What does Squire's 4001 weigh?

robj · Post by **robj** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:24 am

Chris' redesigned website (http://chrissquire.com/) is up now and he is pictured holding his 4001CS on the home page. If you follow the Equipment link you can read some info on his workhorse 4001 which includes the following quote;

"....So by the time anyone ever heard my Rickenbacker bass on the Yes record it had actually been shaved down to about two-thirds of the weight of the regular factory model; she sounded completely different."

I have long wanted to ask what his 4001 weighs, "about" two-thirds of what it came out of the factory at is quite a reduction in weight. Perhaps John Hall knows?

Nicely improved website I think. You can even download a video clip of the "Hold Out Your Hand" promotional video.

mortivan · Post by **mortivan** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:38 am

Being that we are a bunch of "researchers," maybe, if we can't get verifyable figures, we should shave an old 4001 down to see what happens...

robj · Post by **robj** » Mon May 12, 2003 10:48 am

LOL ... I assume you are offering up a sacrificial lamb?

I first read that quote back in the '80s when Trevor Rabin was in the band and I've wanted to know how close to the truth it was ever since.

I'm thinking that would be one skinny 4001. If it is true, this weight reduction wasn't taken into consideration when the 4001CS was spec'd out.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:20 pm

This has something that has always puzzled me about Chris Squire, who is one of my faves. He only mentions the Cream-finished 4001-S on his website, which was Fireglo when new; but he has owned a couple of other Rickenbacker basses too...in 'The Yes Album' booklet he is pictured with a 21-fret Mapleglo 4001 deluxe, and there was another dot-necked 4001-S, but with body and headstock binding. Is the cream bass the one on the recordings???

Robert Joseph said:
"I'm thinking that would be one skinny 4001. If it is true, this weight reduction wasn't taken into consideration when the 4001CS was spec'd out."

The 4001CS was made to specifications that Squire himself wanted in the bass and not so much a one-to-one repro of his own bass....The color is about the only thing they share, actually.

robj · Post by **robj** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:37 pm

I know it wasn't supposed to be a true reproduction, sorry just my twisted humor at work.

I just watched the Hold Out Your Hand video clip and it looks like he's playing a 4001s but it doesn't have the horshoe pickup it looks to have the full cover.

Squire is one of my favs too. He, Entwistle and Jon Camp were a big influence on my playing and prefered styles of music.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Mon May 12, 2003 12:58 pm

I'm curious about this "weight reduction" thing on Chris' old 4001 as well;One thing seems to me like they couldn't have thinned the body too much, especially bulk off the back of the bass, because if you took it down too far, the area routed under the bridge PU, which is already fairly thin in that spot, would run the risk of being made so thin that a "bump" on the back of the bass might punch a hole in the thinned area.
I'd Love to see that bass taken apart and get measuring tools on it.If he still uses it, things must have worked out OK doing the mods. Still??

wints · Post by **wints** » Mon May 12, 2003 1:16 pm

I,ve had my 64 1999RM,s for 20 years and never weighed them....maybe now would be a good time and then get back to you guys...The 68 I have actually feels lighter. I missed out what I am sure was a mapleglo 21 fret last year in the U.K....(the pics the guy sent me were very poor, sold from under my nose...) and now I,m thinking what chance was it that it may have been Squire,s...As we know not many made...and how many in the U.K?....I,m still keeping an eye out for it..

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Mon May 12, 2003 4:51 pm

I've never actually weighed Chris's bass but if it's any lighter, it's not readily apparent when you pick it up. It also doesn't appear to be any thinner either.

If it is lighter, short of extra routing, I honestly don't know where you'd cut down that much weight.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon May 12, 2003 6:59 pm

The 60's 4001's are a little lighter than the current 4003's and 4001v63's ... the 4003s5's are a little heavier yet ... but there isn't much difference ... but the little difference makes them sound a little different ... the difference is subtle ...

The more mass a bass has the thicker it will sound ... usually ... this is part of the reason that five string basses are a little thicker sounding ... there is usually a thicker neck .. then the body has to be heavier to balance the neck ... try this play a 4 string jazz bass and then play a 5 string jazz ... the tone on the E and A and D strings will be different ... and of course the type of wood and type of finish makes a difference as well ...

you can't strip very much wood from a 4001 because they are so thin to begin with ... compare it to a fender bass ...

One of the best sounding Rics I had was a refin 1973 4001 ... it started out black, then got painted red, then stripped, and then finished mapleglo ... the sanding, stripping and refinishing process changed the resonant characteristics of the bass in a good way ...

robj · Post by **robj** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:23 am

Andrew you have more than one '64 1999? And a '68 too? I think there should be a law against it if you do.

Is my envy showing?

It would be interesting to hear how much they do weigh. Yes, let us know please.

squirebass · Post by **squirebass** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:24 am

This sounds to me like an off-the-cuff remark that Squire made without really giving it too much thought. I would be really surprised if the bass actually was anywhere near one-third less heavy... And it seems to me you can get his sound without that much trouble, using just a normal older Rickenbacker...

robj · Post by **robj** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:28 am

John, How often does Chris's bass make it back to the factory? Could you possibly weigh it the next time it's in and post it here?

I suppose Chris would have to ok that now that I think about it.

robj · Post by **robj** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:34 am

From what little I know about Chris's sense of humor the way he communicates I'm sure he tossed it out there more or less.
I seriously doubt you could reduce the weight of a 4001 by one third or anything near that without removing wood from the inside out, but still I am very curious about its true weight.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:50 am

Didn't the headstock of that bass get broken off years ago and then repaired at the ric factory ...

Also it looks like it has been refinished since the original cream paint job ...

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue May 13, 2003 6:19 am

It's been back here a number of times for service. The headstock was indeed broken off at one point many years back but for some reason Chris used a well-known luthier to repair it. The last time it was here we repaired the damage caused by that repair. Unfortunately the fellow allowed the truss rod slots to completely fill with glue, rendering the rods unadjustable. We removed the fingerboard, rerouted the slots, removed the frets, planed the board, and put it all back together- a very nice playing bass indeed. I'll give credit that the actual head repair is perfectly solid.