Breaking News "C" Series Photos and NAMM Reports

headbanger · Post by **headbanger** » Sat Jan 20, 2001 10:06 pm

Dear me. Look at that bridge - Wrong.
Is the headstock the wrong way around too?
An extra $1000 for that?

lucien_stavenhagen · Post by **lucien_stavenhagen** » Sun Jan 21, 2001 10:12 pm

What's wrong with the bridge? Looks fine to me. I love the FG body. But it's the backwards headstock that's just plain wrong

. yuck...
I guess I'll just have to imagine what the c64 headstock looks like for a picture of the overall bass

.
That one looks like it'll be a total beauty. Shame I don't 3 grand lying around... damn...

BTW, why does my password not work all of a sudden?

LS

325-at-2pm · Post by **325-at-2pm** » Mon Jan 22, 2001 6:47 am

Peter: North Coast (a Rickenbacker dealer) got the photos first because Gary Hahlbeck was at NAMM show with his own products/booth and a digital camera and was able to take photos from the beginning at the opening of the show.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Mon Jan 22, 2001 9:27 pm

Can someone tell me why the 4001C64S does not have the understring pickup?

LONNY · Post by **LONNY** » Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:01 am

I want my V63!!!!!! (like MTV add in the 80s)

LON MOORE

330fg · Post by **330fg** » Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:00 pm

It probably does not have the understring unit because in 64' it had a horseshoe.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:29 pm

I understand that. My point is that in "64" it had a fireglo finish and the horns weren't shaved down. So if you are going to go to the trouble of stripping it down to mapleglo and then shave down the horns why not complete the process and install an understring pickup?

Craig55 · Post by **Craig55** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:24 am

I agree with Brian...Unless RIC thought it too expensive to duplicate the PU used on the re-done bass. But it sure looks nice! What type of PU did they use when they re-worked it? Is the bezel going to be the same on both basses? That may not be entirely correct either. Can it be ordered with no finish? Bare wood like the MACCA bass? Now thats cool!

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 9:32 am

Brian and Craig: I see your points and yes it does look great! John and Paul modified their instruments in several ways and I supose there is a trade of between remaining perfectly accurate, on the one hand, and producing a model that most folks associate with the artist on the other. In the end folks will probably modify them to suit anyway, no matter what RIC has done.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 2:34 pm

Peter, I disagree with that statement in regards to Paul's bass. It is clear that Paul has had an understring pickup from just about when it was stripped down. In fact, I cannot find any photograghic evidence showing that the bass had the horseshoe pickup after it was stripped. On Let it Be Paul is playing "Two of Us" and the stripped down and shaved horn RIC can be seen. It doesn't appear the Horseshoe pickup is there. So the burning question is...why no understring pickup. Don't get me wrong , I love this bass and cannot wait to get one, but it is curious why it wasn't done

Joe_Manganello · Post by **Joe_Manganello** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 3:09 pm

Actually Brian, his bass does have the horseshoe pickup on it during the Let it Be sessions. The understring pickup wasn't installed until the mid 70's and I've seen many clear pics of the bass from the early seventies and it still clearly has the horseshoe.

I'm e-mailing you a pic of Paul's bass from around 1973. It clearly still has the horseshoe.

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 6:15 pm

Brian: The point I was trying to make, perhaps ineffectively, was that there were numerous changes with regard to the Rickenbackers owned by Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Some of these were I acknowledge, subtle perhaps, however with respect to Paul's bass we have the: shaved horn, understring pickup, zero fret and Magical Mystery Tour artwork. RIC would have trouble keeping up with all these changes to be sure. So which changes are most important. I like the moveable zero fret and the MMT and others would never want these modifications in a 4001C64S.

nukebass · Post by **nukebass** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 6:21 pm

Hello, If it's not too much trouble, I'd like to see the picture of McCartney's bass from '73 too. I could have sworn I heard or read somewhere that he sent the Rickenbacker back in '68 to have it refinished (because of the spray paints) and the treble pickup replaced. That's why he played the Hoffner bass in the Revolution video. I've got to go find that scene in Let It Be now.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 8:22 pm

Joe, like I said in my email, I even have a copy of that photo. Hey! I never claimed to be a Phi Beta Kappa. Thanks again for the photo.

Peter, I guess my point is I'd rather see it with the understring pickup. Their...I said it! I'm selfish and want it my way. Oh well, like I said, I've already ordered mine. Anyone want to know the price?

I promise I will never mention the understring pickup again. That is until it starts bugging the hell out of me again!

Thank you all for setting me straight. I am a better RIC man for it.

Cheers

Joe_Manganello · Post by **Joe_Manganello** » Fri Jan 26, 2001 8:27 am

Thats okay Brian. I too would have liked to have seen the 4001C64S with an understring pickup wound to McCartney's exact specs. I've seen a recent pic of Paul's bass in The Bass Book and it now has a horseshoe. Maybe, they wanted to reproduce the way the bass looks now?