1960 4000 replica

[jakeox]

Hey everyone -- been away for a while, got a lot going on (including a new EP we're recording right now), and all's well. A couple months ago, I received a bass that Larry Davis had been working on for me for a while, and I think it's well worth sharing. We started with a 4003s from the late 80s that had been stripped and generally abused, and turned it into a pretty faithful replica of a 4000 circa 1960 (whenever they went to maple body wings and the thinner body). Along the way I picked up some vintage parts, got a few replica parts from Winfield Vintage, and Larry worked some serious magic, building new body wings and headstock wings, a pickguard, and tuner posts, not to mention a fantastic fireglo finish.

I have some great hi-res pictures on a CD somewhere in my desk, but for now, Larry has a couple nice pictures posted on his website (scroll all the way down). I'll post some more when I find that CD.

Best part about it is that it plays and sounds beautifully -- the notes have a clarity and punch to them that none of my other basses can match.

[cheyenne]

Nice Jake. How does it sound?

[libratune]

Very cool, Jake. Kudos to you and Larry. He really worked some magic with your bass. The headstock alone looks like a major project, with the thicker posts and radical shape modification. Not to mention the (3-piece?) nut.

In case you haven't seen this thread, here's the 4004 approach to re-creating the vintage Rick bass look: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=400038

[Grey]

I have to say that.... it looks really akward. I'm trying not to be negative but, there's just nothing I like about it. The headstock looks gigantic and smushed, and the body horns are just....weird. But if you like it, that's all that matters.

[woodyng]

wow-two 50's tributes in one week,very nice!

[johnallg]

I have to say that.... it looks really akward. I'm trying not to be negative but, there's just nothing I like about it. The headstock looks gigantic and smushed, and the body horns are just....weird. But if you like it, that's all that matters.

Erik, that's pretty much how they looked.

http://www.rickenbacker.com/gallery_ima ... _year=1960

Your opinion is valid for you though.

[Grey]

Erik, that's pretty much how they looked.

http://www.rickenbacker.com/gallery_ima ... _year=1960

Your opinion is valid for you though.

The one in OP's link seems like an exagerrated version of the one you posted. The headstock is big, but it's also tall so it dosen't appear 'fat'. The horns do have a bit of an odd shape but they're more restrained and look like a classic Rick.

Actaully, i'm really liking that image. I should look at the gallery on the corporate site more often. That bass looks gorgeous.

[Tarrbot]

Erik, that's pretty much how they looked.

http://www.rickenbacker.com/gallery_ima ... _year=1960

Your opinion is valid for you though.

The one in OP's link seems like an exagerrated version of the one you posted. The headstock is big, but it's also tall so it dosen't appear 'fat'. The horns do have a bit of an odd shape but they're more restrained and look like a classic Rick.

Actaully, i'm really liking that image. I should look at the gallery on the corporate site more often. That bass looks gorgeous.

I am by no means an expert on an early 4000 but did well in class spotting differences on picture charts and I've got to say that about the only difference I can tell from the replica and the one on the corp site is the pickguard and placement.

I think it looks pretty good, actually.

[johnallg]

There is a '59 and a '61 on Graham's site that will show what Erik is talking about.

http://www.rickenbacker.me.uk/www.ricke ... .html#grid

Still a cool bass Jake. I'll bet the magnet shoe pickup sounds huge and 3D.

[Grey]

There is a '59 and a '61 on Graham's site that will show what Erik is talking about.

http://www.rickenbacker.me.uk/www.ricke ... .html#grid

Still a cool bass Jake. I'll bet the magnet shoe pickup sounds huge and 3D.

Ah, definitely in that one.

[paologregorio]

There is a '59 and a '61 on Graham's site that will show what Erik is talking about.

http://www.rickenbacker.me.uk/www.ricke ... .html#grid

Still a cool bass Jake. I'll bet the magnet shoe pickup sounds huge and 3D.

Is the `59 the one that GG had at SCARF `07 that weighed a bajillion pounds and someone had painted blue?

Larry does amazing work; the guitar I'm playing in my avatar photo is the "Big Red" 360 WB on his website. . . though I suppose it's actually a 365 WB because it has a vibrato.

Congratulations on your lovely transformation! Eventually, I want a "Hawaiian" replica, which would be similar to a combo 850, but with body binding and triangle inlays, and possibly two standard toasters. I'll take mine with a Bigsby B5 though.

[egosheep]

The only thing I saw that was off was the knobs and the plexi bridge holder. Usually the plexi pieces on the bass are much longer than the bridge cover itself. The knobs also seem to be the newer Ric chrome type. Those original 50's chrome knobs is a huge detail on a bass like this. I also don't like the way the pickguard swings up around each side of the pickup... seems like it should be a curved line reflecting the curve of the body.

The issue that this raises for me is this: What does it take to make a "kosher" fantasy Ric(as many of us would like to own)? When you're looking at this bass, needing a new body, new pickguard, new bridge and tailpiece, new pickup, knobs, new trc and heavy headstock modification, the only thing original is the neck and the serial. It seems terrible to destroy a perfectly good bass like this... if the only reason for it is to lend an air of legitimacy to a largely luthier-created dream instrument. It's your guitar and you can do what you want with it, but if the object is to avoid infringing copyrights, I'm not totally sure it's achieved this way. IE... if I were to handbuild a body in this 50's 4000 shape, I would be liable for a cease and desist, but if I have a project Rickenbacker ready to destroy, I would be in the clear?

Does this mean if I buy a valid serial # jack and or TRC, I can have a new body and neck built for it to sit on? Where is the line drawn?

[aceonbass]

I think using the original neck and serial number keeps him in the clear, but I don't think building a whole new bass around a neck (or the other way around with body wings) make it a Rickenbacker. I feel that too much of the original instrument is gone. Looking carefully at it, almost everything about it is wrong. The pickguard, the plexi mute slides (which look like recycled finger pulls), the shape of the horns, the headstock shape, the truss rod cover. The tuners aren't right either. There are tuners out there that are exact without having to fab anything. I think it honestly comes off looking like a bad copy. It just doesn't look exact, and for what I'm sure it cost, it should be nearly indistinguishable.

[8mileshigh]

Is the `59 the one that GG had at SCARF `07 that weighed a bajillion pounds and someone had painted blue?

No......that's another one

[8mileshigh]

I'm not sure about the 1960's headstocks, but the '61 does seem slightly more squat that the '59's, but maybe that's an optical illusion?