Ok, IF the 4005AF really existed,.....

beefandbones · Post by **beefandbones** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:37 am

I'm sure you guys are right about the price of Lemmys - I should have added a 'didn't they?' to my sentence but I didn't! They sure fetch a penny now, though.

marc61 · Post by **marc61** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:38 am

Since we're fantasizing, if they did do it, for sure it would be a limited run. With that said, a premium price would be in order just like the DCMs.

Keep in mind that the c series basses retail at around 3K, so 4K for the 4005v or c series doesn't sound out of line.

tennis_nick · Post by **tennis_nick** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:40 am

I count myself as the reciprocal function of f(x)=fan of 4005 basses.

can you tell I've been studying math?

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:54 am

This thread points out why the 4005 was discontinued. And Dave P. - thanks for the laugh!

gray · Post by **gray** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:57 pm

I highly, highly doubt it would ever be reissued ever. Maybe if some phenomenal advance in technology happened that made things different, but until then I doubt it will ever happen.

However, even though the $4-5K range is very much a great deal of money for me, I would absolutely buy one anyway were they ever to be reissued, without a second thought or regret. At the prices the vintage models go for now, though, I guess I'll keep hoping and dreaming for that lucky garage sale or something.
But I think that there are quite a lot of great things RIC can and will do in the future that will be just as wonderful, and I am very interested in what the future holds, 4005 or no 4005. I have faith that there are plenty of great things to look forward to.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:11 pm

$4K is an awful lot of cash for a blast from the past. For those of you going for a more "traditional" bass tone Im sure they'd be worth the money. Not me.

I'd like to see a new solidbody based on the stylings of the 4005. They'd have to keep the weight down, but I think it would make a cool bass. 4,5 and 8 strings.

jps · Post by **jps** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:15 pm

I don't understand why folks equate the 4005 with "traditional" tone, or feel it can't possess the "classic" Rickenbacker bass sound. 4005s are nothing like most hollowbody basses. With the right strings/amp/effects combination, these basses can sound like any of our bass heros. Yes, a 4005 looks different than any of the other 4000 series basses, but that is not a bad thing, really. And as far as the price for a potential reissue, I recall John saying that the ~$4k price would be MSRP, so the selling price would be considerably less. Look at the retail price of something like the 381V69 at $4129.00 or 381/12V69 at $4509, nobody seems to give RIC a hard time about that. The 4005V67 would be in that league, and I would assume with the appointments suggested by such a price, like CB, FW inlays (forget about crushed pearl), scatterwound toasters, etc. I don't find this out of line at all, and I would pony up for one, too.

haw · Post by **haw** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:26 am

I think you have to look at why the 4005 underperformed in the first place.
I should imagine that since the 70's, 4001/3's have pretty much sold themselves by reputation and aesthetic. And we can arguably say that a small handful of players (Macca, Squire, Lee, etc) assisted that.
The 4005 on the other hand is hardly known at all outside of, well, Rick playing circles.
Was the bass heavily marketed? Or was it just that the success of the 4001 completely eclipsed it and as a result no amount of marketing would make the 4005 a similar success.
If you were to re-issue the bass, I suppose you're not just talking labour and tooling-you're talking a massive marketing budget just to get the bass up and running and perhaps Ric doesn't want to have to go down that road.
Actually, at the risk of offending a few people (and I'm not trying to!), I'd be willing to offer the opinion that the perception of many outsiders is that Ric IS the 4001/3 and vice versa.
Does anyone agree with that?
BTW, I'd love a 4005 but I don't think my wife would ever let me be in a position to afford it!

86kubicki · Post by **86kubicki** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:07 am

The 4005 was a product of the 60's when most instrument manufacturers were offering hollow body basses (even Fender). It's not surprising that it sold poorly through the 70's and was finally dropped in the early 80's. Players during that time were simply not interested in hollow body basses, (perhaps they didn't want to be seen as "old fashioned"?). But I think we've seen a resurgence of interest in hollow bodies in the last ten years as bass players have opened up to trying different instruments in the search for new and exciting tones. To this end I think there would be a certain level of interest in a reissue 4005 (even at a 4K price point), but whether it's ultimately worth RIC's initial investment is the real issue.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:15 am

I count 15 so far. Let's see: $250K to develop, and another $30K to build 15 units. $280K.

280/15=$18,666.66 per unit.

Anybody left standing?

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:46 am

Aaahahahahaha!!!!

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:11 am

Paul we would appreciate it if you would not convolute this thread with simple facts and math.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:26 am

$250K might be a bit conservative. The tailpiece diecast mold would be about $40K all by itself.

But the biggest cost of all would be all the standard production instruments that didn't get made while these were tying up the resources.

ajish4 · Post by **ajish4** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:32 am

Ouch!

18K!

Steve, you make a very good point, as did MANY other posters in this thread. My intention isn't or wasn't to upset anyone, just to see (as Paul has just summed up) what the actual interest was.

An angle that hasn't been covered is that we players are getting OLDER. That's why MACCA doesn't use his 4001 anymore, back problems.

I love my 4000 series basses, but on bad days, they can be rough playing. My Alembic had just been collecting dust because of its weight.

I have many health issues (some would say MENTAL ones TOO,

but) the idea of a LIGHTER RIC intrigues me. But, I realize I'm in the minority. I guess I'll have to take another look at the 4004.

I don't like the Hoffner's small body style, for that matter, there aren't too many semi-acoustic basses that turn my head. You guitar players have SO many more choices...

Times change, demand changes, it's up to the company to decide if they want that segment of the market or not, it just may not be feasible. (I'm not talking about the 4005 here, but any possible model that may be available in the future).

I can't help but think of the International Scout. That 4 X 4 was so far ahead of it's time, they just missed the SUV craze by a few years. If anyone of you have ever owned one of them, you know what I'm talking about.... I wonder how they would sell in today's market of $50K 4 X 4's.

marc61 · Post by **marc61** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:50 am

After hearing of these costs, anyone else here want to get into the bass making business?

John, just farm out the work to Korea and Indonesia like everyone else does <jk>