Japanese RM1999's re-issues

[cheyenne]

I always thought it would be interesting to be able to go back in time and try some of these basses out and see how they sounded and played when they were brand new. Now wouldnt that be a kick ????

Im a firm believer in the aging process, the wood drying out, the neck breaking in, the blood, the sweat and just being played for years and years are the biggest contributing factors in the tone of the older basses.

[nukebass]

I always thought it would be interesting to be able to go back in time and try some of these basses out and see how they sounded and played when they were brand new. Now wouldnt that be a kick ????

Im a firm believer in the aging process, the wood drying out, the neck breaking in, the blood, the sweat and just being played for years and years are the biggest contributing factors in the tone of the older basses.

We've got some good recordings of what they sounded like when they were new

Does anybody think it is strange that America got paint for the 75th and Japan got vintage models for their 60th? Maybe the backlog is better now than it was in 2007.

[Moonie Man]

I think that the sound of the original ability does not come out now unless I play it more and am crowded because this is still a new.
However, I have own 1965 Gibson SG Standard, but do not look inferior at all when I set 1999 re-issue beside it.

[Lefty4003S8]

Sorry about the "Rant" earlier. Sorry if it seemed I was bashing Rickenbacker and the 1999!!!!!
I was only asking why the need for so many replicas of the RM1999, and only that.

The Rickenbacker bass is my FAVORITE bass-guitar of ALL basses EVER!!!!!

And.....the truth is, even with the basses I DO own......I'd be trying to acquire a Lefty version of this bass(IF it were available here in the USA).

Lefty4003S8

[pag]

At the cost of repeating myself too often..
All the V63 CS C64 and now "1999" basses are indeed replicas but thats all they ever can be.
A bit like replica guns are very close to the real thing but not quite THE real thing (thank goodness).

What the deal is with the RM is that at the moment in time they were made you had active HS pickups,aluminium bridge parts,brass chrome plated screws etc.,
no volute at the headstock and very little backwards rake plus very lightweight maple (in all the ones I have played).
One other big difference from reissue basses was the thickness of the fretboard.
It was thick and went flush to the top of the body at the joint and there was very little maple behind it.
All the ones I have played were as light as a feather compared to modern Ricks.
All that makes for a different sort of tonality when plugged in.

To really go for it Rickenbacker would have to meticulously copy all the finer details of say Wints bass and produce that.
The price would be something akin to the Gibson Les Paul Historic guitars and then some if it was possible to make a bass like that.
I can guarantee that any Rick loving bassist that played a bass like that would have just found out exactly what the fuss was all about.

[deaconblues]

Point taken. Interesting that some reissue Ricks are produced "warts and all," but on others there are sacrifices made for strength at the neck joint, headstock, etc.

But that's probably a warranty issue - they make many more 4001s today than they used to and they might have a lot of returns if the basses were really as thin and weak as they used to be. And I suspect most people are willing to have a less-accurate replica that will play better into the future - IMO.

It would be cool to see a super-accurate replica, too. But the original is always the best.

[johnallg]

I can guarantee that any Rick loving bassist that played a bass like that would have just found out exactly what the fuss was all about.

Pete, you just scared me off ever wanting to try an old RM. I probably couldn't live with myself until I rousted one up - at what cost.

[rickaddict]

My $.02:

I own a 1971 21-fret 4001 with a thin, flat D-shaped neck. And I've played a '63 4001, at least 2 '64 RM 1999's (including Andy's awesome Gibb bass) as well as a handful of mid to late 60's 4001's. And I've played at least 200 other 4001-type basses from the 70's to the current.

And my honest preference is for a stronger neck (I have absolutely no use for 35-95 gauge round wounds or TI jazz flats), truss rods that work, a tilt-back headstock, and a C-shaped neck. I don't prefer the tone of the 60's Ricks, I don't want a de-gaussing pickup, I don't prefer the feel of the 60's 4001/1999's to my newer Ricks and I don't believe that aged wood and a well-played/broken-in instrument necessarily sounds any better than a newer-wooded instrument.

