'Bulbous' headstock question.

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 6:36 am

What's the significance of the 'bulbous' headstock. Is a new shape or has it a repro of a headstock shape from another era?

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:29 am

It is actually much closer to a '50s shape than a most realize. Just look at examples in the Rittor Book, and the one on Tom Petersson's 4000 is not too far off.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:50 pm

RIC switched over to the "bulbous headstock" sometime in late 1997/ early 1998. It looks more like the 60's headstock than the 70's, 80's, early 90's small headstock. But its about 3/8" shorter than the 60's headstock and the hook(cresting wave) is a little chubbier. There might be a corresponding increase in neck girth to go along with the bulbous headstock too.

Today, there are two machines that cut the RIC bass necks, one is programmed to cut them with the true 60's headstock shape and the other still cuts the bulbous headstock shape.

Most of the new 4003s that I've seen are still the bulbous shape. Pretty sure all of the 75th 4003s I've seen are bulbous. I have a 2006 4006 that has the true 60's headstock, but I unfortunately don't think I have any photos.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:54 pm

it is a re-creation of the 60s headstock shape ...

Here is a 68 4001 ...

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:06 pm

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:09 pm

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:13 pm

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:40 pm

The bass from the Rittor book is the earliest 4001 I have seen...the neck and peghead(not counting the inlays of course) are like a 1960 4000 or earlier, but the body wings are of the thinner variety found on later basses. The Rittor book has it labeled as '63, but it has more in common with 1962 Ricks IMHO....

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:30 pm

It's much more like the 50's headstock pictured. It really isn't a elongated as my '68. The wave is larger than on my '68, as well.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:45 pm

Notice how close to the end of the headstock the TRC is on the one in the Rittor book.

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:02 pm

In a strange way, I think it would be even more bitchin' if they brought back the 50's styling before the 60's styling.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:27 pm

Uh... Any 21 fretters in the Rittor book?...

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:04 pm

Sergio: No, I don't believe there are any 4001 basses from the ca. 1970 period in the book...

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:53 am

Bulbous:

Non-Bulbous:

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 3:48 am

Ahh, it's nice to know that we, 21 fret 4001 owners, got something extra special in the Rickenbacker world. But if you were to see what I saw a couple months back, you'd say "That's the rarest 4001 of them all!". Sorry, but I'm not at liberty to expound any further. Cheers.