1960 4000 replica

[cheyenne]

Wow! Is this a critic feeding frenzy or what?

Its Jake's bass! He can do with it what he wants. I see alot of Rickenbacker mod's here that dont really trip my trigger, but I always try to be supportive and respectful of the project and the owner.

Keep in mind that most folks dont have deep pockets to get all the necessary "accurate" pieces needed, and they settle for what they can afford at the time. Not that that is Jakes case, but then again maybe it is.

lighten up guys...........

[ricosound]

I have a question. In looking at the before and after, why was it necessary to fabricate new body wings. If this was a tribute bass with a full coverage PG to hide the treble route, and already an "S" model W/O binding, it seems like it could have been re-contoured without as much work? Very nice project I say, would look cool on stage.

[aceonbass]

Although I would draw the line at cutting off the body wings for a project like this, it's not that I have a problem with the concept of an early 4000 replica. It's that it's not an accurate replica. The proportions and details are not like any of the early 4000's I've seen. For the amount of money and talent that went into doing this project, every detail should have been right. The clear plexi mute slider parts should have all been there, the correct tuners should have been used, and those are just the two most obvious points that I believe are indisputable. Those were also far easier parts to get right that cutting off the body wings or refinishing the bass. I just don't get why such important details were over looked and others weren't executed accurately. I'd be really interested to see what Paul W. thinks about this since his eye and talents are far beyond mine.

[mgauction]

I like it! Congrats, Jake!

[dgwguitars]

I have a question. In looking at the before and after, why was it necessary to fabricate new body wings. If this was a tribute bass with a full coverage PG to hide the treble route, and already an "S" model W/O binding, it seems like it could have been re-contoured without as much work? Very nice project I say, would look cool on stage.

Wes,

The new wings were required to replicate the lower body shape and horns based on photos of the three examples that were used to set the shape of the body. As the bass was, the body couldn't have accommodated what we determined was the right shape.

Larry

[Grey]

The new wings were required to replicate the lower body shape and horns based on photos of the three examples that were used to set the shape of the body. As the bass was, the body couldn't have accommodated what we determined was the right shape.

Larry

I'd still really like to see those examples.

[RobRick]

I don't need to see the examples. I think this 4000 retro project is cool! Wish I could do something like it.

[aceonbass]

I'd like to see those examples too. When we put our modded basses on here in a public forum, we get what we get. Unfortunately, this looks like "The king's new clothes" to me. Unless my monitor's aspect ratio is outta whack, the body and headstock look too wide in relation to everything else I've seen from that era.

[Lefty4003S8]

Well.......I like this bass!!!!! I think it looks GREAT!!!! Can I get one in Lefty????
Great job!!!!!!!


Lefty4003s8








Do not drink from the toilet when taking Lyrica

[2ndHand72Rick]

I think its a cool project and looks pretty close to the real thing as well.Nice on Jake

[jingle_jangle]

I had planned to keep mum, especially because there are valid points on all ten sides of this discussion.

Of course I've got opinions on this project (as I do on most everything that comes into view that's Rick-related), and I've dealt personally with many of the people involved in this thread.

I like the idea of taking something that exists and is in regular supply, and turning it into something much more interesting and rare, and built to to a high standard. I don't think that it needs to be 100% accurate or faithful to the original, if it's done in the right spirit and pushes the right--positive--buttons. Toss in one jarring visual or detail, however, and you lose credit among the faithful for all the good stuff that's been done.

First off, I have nothing but respect but Larry Davis and the work he does. It's conscientious, high-quality and it seems that he hit his stride about three years ago and goes from strength to strength. Because he's in the creative field, his eye for detail is generally very good. He's a gentleman as well. Important in a people-oriented service business.

Jake has been a customer of mine in the past, and he's tops in my book, too--communicative, patient, and clear in his wishes and instructions, besides being pleasant in his manner.

I have watched this thread develop, and of course I check into Larry's website from time to time to stay abreast of his projects. I carefully noted and recorded my initial perceptions of the photos on Larry's website and compared his work to the early basses I've had the pleasure to work on and photograph. I believe that the photo referenced on the RIC website is an accurate representation of an early 4000.

