New Headstock for the 4003?

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:10 am

So has RIC slightly altered the 4003's headstock to go along with the walnut wings and the C64 neck profile?

The top photo is of a 2006 4003 and looks more like the 60's headstock.

The bottom photo is from a 1998 4003 and looks (most of the way) like a 60's headstock, except that the "cresting wave" hook is more bulbous.

If so...nice work, RIC I like the new one better.

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:48 am

I noticed that one. It looks more like the early 60's headstocks. Verrryyy nice. I like it.

jsod · Post by **jsod** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:15 am

OK...this is just too weird.

I was going to post the EXACT SAME QUESTION with some of my own headstock pics later tonight!

So far I have seen pictures of two separate 2006 4003 Mapleglo's with headstocks just like the top photo. I will post them later.

Again, this is really freaky...I guess great minds think alike, eh, Jeff?

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:23 am

Maybe it is an optical illusion created by the walnut wings?

jsod · Post by **jsod** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:36 am

At first glance one might say that, but they actually are different, even with the walnut wings...you'll see when I post my pics later.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:43 am

I think the neck got about 1/16" or 1/8" slimmer so the headwings got a little fatter ... maybe???

here is a 2001 headstock ...

Here is a 2002 headstock

and a 4004 headstock ... notice the neck is fatter at the nut so the head wings are slimmer ...

and a 1968 4001 headstock ...

and a 2005 4004cii headstock

jsod · Post by **jsod** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:59 am

Jeff Thomas,

Is that top photo from an eBay auction? I did a search, but couldn't find it.

***EDIT***

Never mind...found it. That makes number three I've seen with that headstock.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:46 am

I noticed that headstock last night too. If they have changed it to be more vintage in appearance, then I'm all for it. I thought the more recent ones that were bulbous were a bit odd looking and in need of some reshaping.

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:06 am

Bulbous Headstocks - Punk band?

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:26 am

That's funny Alex! Great minds? You maybe. I have the IQ of a cabbage!

My '98 V63 has the bulbous headstock. As much as I like my V63, I prefer the earlier V63 headstock that looks like the real deal.

My C64S has the correct headstock (but its upside-down!)

I think that in addition to having a less bulbous horn, the new headstock has a sharper edge.

High fives to JH and RIC, the new headstocks are way cooler.

I thought I might have noticed this difference on the 75th Anniversary bass that I saw during the RIC factory tour as well, but it was hard to tell with the special TRC and everything else that was going on at the time.

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:00 am

I got a really good shot of the 75th bass headstock while I was there. When I get home, I'll take a look.

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:28 am

I really like the way the new 4003MG's look! I really want one. When I get the funds.....

thinneckrick · Post by **thinneckrick** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:03 am

well , I just put my July and august06 4003's side by side and there is a big difference .the aug is a regular neck and the July is a thin neck . the jetglo thin neck has a 60's peghead clearly . its longer and has more pronounced lines, whereas the fireglo has a fat round peghead. Come on now John ! Your only full width inlays and check binding away from from a V68 Reissue !

loves4003 · Post by **loves4003** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:07 am

PHOTO

Left is the 2002 JG that Philip Hannaart bought from Paul Boyer (I believe), right is my '94 FG. A lot of difference in headstock shape here too. Has there always been much difference between individual basses, or is it more a year-of-production thing?

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:17 pm

That has come up here before. Jeff is right. The headstock did change at some point. The more bulbous one was (IMHO) not as attractive. Others mentioned that here perhaps JH agrees with the assessment and made a change to a more elegant version of the shape. John apparently takes our comments and suggestions seriously. It could be coincidence but many of the improvements made in the last few years have been topics of discussion here. Walnut wings, improved FG consistency, thinner necks, vintage tone switch, adjustable pole pieces, and probably other things I have missed.