Body shape

ilan · Post by **ilan** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 2:32 am

When did the 4001 body shape change? the v63/c64 have slightly shorter bodies. Was the change gradual? And why did the body get larger? I'm guessing it was for better balance, putting the strap button about 1" closer to the headstock.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:54 am

Ilan, I have 4 Rick basses, from the years '73, '79 '92 and '97. They all vary somewhat in body shape. My 4003S/5 really differs from the others especially that the lower horn is very small compared to my other Ricks and even other 4003S/5 basses that I have seen.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:33 am

The only way to get two rics with exactly the same body shape is to get 2 from the same year ...

ilan · Post by **ilan** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:35 am

Why do RIC keep changing the shape, then?

marc67 · Post by **marc67** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:49 am

You are right, this was always something that I asked myself - the V63/C64 horns are narrower when compared to my 79' 4001. One would assume that it would be easier (not to mention cheaper)for RIC to use the same shape for all the basses. I guess this is part of the 4000 series evolution.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 10:25 am

Ilan, I don't know why RIC keeps changing the body shape even the headstocks of my Rick basses are different from each other. I guess it has to do with how Ricks are hand crafted. Not like at Fender where they throw a piece of wood into a machine and out pops an instrument.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:11 am

My two cents on this: I'm sure changes in the 4001 body and headstock shapes are INTENTIONAL. I don't mean very small variations, but clearly visible changes as found for instance on a 1974 4001 as compared with a 1970 4001, or a 1981 4003 as compared with a 1972 4001. I think that what Jeff says in his post hereabove, '...two from the same year', pretty much sums it all up. It would be quite interesting to try and establish the exact points in time where definite changes in the 4001 body & headstock shape did occur.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 11:50 am

Yeah, I'm sure it's intentional. To my mind the fatter bodied/horned mid 70s -80s just don't cut it the same as the earlier/later basses. But that's just me!

ojobob2 · Post by **ojobob2** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:19 pm

my 91' has the fatter horns, so maybe it comes and goes. The brand new basses look evrn thinner than my 73 had.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:27 pm

Yeah, I've seen patterns in their shapes, it seems like they stick to a certain type for some years then switch to another, I've seen three broad body style changes from the early 70's to now. I've never seen a 60's bass. Thre newer ones are as Owen says almost like the early 70's except that the headstock is much bigger and that is a 60's style if I am not mistaken. They all feel the same to me when I hold them, except for the necks, and even then I get used to the various shapes quickly. I like the late 70's early 80's best. I've never played a late 80's and I also like the early 90's better than the late 90's necks.

wints · Post by **wints** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 2:48 pm

As these are hand made they will be different from time to time. One of THE things I love about them, especialy the older models. Periodically Ric has changed the body a little here and there tolerance wise, but it,s still up to the guy on the sander on the day. One guy might take a little more working right at the tolerance, someone else doesn,t go that far. Thin neck...slightly thicker neck. Did you get Bill or Bob,s individual,s interpretation in his work. Back in the day if I was there, I,d have been making those necks as thin as I was allowed...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:20 pm

I think most of the wood is shaped but a computer controlled machine ... in that case they change the template every so often ...

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 4:40 pm

The headstock shapes are identical on my '67 4005WB and '03 4004Cii, only the thickness is different, 5/8" vs. 3/4". My '73 4001 has the smaller headstock shape and is 5/8" thick.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 5:37 pm

Ya ... I love the 60's headstock ... and the current headstock ...

I always thought the 70's and 80's headstocks were too compact ... I don't like it when the top 2 machine heads line up ...

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:08 pm

The 60's headstock shape, and teh current one, are so much nicer than the small headstock.

Even the new 4003's have a nice headstock, though still not quite the same as the 60's ones. but still, very nice.