I am having difficulty seeing Larry's modifications as capturing the look and feel of the real item. If it's meant to be a not-too literal "tribute" instrument, then OK, but it doesn't hit the proper notes to trigger a grin and thumbs-up, but instead I find that I feel a bit confused, as things ranging from general shape right down to details make me wonder exactly what the intention was here. It's evocative, sure, but misses the elegant proportions of the original (something that the 4004 conversion captures very well). Additionally, the details seem to miss the mark as well, which only makes me feel frustrated. I'm sure the quality of the work is outstanding, and I want to grin, but can't, because visually it misses the boat and I can't get over that.

The body and headstock both are too squat. I suppose this could be a problem with the photos, but I somehow doubt it. This is a critical cue to the elegant proportions of the original. I don't see this change of proportions as an improvement over the original.

The second thing that troubles me is the left edge of the pickguard, which is a bit too free-flowing around the area of the horseshoe. The major curve of the guard, on the original item, follows the waist of the bass with a detour around the horseshoe bezel, to include an area on which the bezel rests so it sits level. The inside radius of the section that sits under the bezel has, on the original, a minimum radius as a functional consideration--a sharp inside corner, while being less interruptive to the eye, is very weak in acrylic plastic, concentrates stress, and leads to cracking.

On the conversion, the radius is carried so broadly that, insteads of the left edge appearing to follow the curve of the waist of the body, it appears to be two separate crescents, losing the sublety and drawing the eye to the mismatch.

The fat, squat headstock looks like way too much real estate for that tiny TRC to be sitting on. The original is right on the edge of looking awkward, so disturbing its careful balance is a risky proposition, and in this case not successful in its execution.

Stuff like accuracy of the knobs are less important than their placement, and the length of the bridge cover rails wouldn't be important if they weren't such a strong graphic element in the original design. Shortening them only draws more attention to the squatness of the body.

Lastly, and this is going to be a problem with any late-model conversion that uses some original parts, the whole thing is too thin and would be odd in person, though this is admittedly less important than getting the main front view to be convincing. The real items were thick--nominally 2" of solid, heavy hardwood--and looked as heavy as they proved to be.

So, points for the idea and intention. I'm sure quality is superb. But both proportion and detailing fall short of the ideal in my head. This leads to confusion and disappointment, some of which was expressed in this thread. RRFers who tend to be very positive and supportive, rather than critical, express their support. Others point out the sources of their disquiet, both major and minor.

There. I've covered my bases, and can only say that I am my own toughest critic, too. I hope that I've been clear and fair enough to not offend or embarass anyone, and I sure would like to know if I've taken too narrow a view or mis-stated or mis-interpreted anything.

[dgwguitars]

I had planned to keep mum, especially because there are valid points on all ten sides of this discussion.

Of course I've got opinions on this project (as I do on most everything that comes into view that's Rick-related), and I've dealt personally with many of the people involved in this thread.

I like the idea of taking something that exists and is in regular supply, and turning it into something much more interesting and rare, and built to to a high standard. I don't think that it needs to be 100% accurate or faithful to the original, if it's done in the right spirit and pushes the right--positive--buttons. Toss in one jarring visual or detail, however, and you lose credit among the faithful for all the good stuff that's been done.

First off, I have nothing but respect but Larry Davis and the work he does. It's conscientious, high-quality and it seems that he hit his stride about three years ago and goes from strength to strength. Because he's in the creative field, his eye for detail is generally very good. He's a gentleman as well. Important in a people-oriented service business.

Jake has been a customer of mine in the past, and he's tops in my book, too--communicative, patient, and clear in his wishes and instructions, besides being pleasant in his manner.

I have watched this thread develop, and of course I check into Larry's website from time to time to stay abreast of his projects. I carefully noted and recorded my initial perceptions of the photos on Larry's website and compared his work to the early basses I've had the pleasure to work on and photograph. I believe that the photo referenced on the RIC website is an accurate representation of an early 4000.

I am having difficulty seeing Larry's modifications as capturing the look and feel of the real item. If it's meant to be a not-too literal "tribute" instrument, then OK, but it doesn't hit the proper notes to trigger a grin and thumbs-up, but instead I find that I feel a bit confused, as things ranging from general shape right down to details make me wonder exactly what the intention was here. It's evocative, sure, but misses the elegant proportions of the original (something that the 4004 conversion captures very well). Additionally, the details seem to miss the mark as well, which only makes me feel frustrated. I'm sure the quality of the work is outstanding, and I want to grin, but can't, because visually it misses the boat and I can't get over that.

