But is it really "Wings Correct"?

anonymous · Post by **anonymous** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 4:30 pm

I understand that the C64S model is a replication of Paul McCartney's 4001 as it is TODAY... after restorative procedures performed by the folks at Rickenbacker. BUT...

...it seems to me that the first time I saw Paul pictured with his Rick (Red Rose Speedway LP photo inserts, circa late '72, early '73), the treble pickup (horseshoe) surround ring had the "tapered" rear plate (closest to the bridge), just like on the V63 models; i.e. as equipped from the factory in '64. As I remember it, this detail seems to have been pertinent to this bass at least up until the London Town LP ('78).

Therefore, two questions pop into my mind:

#1 - Am I remembering correctly? And...
#2 - Would the "Wings Correct" Horseshoe pickup ring be offered as an option, either at purchase time or as an after-purchase trade with RIC?

anonymous · Post by **anonymous** » Sun Dec 29, 2002 6:48 pm

Alvaro,

I can only help with the bridge pickup question.

According to Bjorn Eriksson's Rickenbacker Page:

"His Rick bass pretty much stayed the same until he started to work on the "Red Rose Speedway" album. One, but clearly visible, change was that Paul had the horns on his bass shaved down somewhere between 1970 and the release of the RRS album. He also got the bridge pick-up replaced and the metal surrounding changed to a more rectangular one..."

Reading about The Beatles' Rickenbackers.

bigbajo60 · Post by **bigbajo60** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:47 pm

Here we are almost a year later, and during a casual session of web-surfing, this image pops up:

Note the shaved horns, intact horseshoes and tapered surround.

This is the way I first became aware of Paul's 4001, and the way I like it.

While I was wrong about the bass not having the modern surround ring until '78... my understanding now is that the bass was configured as above at least until Red Rose Speedway was in the can. That coincides with the documented work performed on Paul's bass at RIC in 1976(?) right before the first American Wings tour.

Hmmmmmmmm...

I wonder if a C64S can be ordered with a C64 treble pickup assembly?

And I won't be a stickler for the cracked pickguard.

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:23 am

I have never fully appreciated the need for the shaved horn or how it came about. Perhaps a botched sanding job when it was refinished after the Magical Mystery Tour days.

vinylrec · Post by **vinylrec** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:01 am

Wow! I've never seen this photo before. The pickguard still has the same crack that it had in 1966. Great photo!

bottom4 · Post by **bottom4** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:42 am

It appears that Paul's bass went through a number of changes:
The MMT paint job

Sanding it down to natural – not removing the horns. You can this in pictures from the Ram era. Also, sometime back, Mr. Yan the Pic Man posted on this forum a pic of Macca, I would say from the Ram/Wild Life period of the bass this way.

Somewhere between this time and prior to the bass going back to RIC the horns were removed - as shown in the picture in this tread.

And then the changes to the bass RIC made to get it ready for the 1976 WOA tour.

This is just what I have seen from various shots and time stamps of the bass.

What came back out of the factory is what the 4001C64S represents.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:42 am

Our website and literature states "Using the 4001C64 starting point, the 4001C64S fast forwards to incorporate these changes to replicate his bass as it finally exists today."

Is there an alternate meaning of "today" that I don't know about?

bigbajo60 · Post by **bigbajo60** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:10 pm

I re-read my starting post from a year ago, and I guess that I could've stated it more clearly.

In my post of a year ago, I was simply wondering what the possibility would be of ordering a C64S with those little "pre RIC shop visit" details... 's all.

Wasn't meant as anything more than a brief flight of fancy.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:43 pm

It's the title of this post ("But is it really "Wings Correct"?) that skews the apparent intent.

To answer THAT question directly, no it's not, and was never intended or represented to be.

bear · Post by **bear** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 2:06 pm

Therefore only this one can ever be considered "Wings" correct:

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:17 am

here's another pic of the wings Ric ...