1967 rickenbacker bass
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
I believe the answer is almost yes, structurally and mechanically. There were differences that were slight, for example, in the guitars, but essentially in 1964 Rose and Morris ordered a customized, special order version that had a British model number 1999, but was in the US model number scheme, depending on how you looked at it, either a double-pickup 4000 model, or a dressed-down version of an American 4001. This was because it had the dot-inlay fingerboard and no body binding of a 4000, and yet it had the double pickups of the 4001.
Since it was generally viewed as a special order like all export orders were at the time, it was termed by Rickenbacker a double-pickup US 4001s, where the "s" stood for "special", and simultaneously termed a RM1999 in Britain by Rose and Morris.
Since it was generally viewed as a special order like all export orders were at the time, it was termed by Rickenbacker a double-pickup US 4001s, where the "s" stood for "special", and simultaneously termed a RM1999 in Britain by Rose and Morris.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and sit in with the band whenever you can, to keep your chops up!
The RM1999 will nearly always have a square heel, as the bulk of production was made in '64.
Later units, (and I've only seen one '66 and a '67) have the round heel, as do most domestic twin pick up 4001S models.
Of course, in true 60's Ric tradition, there is one '64 out there with a round heel as well..
Later units, (and I've only seen one '66 and a '67) have the round heel, as do most domestic twin pick up 4001S models.
Of course, in true 60's Ric tradition, there is one '64 out there with a round heel as well..
And as far as I know the RM1999s were all Fireglo....originally.
I think the reason Rose-Morris went for the dot neck and no binding option was because of the higher price of the Deluxe 4001. American imports were significantly more expensive back in the early 60s.
Many famous British musicians from that era had to buy Burns and Hofner guitars and basses with F****r, G****n and Rickenbacker being so expensive. Had the Beatles used the Rickenbacker bass on TV and on the road in the early to mid 60s
then Rose -Morris would have ordered a lot more RM1999s. As it is they probably didnt want to order too many units of a bass that was new on the scene and at 166 Guineas very expensive.I feel very fortunate to have owned three of the RMs and nearly a fourth if I had been able to muster the £750 for Greg Lakes old bass in 1982.I saw a bass that was advertised as an RM in a magazine when I was on holiday in June. Re-finished in Black no horse shoe
and a pup surround without the two thumb rest holes...mmm.Cant remember the shop in London but I meant to check it out. Anyone spot it? Price?..Get this..£3500!! I would have liked to check it in case it was an early 4000 that someone had added a toaster to.
I think the reason Rose-Morris went for the dot neck and no binding option was because of the higher price of the Deluxe 4001. American imports were significantly more expensive back in the early 60s.
Many famous British musicians from that era had to buy Burns and Hofner guitars and basses with F****r, G****n and Rickenbacker being so expensive. Had the Beatles used the Rickenbacker bass on TV and on the road in the early to mid 60s
then Rose -Morris would have ordered a lot more RM1999s. As it is they probably didnt want to order too many units of a bass that was new on the scene and at 166 Guineas very expensive.I feel very fortunate to have owned three of the RMs and nearly a fourth if I had been able to muster the £750 for Greg Lakes old bass in 1982.I saw a bass that was advertised as an RM in a magazine when I was on holiday in June. Re-finished in Black no horse shoe
and a pup surround without the two thumb rest holes...mmm.Cant remember the shop in London but I meant to check it out. Anyone spot it? Price?..Get this..£3500!! I would have liked to check it in case it was an early 4000 that someone had added a toaster to.
Too many basses is an oxymoron
In essence that is what Paul's 4001-S was thought of when being built - a "4000+1 pickup" on the Radio-Tel ticket when ordered, and easy to see why Electro String would think of it that way. In fact, even up on into the late 70's when they were made in greater numbers the warranty card info read "4000/1/S/LH" for one of the basses used in one of the original "Beatlemania" acts.
There is a bit of lore surrounding the era when Paul actually saw his own bass,I recall a good discussion on Voxtalks a few years back (in the good times...)
John Hall has said previously that he thought Paul wasn't shown his lefty Rickenbacker while The Beatles were in NYC in Feb. 1964. Paul was shown A bass, but it was not DA 23; from what has been said it was a right-handed bass, possibly a 4001 deluxe. JH has given an account of his Dad apologizing to Paul at the Savoy Hotel for not having a left-handed bass for him to try, and that it may have been an oversight that he (Paul) was left-handed.
Today we all know that that Paul's bass had a born-on date of around 24-25 January 1964, so it seems that there would have been plenty of time to have it at the Savoy for Paul to look at, and that F.C. Hall had the details well in hand about Macca being a lefty; there was also some talk that it may have been damaged prior to The Beatles' NYC visit or was delayed in shipment. At any rate, it was some 15-16 months later when Paul finally received that bass on the '65 Beatles' US tour.
It will be really cool when/if more about this comes to light, it's all such great history.
There is a bit of lore surrounding the era when Paul actually saw his own bass,I recall a good discussion on Voxtalks a few years back (in the good times...)
John Hall has said previously that he thought Paul wasn't shown his lefty Rickenbacker while The Beatles were in NYC in Feb. 1964. Paul was shown A bass, but it was not DA 23; from what has been said it was a right-handed bass, possibly a 4001 deluxe. JH has given an account of his Dad apologizing to Paul at the Savoy Hotel for not having a left-handed bass for him to try, and that it may have been an oversight that he (Paul) was left-handed.
Today we all know that that Paul's bass had a born-on date of around 24-25 January 1964, so it seems that there would have been plenty of time to have it at the Savoy for Paul to look at, and that F.C. Hall had the details well in hand about Macca being a lefty; there was also some talk that it may have been damaged prior to The Beatles' NYC visit or was delayed in shipment. At any rate, it was some 15-16 months later when Paul finally received that bass on the '65 Beatles' US tour.
It will be really cool when/if more about this comes to light, it's all such great history.
