Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Vintage, Modern, V & C series, Fretless, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

Post Reply
squirefan01
Intermediate Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:00 am

Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by squirefan01 »

Last year, RIC talked about using up the rest of their stock of the thicker 4003 necks. I assumed that 2007 4003s would have a mix of the necks. Now the 2008s are around (one on eBay now). I just wondered when it will be safe to grab a new 4003 if one wants the thinner neck? Has JH spoken about this recently?

Thanks
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by rickaddict »

Ummm...How thin are you looking for, Greg?

The idea was that the 4003 was supposed to get the C64 neck profile. Some people have different ideas of thick and thin. My own C64S (a 2003 model) has a very thin neck (measured front of the fretboard to back of the neck) but when you measure the girth and compare it to a 1992 or earlier Rick neck, its actually pretty big (See Measure Your Girth thread). I also have a late 2006 4003 with the "thin neck profile," and while its a cool bass, its neck is MUCH larger than my pre-1992 Ricks.

So, if you asked me I'd say...If a small neck is a very important thing for you to have on your 4003, then you want to go with a pre-'92 4003.
teeder
Senior Member
Posts: 6396
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:00 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by teeder »

I agree.
If I was looking for a "modern" Rick with a slim neck, I'd be looking for a '90 - '92. I'm not sure when the cut off for large horns was before that. You might be able to get back to '88'ish.
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by rickaddict »

Unfortunately any 4003 from the late 80's/early 90's is gonna have the fat horns. Some people like 'em some don't. So what's more important to you, a thin neck or thin horns?!

Now if you're talkin' V63 though its a different story! Thin necks and thin horns existed simultaneously!

8)
User avatar
ben_brown
Advanced Member
Posts: 2503
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:00 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by ben_brown »

Here is my 894003S. The neck is extremely thin and comfortable(to me).
I don't think the horn is that thick or large.
Body-800X600.jpg
Here's another 89 with an even thinner neck.
I don't think the horn is that obtrusive.
Body-front3small.jpg
Here' yet another 89 4001S that I no longer own....same thin neck though.
800X.jpg
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by rickaddict »

Beautiful basses, Steve. And I don't think the horns are too big.

But compared with a 2008 4003 or a 90's V63, the horns on your examples are bigger. Great neck, great tone, and truss rods that work well though.
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by rickaddict »

You about ready to open up that Azureglo beauty and post some pix, Steve?

8)
User avatar
lucky
Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:00 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by lucky »

My Oct '92 4003 has a lovely thin neck and the fatter top horn, was there a reason for the fatter top horn.
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by rickaddict »

I don't think a reason was ever given. Some speculate that it had to do with the guitar's balance. The theory goes that the horns got smaller around the same time the necks got heavier. I'm not so sure I agree with this theory.

My '92 V63 has thin horns and a thin neck and it balances just fine.
teeder
Senior Member
Posts: 6396
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:00 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by teeder »

Ballast?
User avatar
jsod
Junior Member
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:14 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by jsod »

The fat horns disappeared (and fat neck appeared) circa 1997.

I wish they had gone back to the 1/2" neck pickup spacing at the same time...I think it looks better with the thin horns, while the 1" spacing looks better with the fat horns.

Just MHO... :mrgreen:
User avatar
cheyenne
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6263
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2001 11:39 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by cheyenne »

Its a bit of a **** shoot really. If they are making the "thinner" necks today,,in 18-24 months when your's is made who knows what you'll get.
"Knowledge is Power"
User avatar
lucky
Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:00 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by lucky »

I have put a V63 style scratchplate with the half inch spacing on my bass.Maybe Mr.Hall will chime in and let us know why the upper horn was made fatter for a while.
squirefan01
Intermediate Member
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:00 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by squirefan01 »

My '87 4003 has a perfect neck IMHO. It's is very thin and much thinner than the 75th Anniversary 4003 that I owned for a short time. I would like to get a new one that has a neck like my '87.
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: Have 4003s moved to all thinner necks yet?

Post by rickaddict »

squirefan01 wrote:My '87 4003 has a perfect neck IMHO. It's is very thin and much thinner than the 75th Anniversary 4003 that I owned for a short time. I would like to get a new one that has a neck like my '87.
I agree. If the new necks were the same as my '87's necks that would be ideal. Walnut head wings, thin horns AND a neck like my '87's? :shock:

Drool!

It's good to dream!

8)
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Basses: by Joey Vasco & Tony Cabibe”