I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. The old Ricks are cool as heck. I absolutely love the way they look, I respect them for their huge contribution to the music that I love. I love to see them get played and I'm happy that they make their owners happy.

I just prefer my newer Ricks.

[pag]

I have the same feelings about my CS.
I can insure it and maybe even replace it if it was destroyed.
Could never hope to do that with an RM.

[ricosound]

My $.02:

I own a 1971 21-fret 4001 with a thin, flat D-shaped neck. And I've played a '63 4001, at least 2 '64 RM 1999's (including Andy's awesome Gibb bass) as well as a handful of mid to late 60's 4001's. And I've played at least 200 other 4001-type basses from the 70's to the current.

And my honest preference is for a stronger neck (I have absolutely no use for 35-95 gauge round wounds or TI jazz flats), truss rods that work, a tilt-back headstock, and a C-shaped neck. I don't prefer the tone of the 60's Ricks, I don't want a de-gaussing pickup, I don't prefer the feel of the 60's 4001/1999's to my newer Ricks and I don't believe that aged wood and a well-played/broken-in instrument necessarily sounds any better than a newer-wooded instrument.

I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. The old Ricks are cool as heck. I absolutely love the way they look, I respect them for their huge contribution to the music that I love. I love to see them get played and I'm happy that they make their owners happy.

I just prefer my newer Ricks.

Amen.

Look at a 2010 4003. Full width inlays, walnut wings on a long headstock, vintage tone cap, thin two piece neck, skiny horns, plus reliable trus rods, modern finish, and soon available through RIC toasters and horseshoes (arguably non-magnetic). The only thing missing is checked binding.

Other than the rock-star provenance or collectability of a 60's bass I think the choice is clear.

[teeder]

I prefer my '92 V63 over all the old basses I have or have had. Not saying the old ones aren't cool though! My dream bass is still a '68 4001 or real RM1999.

[ricosound]

I played the same '63 that Jeff did and I thought it was going to break just holding it. My previous comment is a hats off to RIC in that they have steadily improved on the original design of this bass while addressing its various design flaws and the changing styles of the musician over the interveining 47 years

[scottpro1969]

My $.02:

I own a 1971 21-fret 4001 with a thin, flat D-shaped neck. And I've played a '63 4001, at least 2 '64 RM 1999's (including Andy's awesome Gibb bass) as well as a handful of mid to late 60's 4001's. And I've played at least 200 other 4001-type basses from the 70's to the current.

And my honest preference is for a stronger neck (I have absolutely no use for 35-95 gauge round wounds or TI jazz flats), truss rods that work, a tilt-back headstock, and a C-shaped neck. I don't prefer the tone of the 60's Ricks, I don't want a de-gaussing pickup, I don't prefer the feel of the 60's 4001/1999's to my newer Ricks and I don't believe that aged wood and a well-played/broken-in instrument necessarily sounds any better than a newer-wooded instrument.

I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. The old Ricks are cool as heck. I absolutely love the way they look, I respect them for their huge contribution to the music that I love. I love to see them get played and I'm happy that they make their owners happy.

I just prefer my newer Ricks.

Hmmm, so what you're saying Jeff, even though the 4001C64S is "new," it's actually "old," and since you like the newer Ricks you should sell it back to me

Hahaha...I've never regretted selling a bass so much as that one and a '74 4001, sigh.

[aceonbass]

The newer headstocks are actually at least 1/2" shorter than the pre-97 V63 headstocks. The styling is quite vintage looking, but RIC's cleverly taken some length out between the nut and E and G tuners and perhaps the end. The easy way to tell is when you see one of the current basses with a vintage truss rod cover on it. It goes all the way to the end. On the pre-97 headstocks, the truss rod cover had another 1/2" or so between it and the end of the headstock. When I see the later 4001CS basses with the post-97 headstocks and the not-so-correct bridge pickup surrounds on them, I cringe.

[rictified]

Hate to be the odd man out but I'd kill for a 60's 4001 with horseshoe, and I do prefer the 4001 over the RM 1999 but I'd settle