tell me about 80's 4003s

[SloRider]

Tried a 2008 4003 a bit ago but it didn't quite speak to me. I'm wondering if I should go back a few decades. Besides the absence of the 'vintage' circuit, is there really much difference? I am going for a heavy-rock Rush-like (circa 1981) tone.

Something like this is what got me thinking on it...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pre-Owned-Ricke ... 2eb9d0e0d1

What do you guys think? (about 80's rics in general, not necessarily that bass)

[DriftSpace]

I own a 1982 JetGlo 4003, and it's been a pretty solid instrument. One thing you will find pretty consistent across the Rickenbacker spectrum is tone; there are subtle differences between each guitar, but you'll be able to get that 80's Rush tone with just about any stock 4003, regardless of when it was made. However, know that Geddy Lee replaced his tailpiece with a "Badass" bridge, which does alter the stock Rickenbacker sound somewhat.

The only thing I would advise when shopping for an instrument from the 80's is to stay away from the basses made in the early 80's; during the changeover between the 4001 & 4003 models Rickenbacker flipped the truss rods so that access to the adjustment was where the neck joins the body. These instruments are easily spotted by the 2-piece pickguard, and the cluster of 3 screws above the toggle switch.

If I remember correctly, the truss rods on these instruments are also adjusted by physically bending the neck into the desired position and then adjusting the truss rods to lock-in the adjustment. Suffice it to say -- though I love my 1982 Rick -- they are kind of a pain in the arse to maintain when compared to instruments manufactured during the latter half of that decade. This is evidenced by the fact that Rickenbacker switched the truss rod adjustment back to its original position on the headstock; it just makes more sense, and is easier to adjust.

Of course, if you play something that speaks to you in a profound way: just get that, regardless of when it was made. If I had my pick though ... I probably would not buy another early 80's 4003 unless it was really special. I bought mine because it was a steal, and it was one of those situations where I had exactly the amount of money the shop wanted for the exact brand/model of bass I wanted. I certainly don't regret my purchase, but I think it's a pretty obvious red flag when a manufacturer makes a change to a design, and then reverts back to the original design a few years later; this is exactly what happened with the 4003 during the 1980's.

This is not to say that there are not fantastic basses from that era, but if I had my choice between a flipped-truss/2-piece guard, and a standard headstock-access truss/one-piece guard ... I would choose the latter. The one you linked in your post is in excellent shape for its age, but you can get a brand new 4003 for less than that if you shop around; new instruments come with a case and a warranty. Heck, I've even seen immaculate 70's FireGlo basses go for less than that on eBay. There was an excellent white 4003 from 1993 -- and RIC doesn't do white with black binding anymore -- that went for $1,750 on eBay a few weeks ago.

(Does anybody know if the truss rods can be removed from these instruments and flipped to function like the original design?)

[rickenbrother]

The only thing I would advise when shopping for an instrument from the 80's is to stay away from the basses made in the early 80's; during the changeover between the 4001 & 4003 models Rickenbacker flipped the truss rods so that access to the adjustment was where the neck joins the body. These instruments are easily spotted by the 2-piece pickguard, and the cluster of 3 screws above the toggle switch.

I'll agree with you about the early 4003's with the two piece pickguards and truss rod adjustments at the body end of the neck.
Yet the 4001 and 4001S remained great instruments right to the end of their run.

[DriftSpace]

I'll agree with you about the early 4003's with the two piece pickguards and truss rod adjustments at the body end of the neck.
Yet the 4001 and 4001S remained great instruments right to the end of their run.

Thanks, Joey. I didn't mean for my comment to sound like I was speaking ill of the 4001; I have no experience with those models, but have no doubt -- especially after your endorsement -- that they are solid instruments.

[rickenbrother]

No worries, Sean! Some will disagree with me about the early 4003's, but the ones I had made me wish I had my first 4001 back, which was an '81. So I went and got another 4001.

[SloRider]

So what year did they switch back over? 85?

[DriftSpace]

So what year did they switch back over? 85?

I feel like I should know the answer to this, but it escapes me at the moment. A voice from the recesses of my memory says it changed sometime during 1986...

RIC usually tries to use-up old stock before moving to new designs, so there's probably not a hard date-line; it was probably more of a phasing-out over the course of a year or so. It doesn't really matter what the year was though; if you see the cluster of 3 screws above the toggle switch & a 2-piece pickguard then you'll know you can do better.

(The more I think about it the more I think it was indeed 1986.)

[coolingitdown]

What are the differences between a 4001 and a 4003 bass?

Here is a history of 4001 and 4003 production, composed of information from the sources given below:

4001 - '61 to '80 (or possibly as late as '81)

4001S - '61 to '69, '80 to '84

4003 (1st version) - '80 (or '81) to '84 truss-rod adjuster at body end two-piece pickguard

4003 (2nd version) - '84 to '95 truss-rod adjuster at headstock end one-piece pickguard

4003S (1st version) - '81 to '84 truss-rod adjuster at body end two-piece pickguard

4003S (2nd version) - '84 to current truss-rod adjuster at headstock end one-piece pickguard

["The Bass Book" by Bacon and Moorhouse, as quoted by Matthew Thallmayer, [email protected], 3/12/1998]

I got the info from http://rickbeat.com/modelslibrary/4001/4001.htm

[michael.m]

I own a 1986 Ruby red 4003 and it is the best Rickenbacker bass I´ve ever played. I bought it as a back up for my 4001c64 but I play it more than 4001 The neck is great, very comfortalble, no tail lift because there are extra screws. I think that the truss-rod adjuster at the body end is not that bad.
Best thing is to try the bass you want to buy. Two Rickenbacker basses from the same year can be different instruments

[s4001]

Don't limit yourself to just the 80's either. Lots of magic mojo dust went into the basses in the 90's, too.

