Odd 4001 Bridge & Tailpiece

ajish4 · Post by **ajish4** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:13 am

Odd one on a 1976 on Ebay....I've never seen one like it before. Anyone know WHAT it is?

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:30 am

Hmm... I don't think I care to know.

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:02 am

I just threw up in my mouth a little....

jaymi · Post by **jaymi** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:10 am

For the price they are asking they have not even bothered to explain the nut, tuners, bridge (which I have seen before just cannot remember where) or the condition of the frets etc...but it's "all original".....'scuse me while I yak..

bassassin · Post by **bassassin** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:50 am

How odd. Looks like a standard bit-of-bent-tin Fender type bridge, with a shaped baseplate. Is the rest of the bass legit? Does anyone have a link?

Jon.

ajish4 · Post by **ajish4** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:03 am

Here you go Jon...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=001&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=110114711282&rd=1&rd=1

green_us90 · Post by **green_us90** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:34 am

WOW> I kind of like that solution. Say what you will about Fender Bridges, but their simple construction makes them user friendly. I bet you can palm mute pretty easy on that vs. a stock RIC tailpiece.

Look at it this way, the wood wasn't hacked to put the bridge on, at least it doesn't appear to be that way.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:32 am

No one's mentioned the tug bar mounted above the pickguard.

It appears that the original tuners look to have been standard reverse types replaced by Grover Titans. The holes in the headstock seem over bored.

WAY over priced, considering a couple of irreversible mods are present.
There's nothing rare about a '76 JG, except for the lack of buckle rash on this example.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:41 am

"It appears that the original tuners look to have been standard reverse types replaced by Grover Titans. The holes in the headstock seem over bored."

In my youth (I got this bass when I was in high school) I did the same only I used Schaller M4S tuners. Those were replace a couple years ago with Hipshot Ultralite tuners which are much lighter and balance the bass very nicely.

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:44 am

I also have a strange 400X (4003?) tailpiece and bridge: The additional screw holes seem drilled "aftermarket" as there is no chrome on the holes and in general the chrome is poor (some blisters and "peppering"), but the individual strings bridges are chromed and the screws have springs, the mute screws are of smaller diameter in the thread than the strap pins (should be identical?). Other than that the tailpiece at least looks identical to the usual 4001/3 from the backside. Any ideas where this tailpiece might have come from? What of it is fake? I would like to use it on my 1974 4001FG to eliminate tailpiece lift.

brycycle · Post by **brycycle** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:54 am

i'm going to say that it is an Allparts after market replacement part.

bassassin · Post by **bassassin** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:56 pm

Thanks for the link Tony.

Looks like a lot of new hardware on that bass to me. Looks too shiny & new to be consistent with the age of the instrument. Tuners are, I think, Schaller M4S, not Grovers - Titans have 2x screws through the backplates.

Peter's tailpiece/bridge - I'd say the bridge, at least, is from a copy bass. It so happens I have a very similar one right here, attached to a bass made in the early /mid 70s, by a long-defunct Japanese factory called Kasuga.

It has chrome saddles and springs on the intonation screws. The tailpiece looks identical too, and also has fairly poor chrome, quite blistered now. It also has developed extremely authentic tail lift!

Jon.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:47 am

I was guessing at the tuners. I only have standard 1970's reverse types & one set of wavy Grovers.

There's a way to tell some copy tailpieces from originals. The mold marks on the underside are in different places on some fakers. I'm not aware if most are this way or not, I've only seen pics of a few copy tails.

Peter's looks like the one from my '77 4001, it just has the extra holes drilled.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:51 am

The copy tailpieces I've seen from ebay auctions had the mold marks in the center of that section, rather than further toward the string holes.

Like I said, I've only seen perhaps half a dozen copy parts auctions where this is evident, so there probably are several variations.

Bad chrome is a dead give away, though. RIC chrome doesn't blister like the cheap stuff.

bassassin · Post by **bassassin** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:57 am

Here's the bridge & tailpiece from my wrong 'un:

You're right about the casting marks - useful detail to remember.

So - perhaps Peter has a fake bridge and a genuine tailpiece? The string holes in my tailpiece are much more rounded, not oval like authentic ones. My bridge looks identical to Peter's.

J.