When did they stop making the 4001?

[jps]

.....early 4003s didn't have the "skunk stripe" while 4001s did.

Um, neither did later 4003s with the exception of certain one-offs!

[rictified]

Well, along with the truss rods being reversed, early 4003s didn't have the "skunk stripe" while 4001s did.

I've owned a lot of both late 4001's and early 4003's and those were the only differences that I know of.

[rickenbrother]

The 4001 was completely phased out of production by '84. A last few may have come out of the factory that year. I'm sure the dealer meant 4003.

They continued with the 4001V63 in that same year. Albeit being an s model, technically, 4001's have been in production until they ended the C series.

Now I think about it, is there actually any difference between an early 80s 4001 and a 4003 from the same year, except for truss rod and name?
My guess is there is none.

I meant the standard production 4001.
As far as differences besides the truss rods and TRC go, the 4003 did not have the shedua strip, the neck laminations were different and the tailpiece had two more screws.

[bartyclue]

whilst enjoying a "kokanee tallboy, eh ?"

umm maybe more than one

[cjj]

.....early 4003s didn't have the "skunk stripe" while 4001s did.

Um, neither did later 4003s with the exception of certain one-offs!

Well, yeah...

[BrockBNoe]

In my opinion the differences in the 4001 and 4003 don't seem like enough to consider them 2 different models.

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

In my opinion the differences in the 4001 and 4003 don't seem like enough to consider them 2 different models.

you be on meds, boy ! side by side, there are many differences depending on the years compared. you just have to look at each part or body construction and compare. (then you'll come back asking for forgiveness ! )

[BrockBNoe]

In my opinion the differences in the 4001 and 4003 don't seem like enough to consider them 2 different models.

you be on meds, boy ! side by side, there are many differences depending on the years compared. you just have to look at each part or body construction and compare. (then you'll come back asking for forgiveness ! )

That's what I mean. Over the years the 4001 varied a ton, and same with the 4003. Like, they could of made a new model when they gave the 4003 the thinner necks, push/pull pot and started the thinner horn and full width inlays.
Is there something I'm missing here? I'm not an expert, but its like they put like a few years worth up changes to the 4001 at once and called it the 4003.

[cjj]

Well, there was a period of overlap when they made the 4001 and the 4003. I'm guessing they called the new version a 4003 in order to distinguish it from the still in production older model since there were obvious differences in the two. I seem to remember when the 4003 came out it was billed as having a stronger/better neck design, specifically made to handle the new higher tension round wound strings.

I had a 4001 at the time and really wanted a new 4003 just because of that, even though I was using rounds at the time, but was always a little worried...

[BrockBNoe]

Ahh, ok, that makes more sense. I forgot about the overlap period.

[wim]

In my opinion the differences in the 4001 and 4003 don't seem like enough to consider them 2 different models.

you be on meds, boy ! side by side, there are many differences depending on the years compared. you just have to look at each part or body construction and compare. (then you'll come back asking for forgiveness ! )

http://www.rickresource.com/register/us ... llsize.jpg

1982 4003

http://www.rickresource.com/register/us ... llsize.jpg

1982 4001

You tell me...
Except for stripe, rods, name and two extra screws these are the same basses.

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

You tell me...
Except for stripe, rods, name and two extra screws these are the same basses.
Wim Vanderstraeten (wim)


hmmmm....so except for (1)center stripe (2)truss rods (3) name plate designation (4) two piece different pickguard with xtra screws...they are the same bass ??? same basic design appearance but different contruction implementations. when i first saw a two piece pickguard/two piece neck rick at "the music shop" in thornhill, ontario, i did a massive double take. did not even know until joining this forum that the truss rods were switched 180 degrees. i had read about re-designed truss rods, but it never really specified what was really going on except for "allowing the use of round wound strings" . i can see how they wanted to beef up the amount of wood in the neck to body area, but the current 4003 has me worried as they have pulled back the body wings in that area to the point that the lower wing edge now meets the pickguard at the end of the fretboard. this means less side lamination against the neck so now all the strength is in the center section.

[rictified]

This is my take on it: 4001's were getting a bad name because of people putting Rotosounds on and not adjusting the neck right, so they took the same bass and reversed the truss rods made a two piece pick guard and called it a 4003.

[Ric N. Backer]

You tell me...
Except for stripe, rods, name and two extra screws these are the same basses.
Wim Vanderstraeten (wim)


hmmmm....so except for (1)center stripe (2)truss rods (3) name plate designation (4) two piece different pickguard with xtra screws...they are the same bass ??? same basic design appearance but different contruction implementations. when i first saw a two piece pickguard/two piece neck rick at "the music shop" in thornhill, ontario, i did a massive double take. did not even know until joining this forum that the truss rods were switched 180 degrees. i had read about re-designed truss rods, but it never really specified what was really going on except for "allowing the use of round wound strings" . i can see how they wanted to beef up the amount of wood in the neck to body area, but the current 4003 has me worried as they have pulled back the body wings in that area to the point that the lower wing edge now meets the pickguard at the end of the fretboard. this means less side lamination against the neck so now all the strength is in the center section.

I know what you're saying.

Look at the difference regarding how far up the wings extend on the 1982, 2009, and 2010 models (4003). It's diminishing (receding hairline ). I also included the 'other' fellow which incorporates the neck-through design for comparison.

Diminishing stock around the neck kind of makes me a little concerned about the neck's structural integrity - especially long-term.

1982

2009

2010

"Other Fellow" 2004

[BrockBNoe]

I wouldn't be all the concerned about the necks. Would that little but make that much of a difference?
Also, with the little things like that and the thinner horn, is there any purpose from RIck's point of view?