[spongebob]

There's a 1981 4001, single piece PG for sale in the UK.

Are the pups exactly the same as in the same-period 4003's?

Hope I'm helping the post here with this - bar the pickguard/truss rod issue, are there any differences in the overlap early 80's 4001's/4003's?

[DriftSpace]

Damn, Michael ... that ruby is HOT!

4003 (2nd version) - '84 to '95 truss-rod adjuster at headstock end one-piece pickguard

...and then we get this:

I own a 1986 Ruby red 4003 and it is the best Rickenbacker bass I´ve ever played ... I think that the truss-rod adjuster at the body end is not that bad.

So much for "The Bass Book."

I agree with the experiential statements though; it's not impossible to find a great 4003 from the early 80's, and the truss rod thing can be something you don't even notice or bother with depending on that particular instrument and how the neck has fared. For me personally -- as I said before, and from my experience -- I'd choose a post-1986 4003 as opposed to an earlier 80's model in the hypothetical (and impossible) situation that I had two identical basses from which to choose, and the only difference was the year of manufacture/truss adjustment. There are certainly magic 2-piece pickguard instruments, like Mike's Ruby, but I think that's an exception rather than a trend during that period of time.

Jay asked about the things which are particular to a model 4003 manufactured in the 1980's, and as far as I am concerned the only functional (and variable) difference is the truss-rod adjustment access; everything else -- finish, individual "feel," and other factors -- are going to vary between instruments regardless of the decade.

Don't limit yourself to just the 80's either. Lots of magic mojo dust went into the basses in the 90's, too.

I agree with this. In the late-80's/early-90's the 4003 really started to come into its own, in my opinion. However, the thing to watch for during that period of time is the black powder-coated tailpiece which -- due to the heat of the powder-coat process weakening the metal -- tends to flex and lift off the body over time from string tension. If you go for something with black hardware: go for the 7-screw tailpiece (3 under the bridge, 2 under the strings, 2 near the butt) as opposed to the 5-screw (sans the 2 butt screws) if you can; the 7-screws usually don't have any lift. Tail lift can be fixed with patience, and 5-screw tails can be modified into 7-screws (that's how they did it in the factory) but it's better just to avoid it altogether. It's also a whole lot easier to find replacements for chrome hardware at present; black is pretty scarce if you want OEM.

Best thing is to try the bass you want to buy. Two Rickenbacker basses from the same year can be different instruments

Agreed; such is the case with any instrument that is largely hand-made.

I think everyone here would agree that the most important thing is just to get something from which you get that special feeling. The tone factor is not only something you can (and should) tweak to your tastes (toaster? horse-shoe? high-gain?) after you get a feel for the thing, but the fundamental tone qualities are pretty consistent over the last few decades. The newer basses even have the push/pull pot for "vintage" tone, but that's an entirely new discussion, and RIC offers the push-pull pots for less than $10; it's easy to mod a bass without that feature if you're interested in more/modern tonal options.

Jay: that 2008 you played just wasn't for you; it doesn't necessarily mean that 2008 was a bad year for the 4003, nor that 2000 was a bad decade for them.

[sloop_john_b]

Two piece guards were phased out in mid to late '86.

[Kopfjaeger]

I have an 86 Shadow and I love this bass. Not only because it's Jetglo and checkered binding, it is very comfortable. The pup's sound great and I find the neck very favorable and plays very fast!!
My Blackstar is an 89 and of course it rocks!! It's a Blackstar!!

On these two basses the body crest seems larger than my other basses. Much chunkier than my 2011 4003 and even my 73 4001. Not a bad thing, IMO

Sepp

[coolhandjjl]

Price does seem kinda high. I know 4001's from 1973 will command a high price, but other than the wavy Grover tuners, black binding, and the '4003' on the TRC, it's nothing out of the ordinary.

Here's my take- the new 4003's are extraordinary. They have a somewhat thin 2-piece neck. Very stable. You'll have to settle for white binding, and standard tuners though. But you'll get a great warranty, and the reputable dealers, whether on-line or brick & morter will allow a trial or return period. And if you bargain, you can get a brand new one for about $1600. The eBay one gives a healthy 30 day trial, but you still spending quite a bit of money for it. For folks looking for checkered or black binding, maybe a shedua stripe (the dark third piece of wood in the middle of the neck on some models), special discontinued color, or other vintage features, then paying more maybe justified. Plus, buying vintage requires a bit of research and knowledge to know what you are getting.

I bought my first Ric as a new 4003 in 2009. It's a great bass. My other Ric is a 1993 4003S I bought in 2010. That one is also a great bass, and both were quite a bit less $$ than the eBay one. But I had a reason for buying the '93. The 4001/4003 "S" bodies have no bindings with nice contoured edges, but unfortunately, no longer made. The only way to get that contoured body on a new model was to buy a 4001c64, which is a limited run re-issue model (Think Paul McCartney), hence quite expensive. The 4004 also has a binding-less contoured body, but again, quite expensive new.