Are the 4001c64's that bad?

highway_star · Post by **highway_star** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:26 am

These seem to generate a lot of controversy here. Any thoughts?

loendmaestro · Post by **loendmaestro** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:47 am

I think the controversy stems from the reverse headstock. Personally I don't like it because it takes away from the natural flow of the "cresting wave design."
But I did play one at The Bass Emporium in Austin TX & that was one sweet, sweet bass. Felt great & sounded terrific.

I'm just gonna hold out for a v63.

basse · Post by **basse** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:52 am

I almost bought a C64 from someone who has both a V63 and a C64. His C64 is for sale because, according to him it's nowhere near as good as his V63 - once I heard him admit that, and after playing it I decided that $1500 for the C64 was too much and that I'd wait around for a good V63.

ricosound · Post by **ricosound** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:04 am

This is most peoples sentiment. It appears to be a totally marketing driven thing. What I don't get is the c64 and c64s which is more like Paul's supposedly with zero fret and sanded finish. This model ought to be sufficant for the posers. So, why not have the goofy c64s for Mcartney wanabes (what is currently available for left handed Mcartney wanabes?) and leave the v63 alone offering both concurrently. As a vintage model the c64 really represents nothing ever offered by Rick or Rose-Morris in the day since I don't think a right handed guitar could be ordered with a left handed neck if someone wanted it. I have no problem with the idea of the c64s as long as there are alternatives. Now if the v63 was replaced due to lack luster sales or something, how well could the less attractive c64 be selling? Wouldn't a true left handed c64s with a right handed neck be more appealing to a Beatles collector?

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:46 am

the main problem I have with the c64 basses is the price increase ... it is a lot like a v63 but it costs more ... last time I brought this up somebody from Ric e-mailed me and told me about the costs of investments for new tools needed for the new bass or something ... but to my eye it looks a lot like a 4001 v63 or a 4003 which both cost less ...

I've never played one but I'm sure they are fine instruments ... do they come in 5 string versions? ... sorry I had to say it ...

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:01 am

No, but you could make one....

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:06 am

You would think that the unpopularity with the headpiece would make the V63 an expensive and hard to find item, ala the 4001CS.

But they still seem plentiful and quite reasonably priced.

lshaia · Post by **lshaia** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:18 am

I don't think "bad" is the word I'd use, I'm sure it's a fine instrument. Aesthetically, though, to me the headstock spoils an otherwise elegant design and looks like a gimmick. I wonder if the headstock on Sir Paul's bass was inverted because that was what was available, or if it was a conscious design decision.

BTW, Chris Poteat, saw your letter in BP, right on.

ricosound · Post by **ricosound** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:40 am

Gimmick-marketing, same thing. Actually Scott, I find the v63s out there to be a rather hot commodity relative to a standard 4003 @ $1000 to $1600 used! I know because I can't seem to pony up at these prices. To think, not that long ago Mars and GC had them hanging on the wall for a few bucks more than a 4003. It seemed at that time to be a bit stripped down for the money relative to a 4003 (no binding and inlays.) There's that investor hindsight again.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:42 am

I think I've read that Paul's bass had the righty headstock because Rick didn't have the tooling to make a lefty headstock on a bass. I also read(I read it so it must be true, right?!) that Paul's bass was one of the first if not the first lefty that Rick produced.

I have a c64S in my stable and I like it a lot. I also have a v63 that I like. I'd probably prefer it if my c64s head were on the right way. Its kind of spooky to look at. It reminds me of that chick from the exorcist! On the other hand(no pun intended) it was always fun to see someone playing a Fen*&r with an upside-down neck. Sort of unique and Hendrix-like or something.

I like my c64s not because I need to be like Paul, but because I like its unique features:
1) That previously mentioned, controversial yet spooky upside-down head.
2) The lack of finish makes it sort of a more durable, working man's bass. The finish won't crack in the cold, won't nick or chip easy, and won't become discolored.
3) The lack of a finish makes that neck nice to play.
4) The zero fret means that a)there is no getting the action any closer down at the nut side of the neck(This neck plays SWEET!) and b) the tone of the open strings is the same as a fretted note ie. not affected by the difference of a plastic nut vs. a steel fret.

Quality is every bit as high as my v63.

But...I shouldn't be letting you all in on this well-kept secret. I'd prefer it if you all would hate it. This way, after a run of 50 or so(!!) Rick can discontinue the model. Several years from then, you can all get wise to the virtues of the c64S and then I'll be sitting on a million dollar bass. Yes, one MILLION dollars...ah..ah..ah..ah..ah!!!!!

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:35 am

"I think I've read that Paul's bass had the righty headstock because Rick didn't have the tooling to make a lefty headstock on a bass. I also read(I read it so it must be true, right?!) that Paul's bass was one of the first if not the first lefty that Rick produced....."

All left-handed Rickenbackers(guitars and basses) made up to around 1988-89 had right-handed neck blanks and reverse lettering on the truss-rod covers. John Hall implemented the 'mirror image' change around this time. It's not that they didn't have tooling when they made Paul's bass, they just used right-handed necks with left-handed bodies.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:39 am

Actually the headstock looks fine to me ...

you are right ... the minute that Ric stops making them everyone will want one and they will be selling for more than they do now ...

you will have to hold onto it for a long time before it is worth a million dollars ... maybe a couple hundred years ...

highway_star · Post by **highway_star** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:51 am

"the minute that Ric stops making them everyone will want one and they will be selling for more than they do now"

I will admit that it is an unconventional look for a Rickenbacker. The average Joe may not care and we're probably the main people who do. Maybe I should plop down my $2k and hope to get into one cheap. Who knows, it may be my kids' college fund

.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:51 am

I agree, the headstock looks fine-from the back!

mortivan · Post by **mortivan** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:18 pm

Two words re: the headstock. "Spurting Mudpot"