Why did Ric call it the 4003?

[2112]

Why didn't Rickenbacker just keep the 4001 model name...with modifications?

I mean, the 4003 is pretty close to the 4001 isn't it? And it's funny how so many people mistake it for the 4001.
The truss rods are different? No?
And maybe the electronics?
And neck thickness?
What am I missing?

Is that really a big enough reason to call it the 4003?
It dosent LOOK any different, except for some of the ones with that swolen headstock.

Just wondering.

[rickaddict]

That's a good question. And I agree. I think they should have just stuck with the 4001 name and let the model evolve.

Since it came out in 1980 the 4003 has evolved a lot.

Maybe RIC needed to have two different model numbers in the early 80's as they made both models side-by-side for a few years.

But why did they need to make two different models for those few years? To keep the old 4001 purists happy while offering a similar new model for those who liked round wound strings?

[phlemmy]

But why did they need to make two different models for those few years? To keep the old 4001 purists happy while offering a similar new model for those who liked round wound strings?

They didn't want to throw away the stockpile of 4001 parts and bodies they had.

[rickfan60]

According to JH there was not any significant overlap in production between the 4001 and 4003 as some SN's suggest. The first 4003s were just 4001s with the truss rod adjusters at the body end. Not enough, it seems, to justify a new model name.

[bassduke49]

Well, I'm not so sure about that. The construction of the neck of the 4003 seemed different right off the bat. As far as I can tell, the 4001 of the era had the shedua strip to reinforce the neck, the new 4003 did not have the strip. But this time period is weird. While supposedly the 4001 was not "manufactured" after the introduction of the 4003, the 4001 was featured in RIC literature as being available into the early '90s (as the fretless). I can't imagine they would have had 10-years worth of inventory laying around without any new construction. I hope my book can straighten out all these details, but until I get the info from RIC, it'll be difficult to do the book.

[blueflamerick]

Well, from a marketing standpoint, what sounds better: the updated 4001 or the new 4003?

[jingle_jangle]

the third option, of course...the 4002!

[paologregorio]

I thought the `83 catalogue had both models, but I could be mistaken.

[blueflamerick]

The '81 catalog has both:

http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_pos ... 75x-11.jpg

So do the '84, '85, & '86 catalogs:

http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_pos ... bass-6.jpg

http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_pos ... bass-6.jpg

http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_pos ... ter_p6.jpg

[rickfan60]

Well, I'm not so sure about that. The construction of the neck of the 4003 seemed different right off the bat. As far as I can tell, the 4001 of the era had the shedua strip to reinforce the neck, the new 4003 did not have the strip. But this time period is weird. While supposedly the 4001 was not "manufactured" after the introduction of the 4003, the 4001 was featured in RIC literature as being available into the early '90s (as the fretless). I can't imagine they would have had 10-years worth of inventory laying around without any new construction. I hope my book can straighten out all these details, but until I get the info from RIC, it'll be difficult to do the book.

No, not really. The early ones have rectangular neck blanks that were nearly identical to the 4001 except for the shedua stripe. They had maple stripes instead. After that they used a two piece neck still with the old rods. Up to 8-84 except for moving the adjusters to the body end there were no significant structural differences in the necks.

JH said that in the years before his purchasing of the company, large inventories were not unusual both in parts and finished goods. He attributed the stragglers to reworks and excess inventory.

[ricosound]

Reading the '84 catalog descriptions and considering the years offered, the 4002 must have to old 4001 style rods. Not that I will ever own one, but how have the 4002 necks held up over the years compared to 4001 WRT string tension? They are so few and highly coveted, but I haven't seen 4002s with fretboard seperations so common with 4001.

[jdogric12]

When I got my 4002 it was completely unplayable due to serious backbow. An expert worked on it and now it is at least playable. It could still use a refret/replane or something though.

[rickfan60]

Both models appeared in the catalog for several years. JH had this to say a few years ago:

Perhaps the only detail that's not immediately apparent to you is that up
until at least the mid 1980's there was always an enormous inventory,
awaiting sale. Goods arriving from the factory were inspected prior to going
into the warehouse; many were sent back for additional adjustment or rework
and sometimes those were waylaid, even for a few years. Sometimes they were
remanufactured completely, even being stripped, then assigned new serial
numbers in assembly. (They are never, EVER, reassigned today, as a matter of
control for things such as work in process.)

All of these instruments were flushed out of the system in the mid 1980's,
and as the world changed the factory was retooled to be somewhat more
"just-in-time" to eliminate a large, expensive warehouse where instruments
had time to be damaged or needed adjustment due to age.

The operative phrase in your incorrect statement is "sold". Goods are sold
after they are received in the warehouse, whether the old mega-warehouse or
the modern mostly empty one, long after the serial number was affixed in
assembly

[rickaddict]

Interesting stuff, Ted.

[chefothefuture]

That's how in 1985 I was able get a brand new 4005BG that had a 1978 serial #.
Ahh, those were the days....

Back to the thread question-
Maybe because the 4003 is "2" louder.....