Quick primer on 4001/4003 models for new bass shopper?

[chuck_king]

Hi, I hope this is not too general a question, but...

I've got several Rick guitars, and I am now seriously considering getting my first Rick bass. I have gathered that there are differences between various years of 4001 and/or 4003 basses, but I have not gotten a really good sense of what the differences are or what the "good years" are.

I'm sure many of you know this like the backs of your hands. I would greatly appreciate it if some of you could give the nickel tour of the different variants of these basses, so that as I'm looking at listings and evaluating instruments I find for sale, I know what I'm looking at, or what I should be looking for.

If this has already been covered in a thread, just point me there---I looked at half a dozen or so pages of listings but haven't gone through all hundred-plus pages, and I couldn't think of a way to search for something like this.

Many thanks!

[chefothefuture]

The 4001/ 4003 difference was originally a mod to the truss rods and neck
to allow for using higher tension strings.
It's fairly hazy between the two during the first years
of the 4003's existance.
After 1985, the 4003 pretty much replaced the 4001 as the standard Rick bass.
The 4001 existed as the 4001v63, which lacked the skunk strip and had the large
peghead along with vintage pickups and other goodies.
To confuse things, the first 4003's had a two piece neck and the truss rods were
adjusted at the heel.

[rickfan60]

Yes, the V63 and C64 were 4001s in name only. They have modern 4003 neck construction. As John said, neck construction is the biggest difference. Yes, the 4003 really solidified around '85.

The old style 4001 neck is actually quite strong. The problem with it is very few people know how to adjust the truss rods properly. When done up right, the old necks will handle most playing situations.

[chuck_king]

I've gathered that certain early 70s 4001 models are highly desirable---what makes them special compared to earlier or later models?

[jakeox]

I've gathered that certain early 70s 4001 models are highly desirable---what makes them special compared to earlier or later models?

Early 70s 4001 models tend to have nice thin necks, which is part of the reason they're desirable. There are a series of features that were phased out in 1973, some that affect sound, others purely aesthetic, that also increase price:

-checkered binding (mid '73)
-toaster pickup in neck position (late '73)
-full width fingerboard inlays (sparkly material Jan-Feb, later material but still full-width Mar-Apr or so, the former being even more desirable to most)
-"wavy grover" tuners (late '73, maybe into '74)
-neck pickup 1/2 inch off neck rather than 1 inch as later (into '74 or '75 I think)
-lucite thumbrest (late '72, I think)
-"split" tailpiece (mid '73) -- generally considered much less prone to tail lift

If you go even earlier you'll see some pre-skunk stripe basses too. I'm sure I've left out a bunch, but those are some of the early 70s features that increase the value of a bass.

[antipodean]

I've gathered that certain early 70s 4001 models are highly desirable---what makes them special compared to earlier or later models?

Early 70s 4001 models tend to have nice thin necks, which is part of the reason they're desirable. There are a series of features that were phased out in 1973, some that affect sound, others purely aesthetic, that also increase price:

-checkered binding (mid '73)
-toaster pickup in neck position (late '73)
-full width fingerboard inlays (sparkly material Jan-Feb, later material but still full-width Mar-Apr or so, the former being even more desirable to most)
-"wavy grover" tuners (late '73, maybe into '74)
-neck pickup 1/2 inch off neck rather than 1 inch as later (into '74 or '75 I think)
-lucite thumbrest (late '72, I think)
-"split" tailpiece (mid '73) -- generally considered much less prone to tail lift

If you go even earlier you'll see some pre-skunk stripe basses too. I'm sure I've left out a bunch, but those are some of the early 70s features that increase the value of a bass.

Excellent summary Jake. I can confirm that the move from 1/2 inch to 1 inch spacing occured in '75. The big differences from a players perspective between the late '73 to early '75 basses and the more sought after early '70s is the lack of a toaster in the neck position. The neck/body construction stayed constant from the introduction of the skunk-stripe neck in late '71/early '72 until the change in neck pickup placement in '75. The move away from Grovers was actually positive, in a functional sense, as later batches of Grovers had an alarming tendency to fall apart. The move away from full width inlays was purportedly an effort to ensure greater neck stability. If you have ever seen how deep the cut-outs are for the inlays, you'll understand the rationale.

The drop off in market value is huge considering most of the differences are cosmetic, but this also reflects the fact that production numbers in the very early '70s were much lower than in the mid '70s. IMHO, the later basses represent great value for the player, as opposed to the collector. A recent second hand 4003 with the new neck profile may represent better value again.

[rickfan60]

The move from the full width inlays was explained to me by Richard Burke who worked for Rickenbacker from 1958 to 2001 (I think). Anyway, he designed the current inlays and had a lot to say about the full width types. He said that the MOP types would often "explode" out of the fingerboard during finish buffing. Paul W. suggested in another thread that the buffer may have caught the edge of the inlays and ripped them out of the fingerboard giving the illusion of an explosion. That is a perfectly reasonable explaination and probably exactly what happened. Though he did not say it, I think that is what Richard believes to have happened. The rounded corners offset from the binding would certainly have been a good way to fix the problem. There may have also been structural reasons but Richard was clear that the old style inlays were difficult to get right and lead to a lot of reworked fingerboards.

[johnallg]

While we're talking about model differences, I have a question. Does the V63 basses have different tuners from the 4001 or 4003 basses? My '93 4001V63 has the smoothest tuners of any of my Ricks, including the 4004C. The late '75 has the nickel finish reverse tuners that are loose and fairly sloppy, the '91 and '04 4003 basses have the current production that are alright but I wouldn't say smooth. The V63 are so nice in feel and function. Are they different?

[rickfan60]

I think they used what ever they had on hand for the V63. Mine is a '94 and has the standard RIC bass tuners. The C64 gets nickel plated tuners that dull up just like the old ones do.

Some are better than others. Sometimes you can fix sloppy ones by taking them apart and cleaning them up. Try snugging up the screws a little.

[antipodean]

While we're talking about model differences, I have a question. Does the V63 basses have different tuners from the 4001 or 4003 basses? My '93 4001V63 has the smoothest tuners of any of my Ricks, including the 4004C. The late '75 has the nickel finish reverse tuners that are loose and fairly sloppy, the '91 and '04 4003 basses have the current production that are alright but I wouldn't say smooth. The V63 are so nice in feel and function. Are they different?

John,
I believe V63s have the same tuners as 4003s of the same period.

My timeline for the 4001/4003 probably has more holes than swiss cheese, but I believe it is something like:

60's Reverse Klusons
69/70? Non-wavy Grovers - I've only seen one example
71 Wavy Grovers - the famous exploding tuners!
73 Reverse Klusons - left overs????? I have a '74 with Klusons and slot-head retaining screws.
Mid 70s Schallers replace Klusons????????? However, wavy Grovers appear every now and then until around '84, when the parts bin must have been emptied.
Mid '80s Schallers Rule ok! I believe the spec has stayed the same since then.... The plating may differ from year to year, model to model, but the design is the same.

I'm open to correction!

[rickfan60]

That is a good summary.

Paul Boyer's '72 has non-wavy Grovers.

The early tuners were nickel plated. They switched to chrome some time in the mid 80's.

[johnallg]

Ted, I have cleaned and tightened the reverse tuners - still a lot of slop in three of them. Thanks for the tip.

[rickfan60]

Sorry that did not work for you. Is the slop between the worm and the gear?

[johnallg]

Yeah, it is there. When you tighten, then try to back off the key, the slop is apparent.

[rickfan60]

Sometimes the slop comes from a loose screw. I think some of those tuners were made "sloppy". There never seems to be any wear on either the gear or worm to account for it.