tell because the new nuts are a little too wide for the old Rics, don't think the string spacing is any different though. I don't like shallow necks, and hate wide ones, I love Fender A necks like the old Jazz basses and some P basses had, I like the taper.

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:46 am

I measured my '76's neck from front to back.. 2cm. That was about the middle of the neck.

jps · Post by **jps** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:49 pm

If you're gonna live in Buffalo, you better learn to use the English measurement system!

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:09 pm

The United States will never adopt the metric system because there is no metric equivalent for $h!tload ...

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:27 pm

They tried it 20 years ago, no go.

nattiep · Post by **nattiep** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:50 pm

I know, I know, but that was the only ruler I had around.

jps · Post by **jps** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:52 pm

Maybe we need to invent a metric calender and a metric watch?

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:41 pm

"Maybe we need to invent a metric calender and a metric watch?"

Hahahahahahaha!

Seriously though, the metric system makes so much more sense than the system we've got. I grew up learning both of them (I lived overseas for a large portion of my life), but now, in the complete absence of metric measurements in the US, I've begun to forget conversion rates and equivalencies and so on. But seriously, 10 millimeters in a centimeter, 10 centimeters in a decimeter, 10 decimeters in a meter . . . makes a hell of a lot more sense than 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 2580 feet in a mile . . . what the . . .? Also, it's very satisfying to be able to say that the speed limit somewhere is 90 (kilometers/hour).