Kids...ajish4 wrote:SIGH...I REALLY wanted a RIC from my birth year.....
Yeah, that's extremely cool...
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Kids...ajish4 wrote:SIGH...I REALLY wanted a RIC from my birth year.....
cjj wrote:
Kids...
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I didn't think there was any such manufacturer way back then!ajish4 wrote:SIGH...I REALLY wanted a RIC from my birth year.....looks like I'll never get one now!![]()
Well there were, but they made Roman Chariots.rickenbrother wrote:I didn't think there was any such manufacturer way back then!ajish4 wrote:SIGH...I REALLY wanted a RIC from my birth year.....looks like I'll never get one now!![]()
![]()
This is what I am thinking, also.leftybass wrote:Well, my bet is that this '61 bass probably had the neck pickup added after the fact, simply because we see only two controls for the bass....It could be the 'Vagabond' 4000 deluxe with an added pickup.....
All of the 'thinner' bodied Rickenbackers were introduced in 1961, so I would say the Deluxe 4000 is also from that period.BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS wrote:there's a pic of one in smith's book. i wonder what the ser # of that one was ?
Almost certainly the thin body. I figure when they made the body thinner to cut down the weight, they discovered that the reduced weight of the body made it a neck diver. So they lengthened the upper horn to place the strap pin farther toward the head, restoring balance. I think it is safe to say that all the production thick-bodied 4000 basses had the short horn, and all the thin body basses had the long horn. Makes sense?walker wrote:Compelling, indeed. The Vagabond photo answers some of the "devil's advocate" questions I had. I've seen two "prototype" basses from the late 50's in person, (courtesy of Mike Lull in the mid-90's,) and the bodies were very thick, 5/4" I'm guessing. What's the thickness of this '61?
cheyenne wrote:Wow! Rarebird indeed.
I'd like to officially name this bass "The Missing Link".