5 string maple fingerboard 4003 questions

[kssound]

These shots make the fretboard look much darker than the first one you posted. Sometimes the bubinga that RIC uses is pretty light, sometimes dark, sometimes figured, sometimes not. Definitely not the "microdot" position markers I suspected. Still a curiosity.

Unfortunately its the lighting. The first picture from the first page is much more accurate.

[ilan]

I'm voting totally stock factory one-off. A very interesting bass, to say the least.

[kssound]

While I was looking over the bass and deciding it was very overdue for a good cleaning, polish and new strings... I noticed that the tailstock has 8 holes for strings in it. I guess this would be an 8 string tailstock which makes some sense for manufacturing and assembled with a 5 string saddle. My 4001 only has 4 holes as well as a 4 string saddle.

I also looked closely at the paint on the fingerboard and its essentially identical to the 4001 as well. Although I wish it had the same fingerboard and triangle inlays as my 4001 I've never seen another like it.

Now I need to get a 5 string fretless to round out my collection! I wonder if you can custom order one?
Scott

[86kubicki]

The shot showing the area near the neck body joint shows maple fretboard between the binding and the painted part of the neck. However the pic of the neck at the nut shows the binding right next to the painted part - the maple between has disappeared. Also the boundary between the fingerboard and the neck in the first pic seems a bit ragged and one of the binding markers seems quite off. Based on these observations, I'd have to say its a non-original fingerboard.

[rikk]

That still doesn't explain the binding.

[cassius987]

Now I need to get a 5 string fretless to round out my collection! I wonder if you can custom order one?
Scott

I wish. RIC doesn't make a fretless 5. A 4002FL/5 would be my choice.

[rickaddict]

The shot showing the area near the neck body joint shows maple fretboard between the binding and the painted part of the neck. However the pic of the neck at the nut shows the binding right next to the painted part - the maple between has disappeared. Also the boundary between the fingerboard and the neck in the first pic seems a bit ragged and one of the binding markers seems quite off. Based on these observations, I'd have to say its a non-original fingerboard.

I noticed all of these points as well Steve, but I think it might just be poor photos. Could also be a re-fin with poor masking to the original fretboard. But the frets and binding look like they were done the RIC way. Its REALLY hard to find a replaced fretboard that's done like that.

This bass is rare as heck, Scott! Thanks for coming to this forum and posting the photos of it. Please put it in the register so that it will be documented for future generations to gawk at! It's the only one I've ever seen. And I agree with Paul, I don't think this is a maple board. I think it's just light-colored bubinga.

My Ruby '89 4003S/5 has a light-colored bubinga fretboard, but not quite as light as yours. Here's a couple photos:

http://rickresource.com/register/user_i ... llsize.jpg

http://rickresource.com/register/user_i ... llsize.jpg

I'm voting totally stock factory one-off. A very interesting bass, to say the least.

+1

[rickaddict]

This '86 Shadow also has a very light bubinga fretboard:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rickenbacker-SHADOW ... 240%3A1318

[kssound]

all the pictures I tried to upload last evening didn't make it

I will upload more tonight and I might break out my lights so I can get more accurate color. By the way, I checked out the fingerboard closely, it is maple or possibly ash. It is a white wood with very fine grain unlike my 4001's grain. I'm about 98% certain its maple.

let me tell you a strange story (how strange is it?)

I picked this bass up in a pawn shop in Wichita Kansas in December 1989 for $385.00. I had wanted a FL and 5 string since I had played both at the Seattle Guitar center in '74. It was a jetglow which matched my 72 4001 except for not having the checkerboard binding and having a maple fingerboard which I had never seen.

It played ok but the truss rods needed adjusting and it was in super shape with only a ding in the top of the headstock, I didn't know it was only 3 years old then. In September of 90 I moved to Ft. Worth Texas and was tired of the tall action from the truss rods and I wanted to play a 5 string. I took it to a pro shop and paid them for a setup. When I got it home and checked it out the action was the same and the neck was still bowed. I took off the truss rod cover and the original paint on the nuts and lock nuts were still bridged and unbroken. I was working 60+ hour weeks so it went back in the case and I played the 4001. It stayed in the case for 5 years.

In 95 I was working in the LA basin and started playing more seriously again. Once again I took it to a pro shop and had them do a setup. I specifically asked if they had the right tools for the truss rod adjustment. When I got it back they explained to me that the truss rods had oversize nuts on them and that they were so close together they couldn't get a wrench on them. They setup everything else and offered me a reduced price on the setup. When I got it home the lock nuts and washers were gone from the truss rods but the paint on the nuts themselves was still unbroken. Back into the case for another 5 years.

