Anatomy Of A Rickenbacker Bass - Part 9

[rickfan60]

Thanks Joshua! I'll do what I can but the original concept broke down neatly into 12 installments. I could do others, I suppose but I am not sure they would be interesting enough to post. I'll give it some thought though and if there is enough material left I'll do it.

[cjj]

How could any of this technical stuff not be interesting enough to post? This has been the best series of posts ever!

[ram]

.... There are only 3 installments remaining - I promise.

WHAT! whatever will I do for reading pleasure after that? I guess maybe re-read them....

[ilan]

A quick way to tell the difference between old (pre-73) and new (post-80's) checkerboard material: count the checks along the jack plate. The old material is 25 CPJP (checks per jack plate length), the new material is 23 CPJP.

[rickfan60]

My measurement is not very precise so there could very well be a difference between old and new.

[Renfield]

On solid body instruments binding is just trim and only there for aesthetics.

First of all, thank you for these very informative posts.

Given that binding (and the ever-accompanying triangle fret markers ) are purely aesthetic considerations, and that they increase build cost, I don't understand why RIC doesn't offer even just ONE unbound version. Would it cannibalize sales of the very pricey (and now discontinued) C64? Did they sell poorly?

Price difference in '76 between my 4000 (with extra pickup) and a 4001 was minimal. I chose it for the aesthetics.

Lately I'm getting the bug to pick up a new RIC, but there's nothing available without bindings. So I'm in the used market.

Not intended as a whine. Just a post-NAMM observation.

Cheers!

[cjj]

Well, there are the 4004 series basses. They do not have binding...

[jingle_jangle]

On solid body instruments binding is just trim and only there for aesthetics.

First of all, thank you for these very informative posts.

Given that binding (and the ever-accompanying triangle fret markers ) are purely aesthetic considerations, and that they increase build cost...

Binding serves the same utilitarian function on solid and hollow-bodied instruments. It cushions the sharp edge of the body from bumps and minimizes nicks to the wood. It's much more resilient than a wooden edge. True, there's a decent thickness of transparent or ambered CV over most Rick binding, but aside from the occasional chip in the CV or even the plastic, binding remains a useful feature on an instrument. In other words, it isn't there just for looks.

Now, those triangular markers, they're another (beautiful) story...

[cassius987]

Lately I'm getting the bug to pick up a new RIC, but there's nothing available without bindings. So I'm in the used market.

4004 basses have no binding, and are still in the lineup. As CJ already posted. All of the late 2008 Ciis I have played (3 in total) have been superb instruments.

[ricmic]

Ted, thank you very much for that post. Being rather new to this forum, I was unaware of your tutorials. All I can say is, great stuff. I will look more closely for more. Again, thank you. Mark

[johnallg]

Ted, thank you very much for that post. Being rather new to this forum, I was unaware of your tutorials. All I can say is, great stuff. I will look more closely for more. Again, thank you. Mark

On the main page for this bass forum, Ted's posts are a sticky. When you see it you will think " How did I miss it before??!!"

http://www.rickresource.com/phpBB3/view ... 2&t=388361

[Renfield]

On solid body instruments binding is just trim and only there for aesthetics.

First of all, thank you for these very informative posts.

Given that binding (and the ever-accompanying triangle fret markers ) are purely aesthetic considerations, and that they increase build cost...

Binding serves the same utilitarian function on solid and hollow-bodied instruments. It cushions the sharp edge of the body from bumps and minimizes nicks to the wood. It's much more resilient than a wooden edge...

Thanks for an expert refinisher's perspective! I read great things about your work around here. My post addressed the lead graph from this article, but I think I understand your perspective.

Your argument for a utilitarian purpose makes sense. But to my eye, it looks like mutilating good wood in advance of any possible future dings. Like amputating a leg so you never have to worry about breaking it. Or putting pep boys door molding on a Ferrari.

I keep it in the case, but I gigged in L.A. for ten years with my '76. Perhaps it has led a relatively sheltered life. But all I have to go by is the perimeter of it's unbound body. And I couldn't be happier with how tough the unbound wood is. In 33 years I've probably done more damage to the flat areas than the edge. Belt buckles were big in the 70's.

As for the 4004, well it's interesting. I'm sure it's a very nice bass. I do very much like the dot frets (ahem) and the overall distinctive profile. But it's got some kind of pee bass thing going on down stairs.

Sorta reminds me of Jeep when some designer put rectangular headlights on their namesake icon. Or even that "new" Coke debacle. Good intentions gone bad.

Anyway, thanks for all your thoughts, and again thanks for this excellent series of articles.

And I'd still really like to see an old school unbound dot fret RIC back in the lineup. Somewhere. Hello Santa, is this thing on?

Cheers,
George