When did they stop making the 4001?

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

i don't believe the t-bird is neck thru. i've only seen set neck versions with a large square heel like a les paul. if ric was worried about wood strength at the neck pickup , i would figure the usual bottom horn lamination at the last fret would add more strength than not. looks better too in my opinion. note the upper horn is receding as well.

[Ric N. Backer]

i don't believe the t-bird is neck thru. i've only seen set neck versions with a large square heel like a les paul. if ric was worried about wood strength at the neck pickup , i would figure the usual bottom horn lamination at the last fret would add more strength than not. looks better too in my opinion. note the upper horn is receding as well.

The Gibson Thunderbird is, and has been, a neck-thru instrument. The neck, however, is a nine-piece laminate. It's much thinner (toward the nut) than a 4003 bass neck.

And yes, you are correct. The horns on the new 4003 (since April 2009) have gotten thinner.

[nukebass]

I suppose one could make the argument that when the bass changed pickups and got the center stripe in the 70s it could have been called a different model. It seems like the model change really corresponded with the new truss rod design. Regardless of why or how it happened, it happened and RIC hasn't change the name since. Maybe one day they'll introduce a 4006 model with new bridge, tuners, pickups and body shape. One can only wait and see

Speaking of truss rods, did all RIC instruments get the new truss rods back in the 80s? Most of the truss rod problems I've seen seem to be with basses and not guitars.

[rickenbrother]

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.

The 4001 had the stigma of necks not being able to withstand strings that were not low tension, although that was mostly due to people not properly adjusting the truss rods. The new model 4003 designation shed that stigma.

[BrockBNoe]

So the name change was more of a selling point, more of a "hey, we *fixed* that problem" when there wasn't really one?

[johnnysain]

Compare it to your laundry detergent.

How many times has it been "NEW & IMPROVED!",...over the past 20 years?

Are your clothes really any cleaner?

[BrockBNoe]

Compare it to your laundry detergent.

How many times has it been "NEW & IMPROVED!",...over the past 20 years?

Are your clothes really any cleaner?

Oh. My. GOD
We've been FOOLED

[rickenbrother]

I know about comparing the difference between the 4001/4003 and laundry detergent "improvements"!

So the name change was more of a selling point, more of a "hey, we *fixed* that problem" when there wasn't really one?

Music was evolving and getting louder at a very fast pace in the 70's, faster than any established guitar maker was ready to improve their popular instruments. The 4001 left the Rickenbacker factory set up with a set of low tension flatwounds. Then almost everyone who bought a 4001 wanted to sound like Chris Squire and/or Geddy Lee, so they installed a set of Rotosound Swing Bass RS66 strings to get the trebly sound and then not setting up their 4001 properly or not at all. That Rotosound set has a much higher tension than the original RIC flats did. Some of the 4001 necks were a bit weak and couldn't handle much more tension than the original set, but most of them were ruined by poor maintenance. So yes, there was a problem, if not with the 4001, then with poor or lack of proper maintenance. I've never had a problem with any 4001 I've ever owned.
By '80 The 4003 was introduced, which RIC finds a way to make better all the time.

[iiipopes]

Compare it to your laundry detergent.

How many times has it been "NEW & IMPROVED!",...over the past 20 years?

Are your clothes really any cleaner?

Oh. My. GOD
We've been FOOLED

Yes, but he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me.

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

i don't believe the t-bird is neck thru. i've only seen set neck versions with a large square heel like a les paul. if ric was worried about wood strength at the neck pickup , i would figure the usual bottom horn lamination at the last fret would add more strength than not. looks better too in my opinion. note the upper horn is receding as well.

The Gibson Thunderbird is, and has been, a neck-thru instrument. The neck, however, is a nine-piece laminate. It's much thinner (toward the nut) than a 4003 bass neck.





you are most correct on the t-bird after i did some proper research. not the usual gibson way. i stand corrected. i have played a few, but they were tobacco burst which hid the construction from me at the neck/body area.

[weemac]

I believe the non-reverse thunderbird is a set neck.....

Eden.

[haw]

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

Wow, never noticed that much variation there. My '05 MG has a top horn the same as that '82 and the bottom is between the '82 and the '09.

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

my RM'64 horns are top between the 19/20 fret center and the lower at the 20 fret.

[Ric N. Backer]

I believe the non-reverse thunderbird is a set neck.....

Eden.

Ahhh yes, mid-1965 to 1969, the period when many Gibson purists believe the company had lost its way (with respect to the Thunderbird). Some feel it's not a true Thunderbird because it lacks the neck-thru construction and original body design.

[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

Wow, never noticed that much variation there. My '05 MG has a top horn the same as that '82 and the bottom is between the '82 and the '09.

It would be great to see a close up shot of an original 60s model, and 70s, too. Just for comparison.