Back to Wichita in 01 I started running sound for a local country band and was the house engineer at a local Blues club. The country band's bass player always asked me to play the 3rd set and since nobody in the country establishment had ever even seen a Ricky, I started taking it with me to use for the 3rd set. I had lent my 4001 to a very good friend but he passed away suddenly and I was trying to get it back from his estate. I used it off and on for 2 years.

Then my wife became pregnant with twins so in mid 03 it went back in the case and I found a job back in Seattle so we could be back home with family.

Earlier this year I got a lathe and thought about a project of making a tool to fit the truss rod nuts. I called the Ricky support people and asked if I could buy a wrench but they only had wrenches for the "standard size" nuts. I asked them about how I could have one with a different size nut on it and got a "gee, I don't know" I'll send you a proper set for free and you can install those. I considered getting a fretless and looked their web site over for current production, this is where I found that I had something more unusual than I thought. The new parts Rickenbacker sent me are in the case and I plan to trade them out one of these days and get the action down to where my 4001 is. I took it out of the case mid year to send the pictures to Rickenbacker which is the e-mail response I posted earlier and took it out of the case yesterday to take pictures again. In the 19 years I've owned it I've put maybe 40 hours of playing time on it and its sat in the case unopened for most of those years.

[rickaddict]

That's quite a story!

I can't imagine so many people having such a hard time trying to adjust a Rickenbacker bass neck. It's not that hard to do. I'll take your word for it that someone must have put the wrong nuts on it and made it very difficult or impossible to adjust though. I'll also take your word on your bass having a maple fret board. You're right in front of the thing, so you'd know better than I would.

Well, Scott...You've come to the right place to get your problem sorted out. You'll find better advice on this forum than you will at any guitar shop. If you could remove the truss rod cover, take photos of the truss rod cavity, and post them here, I bet your problem will be solved very quickly.

[Ric O'Sound]

What a cool bass. Heh, just when you thought you'd seen everything, up pops another surprise.

Scott, I hope you get the truss rod issues sorted out and are able to get the neck adjusted to your liking so you can play it again. In any case, thanks for posting here and showing us the pics.

[cjj]

And if you can't get your truss rods adjusted, I'd be happy to take it off your hands for twice what you paid for it!

Seriously though, I'm sure the folks on this forum can help you get just about any issue figured out. Of course, being distant requires pictures, the more the better, good quality helps a lot too. It sure is an interesting bass, I always wanted a 4003/5 but never knew they ever made one!

[jingle_jangle]

I vote replacement fretboard, though it was done very well, right up till the masking for the neck binding. That's what gives the job away, unfortunately.

The wrong type of masking tape was used, leaving that telltale ragged edge. A Rick bass or guitar has a razor-sharp and arrow-straight delineation between the fretboard wood and neck paint along that boundary. No reason for it to be any other way from the factory.

[kssound]

That's quite a story!

I can't imagine so many people having such a hard time trying to adjust a Rickenbacker bass neck. It's not that hard to do. I'll take your word for it that someone must have put the wrong nuts on it and made it very difficult or impossible to adjust though. I'll also take your word on your bass having a maple fret board. You're right in front of the thing, so you'd know better than I would. It makes me wonder if/why someone would take a less than 3 year old probably custom shop guitar/bass and change out the fingerboard. I'm completely baffled about this. Looking at the workmanship on everything except the masking tape line its beautifully done.

Well, Scott...You've come to the right place to get your problem sorted out. You'll find better advice on this forum than you will at any guitar shop. If you could remove the truss rod cover, take photos of the truss rod cavity, and post them here, I bet your problem will be solved very quickly.

Well, I have my work cut out for me! I normally do my own setup work but I've just been too busy. I'll take off the truss rod cover tonight and get a picture. While I'm at it I will pull the pick guard off and take pics as well. There is less than 1/32" between the nuts and requires a very thin wall socket to get on it. I just haven't gotten around to machining one up. I used to be a tool and die maker and have scratch built several basses so I have a clue on the materials and workmanship.

When I get the socket made I'll swap the nuts out with the new ones that the Ricky folks sent me.

Computer question; how do you get decent quality resolution for posting on the web? I usually take my pictures at max resolution on the camera. I used photoshop to change them to 75dpi and 750 pixels x whatever they come out to. Normally I just print out the ones I want, I'm not used to trying to reduce the size so they can be uploaded. The pics I posted look awful. Can anyone help?
Thanks,
Scott

[jingle_jangle]

You should save at 72DPI; normal computer resulotion. Photoshop CS 1 and 2 have an option called "Save for Web" that allows you to specify size and preview the images on the fly.

You should first go to "Image Size", specify 600 pixels or less for height (this will give you about 720 for width for a photo of standard proportions). Then "Save for Web", pick your image size in KB (less than 135KB), and save. This should give you a large photo of reasonable resolution with minimal digital artifacts.