what is the most expensive ric bass? rarest ric bass?

[bassduke49]

I invite those more knowledgeable on the 4001S/RM1999 subject to contribute their findings to the book I'm trying to write on Rickenbacker basses. I've asked several experts around the world to contribute, and some have done so. I've not yet heard from John Hall, and I've not received a reply from Vince G. to a couple of e-mails sent over the past year and a half. Vince, if you're interested, let's stay in touch. This information should be verified and formalized in the book for the benefit of Rick bass enthusiasts to come.

My thoughts: I get the strong impression that if it weren't for Rose-Morris' original order ('63-'64?), the two-pickup, unbound, dot-board 4001S would not have been developed. By most accounts, "S" stood for "special" and special can be construed as specially made for Rose-Morris. Therefore, all RM1999s are 4001S models, but on the chance that a few were held back from the shipments, not all 4001S instruments were necessarily RM1999s (at least as seen from the factory's viewpoint). It's all in the name, and who called what when. However, it would be a neat feature to have documentation on the RM1999 basses, especially if it can be determined who they went to during that seminal period. We know of Squire, Entwistle, Lodge, Waters, Leitch, and their must be other luminaries that received instruments from that first batch.

I look forward to this information!

[jingle_jangle]

I always thought (well, "always" being since 2004, when my Rickenradar became functional) that "S" stood for "standard", the theory being that the basses with the big inlays and stereo were the "de luxe" models...am I off the mark?

[leftybass]

I always thought (well, "always" being since 2004, when my Rickenradar became functional) that "S" stood for "standard", the theory being that the basses with the big inlays and stereo were the "de luxe" models...am I off the mark?

Paul, JH cleared that up a while back and said that 'S' stood for 'Special'. I had thought 'standard' for years too.

However, you are not off the mark...deluxe instruments were just that; more ornate and ROS equipped if it was a feature at the time on a deluxe model. On a 4001, ROS wasn't standard until ca.1970-71.

[headbanger]

Coupla things.
Andy, thanks for your kind words.

Lefty, my 1997 has that stamp on the headstock. 1997 & 266. Probably to help with ID as there were 3 hollow body sixes and a date code. This is for sure an RM thing so this might help in the provenance stakes in some instances. Mine isn't one of the batch that came direct to Oz, think it's earlier than those. I'd like to hear from anyone if any other UK sixes had this.

I agree that any 4001S or 2 pickup 4000 bass made between 64 and 67 is almost guaranteed to be an RM. It's possible that a few were made for the Italian distributor in 66/67 as well given what's turned up there in the past. Smith list's two S's made in 64 but I think these might be DA23 & 24. So IMHO case closed. A 64 S is an export which makes it an RM which was the only deal going at the time.

4001s is in the cavity of every RM1999 I own

Vincent, just to compare notes, my DH had "4K" written in it and the DK only has a pencil s/n and the felt tip pen markings on the side wall of the cavity.

I've kept a note of any possible 1999/4001s's that has surfaced but it's likely incomplete, no doubt I've missed some. If anyone wants a copy drop me a line.

[teeder]

I agree that any 4001S or 2 pickup 4000 bass made between 64 and 67 is almost guaranteed to be an RM.

So, 4001S's started showing up in the states after 1967? When were they cataloged? How about the 4000 basses?
My 4000 has "4000-C" in the control cavity. What would that stand for?
Johnny B said it meant it was a C64 prototype!

[leftybass]

Lefty, my 1997 has that stamp on the headstock. 1997 & 266. Probably to help with ID as there were 3 hollow body sixes and a date code. This is for sure an RM thing so this might help in the provenance stakes in some instances.

Thanks for chiming in Gerry. I've seen 1996's that have this as well. That kind of evidence would lend some credibility to the notion that Rose-Morris surely had a second set of numbers on the books somewhere for their own purposes of distribution. It would definitely be cool if someone turned those up at some point.

It'd be interesting if any of Vince's basses (or anyone who has an RM 1999) has stampings like this...

[seyesbass]

Vince ,I stand corrected.

I had a conversation with the late Dave Carr a few years ago and he had come across a guy in the Northeast who had an RM from new.
We never found out what became of him or the bass but I remember Dave saying that the guy wasnt playing anymore and he was talking about selling it one day!
They are out there but it would take a piece in the Sunday supplements or the Antiques Roadshow to tell people about the Rose Morris Rickenbacker basses,their importance in the history of the electric bass and get people to log on to the forum and tell us about the ones they own.
Its entirely possible that there are RMs out there that have been consigned to the case under the bed by guys that havent played for some years and may have no real idea or interest in their value assuming them to be worth whatever the going rate is for a 4001/4003until they take the trouble to get them valued.People are generally more aware of vintage prices with ebay,but you can see just from the debate we are having how easy it would be for people not in the know to be unaware of the difference in value of guitars that are very similar in appearance such as a 1964 and a 2008 Rickenbacker 4000 series bass.

With the slowdown in the global economy thats being forecast its also a possibility that players who bought RMs from new (who must be reaching retirement age if they were playing in the mid-late 60s),will be looking to cash in on their guitars to supplement their pension so I expect to see some crop up from that area.

Paul why not just have done with it and just write the "RM Story" ? Its a book in its own right.

[bassduke49]

Well, I don't know about an entire book, but more likely a chapter in the book. For many of "us," the first Rick basses we every saw were RMs, whether in person, on album covers, or on TV. I didn't become aware of the differences between my '72 4001 (deluxe) and Chris Squire's refinished RM until just five years ago. Such has been my education from just this forum alone. All of this needs to be in the book; identification "field marks," equipment changes, etc. It would be great to have it all in one source. One accurate source.

[jps]

As an aside, it seems to me that all 4001V63 models should really be called the RM1999V64, given what I have gleaned from this discussion.

[rickfan60]

That is an interesting observation, Jeff. Why did RIC call it a V63? Some who have posted on this thread feel the 4001S/RM1999s from '64 were actually made in '63. The name would tend to support that theory. No?

[bassduke49]

Maybe the first ones were made in '63, or the design or order made in '63, but most production in '64?

[rickfan60]

That certainly stands to reason.

[vincent_gallo]

******** / ******** I Vincent Gallo who left school in the 9th grade cannot spell well at all. sorry

[sloop_john_b]

******** / ******** I Vincent Gallo who left school in the 9th grade cannot spell well at all. sorry

No biggie, i'm pretty sure that word only comes with a UK education anyway.

[jingle_jangle]

Hey, Vincent, just jerking your chain...no need to apologize. Autodidacts often have confounding holes in their knowledge. For instance, I know nothing about 16th century Welsh poetry...and I had to look up "catechresis". But the ********/******** thing was easy.