Reissue this blast from the past? What do you think?

[thisismusicinc]

I really like the idea of making a 4004 into a 4000 OS. Should be pretty easy when the horseshoe become available again.

[johnallg]

An S body and even a 4004L body has more body wing contouring than the old 4000 basses had, besides the square neck heel.

[egosheep]

I think it would be kind of cool to do a limited-edition reissue series. This doesn't appear (to me) to be too complicated to just plug into a CNC. Ric could make, say, 100 of these - they would probably sell quick even at a premium price. Then maybe they could move on to other models. Just a thought, YMMV.

It's a great idea, but when suggested in the past it's been said that to cover the cost of tooling, templating, new parts being prototyped etc, the cost of a reissue like this would be some astronomical figure... much like the price for this one.

I don't like the idea of a conversion so much, simply because the body shape is so different, and the neck is like mahogany or alder... just wouldn't look right IMO. Also, whats the point in modifying a working instrument to that degree if you can't put a real magnetic horseshoe on it?

[johnallg]

Also, whats the point in modifying a working instrument to that degree if you can't put a real magnetic horseshoe on it?

Ahhhh, but with due diligence one can.

[aceonbass]

For me, it's all about the functionality of a bass. Sure, it's great if it's got a cool vibe or look, but when you get into the "correctness" required by some Rick owners to make them happy, it just takes the fun out of it for me. You can bet if Ford were going to make a '55 T-Bird reissue, it wouldn't have that crappie suspension or carburation. So those who think having a reissued 14 pound bass with slab sides who's styling hadn't quite been nailed yet is more important than having a modern bass with modernized truss rods, electronics and styling with the flavor and look of the original...are more collector than player.

[deaconblues]

For me, it's all about the functionality of a bass. Sure, it's great if it's got a cool vibe or look, but when you get into the "correctness" required by some Rick owners to make them happy, it just takes the fun out of it for me. You can bet if Ford were going to make a '55 T-Bird reissue, it wouldn't have that crappie suspension or carburation. So those who think having a reissued 14 pound bass with slab sides who's styling hadn't quite been nailed yet is more important than having a modern bass with modernized truss rods, electronics and styling with the flavor and look of the original...are more collector than player.

I respectfully disagree. While modern techniques have improved playability in their own way, part of the fun of reissues and the vintage originals is the quirkiness of the original designs.

Lots of people complained about certain vintage-correct features on the 325c58, but I loved it more for them. I didn't want the Kauffman to be a Floyd Rose, I liked it being weird and funky. And I say this as a player foremost and a collector second. I ended up selling the c58 for a higher output 325. JMO.

[egosheep]

Lots of people complained about certain vintage-correct features on the 325c58, but I loved it more for them. I didn't want the Kauffman to be a Floyd Rose, I liked it being weird and funky. And I say this as a player foremost and a collector second. I ended up selling the c58 for a higher output 325. JMO.

+1. There are plenty of standard Ric's to choose from if you want the tried and true, and all the refinements that come over time. The point of a vintage reissue is to try to recapture something unique from another era. I would never look at a Combo 800 and say, "Oh man, this thing was a collossal failure, who needs it?" Just because something didn't catch on doesn't mean it's not going to be an amazing instrument to play.

[woodyng]

i'm with Dane on this point. i have no desire whatsoever for a reissue that doesn't incorporate modern updates. i owned a 68 telecaster bass that one of the previous owners had put a very big contour on the top,which made it way more usuably comfortable than the original slab body,and had replaced the pickup with a coil tappable sd. it was pretty killer,altho i sold it as i really did not like the neck. i imagine that a reissue of the original 4000 design would be impractical and probably not that desirable by most players.

[egosheep]

i'm with Dane on this point. i have no desire whatsoever for a reissue that doesn't incorporate modern updates. i owned a 68 telecaster bass that one of the previous owners had put a very big contour on the top,which made it way more usuably comfortable than the original slab body,and had replaced the pickup with a coil tappable sd. it was pretty killer,altho i sold it as i really did not like the neck. i imagine that a reissue of the original 4000 design would be impractical and probably not that desirable by most players.