The body and headstock both are too squat. I suppose this could be a problem with the photos, but I somehow doubt it. This is a critical cue to the elegant proportions of the original. I don't see this change of proportions as an improvement over the original.

The second thing that troubles me is the left edge of the pickguard, which is a bit too free-flowing around the area of the horseshoe. The major curve of the guard, on the original item, follows the waist of the bass with a detour around the horseshoe bezel, to include an area on which the bezel rests so it sits level. The inside radius of the section that sits under the bezel has, on the original, a minimum radius as a functional consideration--a sharp inside corner, while being less interruptive to the eye, is very weak in acrylic plastic, concentrates stress, and leads to cracking.

On the conversion, the radius is carried so broadly that, insteads of the left edge appearing to follow the curve of the waist of the body, it appears to be two separate crescents, losing the sublety and drawing the eye to the mismatch.

The fat, squat headstock looks like way too much real estate for that tiny TRC to be sitting on. The original is right on the edge of looking awkward, so disturbing its careful balance is a risky proposition, and in this case not successful in its execution.

Stuff like accuracy of the knobs are less important than their placement, and the length of the bridge cover rails wouldn't be important if they weren't such a strong graphic element in the original design. Shortening them only draws more attention to the squatness of the body.

Lastly, and this is going to be a problem with any late-model conversion that uses some original parts, the whole thing is too thin and would be odd in person, though this is admittedly less important than getting the main front view to be convincing. The real items were thick--nominally 2" of solid, heavy hardwood--and looked as heavy as they proved to be.

So, points for the idea and intention. I'm sure quality is superb. But both proportion and detailing fall short of the ideal in my head. This leads to confusion and disappointment, some of which was expressed in this thread. RRFers who tend to be very positive and supportive, rather than critical, express their support. Others point out the sources of their disquiet, both major and minor.

There. I've covered my bases, and can only say that I am my own toughest critic, too. I hope that I've been clear and fair enough to not offend or embarass anyone, and I sure would like to know if I've taken too narrow a view or mis-stated or mis-interpreted anything.

Points well taken, Paul. I held off posting anything related to this thread, but since Wes posed a direct question, I thought it would be appropriate to answer it. When Jake and I started on the conversion, we well knew that it would be darn near impossible to make an accurate replica, since there were too many limitations given that it was based on a contemporary bass. So like all major projects like this, there was a lot of back and forth with mockups before any wood was attacked. In the end, the details may not be dead on, so I guess that it's probably best to refer to it as a "tribute" and leave it at that. All in all, what's most important to me is that Jake's happy with it, as I am. I won't bother posting the examples, since they've likely have already seen before by anyone who frequents this forum, and besides, this horse has probably already been beaten enough.

[jingle_jangle]

In the past, I've seen horses flogged until they were dust around here, Larry. I'm happy that, although some hackles were raised here and there in this thread, things generally did not flare up. I sincerely hope that my critique didn't put any distance between you and me or Jake and me, and do believe that any tribute crafted well enough with the kind of sensitivity that you guys gave it, is a positive addition to the unique Rickenbacker landscape.

[dgwguitars]

In the past, I've seen horses flogged until they were dust around here, Larry. I'm happy that, although some hackles were raised here and there in this thread, things generally did not flare up. I sincerely hope that my critique didn't put any distance between you and me or Jake and me, and do believe that any tribute crafted well enough with the kind of sensitivity that you guys gave it, is a positive addition to the unique Rickenbacker landscape.

No offense taken. I've been in the design business for more years than I'd like to admit, which was preceded by 5 years of college which involved what was called "juries" to critique your designs, which was a euphemism for public flogging. After all that, my ability to absorb constructive criticism is deeply ingrained.

[Grey]

I won't bother posting the examples, since they've likely have already seen before by anyone who frequents this forum, and besides, this horse has probably already been beaten enough.

Well I haven't seen them, and would very much like to. I don't think it's too outlandish of a request, it was said that this bass was an algamation of features based on several points of refrence, but it dosen't look remotely similar to any 4000 series bass i've seen. I'm not talking about minor details that boil down to nit-picking, in general the shape looks radically different. So if i'm wrong about that and I just haven't seen enough 4000 basses, i'd like to correct that. I see no reason not to post them.