Not to belabor the point, but how many Tele's do you see with a forearm contour? I realize yours was a bass, but I love those old slab bass bodies... it's a classic look! Sometimes there's room for improvement, but it doesn't necessarily negate the classic original and make it totally inferior. If we were to carry this line of reasoning forward, we would end up with something like the new Firebird X, which is all modern as can be, but has no soul. I don't want to see robot tuners on my Rickenbacker!

I do hope that at some point in the future they will consider other vintage reissues from their history, like the Combo's, F-series, Capri's and the 4000.

[woodyng]

no problem,i get your point as well. i am just more interested in something that i will find usuable as well as the style aspect. my 74 4000 has been modded quite a bit,to make it more usable to me, with nonspec bridge,nut,frets,cavity shielding,but it basically looks the same. i think a tribute model would still be really special even if it was not completely built to the old spec,just like the v63,or the c64 for example.

[Ric N. Backer]

It wouldn't be hard at all to mod a 4004L MG to look like that.

Absolutely - by far the easiest and possibly the cheapest way of getting the look of the original 4000 down.

Getting everything 100% correct for the purist is going to be very hard and very expensive...

I'm not sure the majority would be looking for 100% authenticity. The V63 and C64 weren't totally true to form but were appreciated (and sold).

[rickaddict]

My $.02:

I'm all for modding to fine tune (no pun intended) an instrument to your liking. If you want a 4001C64S with a hi-gain instead of a horseshoe, then buy a C64S and put a hi-gain into it. If you want more of a contour on the body, then sand it (or have someone else do it) to your liking. If you want shielding or a different nut, then swap the nut out.

I think if the late 50's 4000 were to be re-issued, then it should be re-issued as close as possible to the original. Sure...put the modern truss rods on it and tilt the headstock back. Maybe even give it a thinner slab so that it won't weigh in at 13 lbs...But I think it should be as close as possible to the original, and whoever wants to mod it further can go ahead and do so.

[8mileshigh]

I don't find them heavy........must be my big strong muscles

[johnallg]

I think if the late 50's 4000 were to be re-issued, then it should be re-issued as close as possible to the original. Sure...put the modern truss rods on it and tilt the headstock back. Maybe even give it a thinner slab so that it won't weigh in at 13 lbs...But I think it should be as close as possible to the original, and whoever wants to mod it further can go ahead and do so.

I'm with you Jeff - if it is the late 50s reissue, then it by definition should be as original. Sure, modern truss rods, but the slab would have to be the same and same wood to try to keep that original tone. Dare I mention a magnetic horseshoe pickup? Headstock angle - mixed feelings on this. The original didn't have it but we all know the benefit if it is angled.

Like I said earlier, otherwise, whats the point?

[gareth]

Personally, although I like the original vintage 4000, a perfect re-issue still wouldn't be the same. You can only get that patina, that seasoning of the wood and pickups, through age and use.

RIC themselves made this point when they built the 4001CS, and I paraphrase somewhat here. They apparently went to great lengths to duplicate Squire's original bass, down to planing the body the same way, making it weigh exactly the same, and even winding pickups to give the same output as his originals. What they ended up with was a bass that whilst identical for all intents and purposes, still didn't sound the same. They had no recipe for 40 odd years of player mojo and aging. I'm sure someone will jump in here and correct me on details here, but that's the gist of it as I understand it.

It think it would require less tooling and make more sense to re-introduce the 4000 again. Other than tooling for the set neck, I'm not sure what else they would need to do. After all, my own 4000 (and many others) came routed for the neck pickup as standard, and so were clearly diverted from 4001 production for many runs. (I have seen them non-routed, but rarely). Whether there is a market for it is up to the Halls to decide, but I'm pretty sure that they would have done it by now if there was. Wouldn't hurt to throw a few of those nice "factory one-offs" out there to test waters though.