BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS wrote:my '68 had short poles for the toaster. i wonder if there is the pencil marks in the contol cavity under the foil. when i painted my '64 black, i put a piece of tape over the markings to preserve them for viewing.
There's a vast difference from 63 to 68. The long pole toaster was used until 66 or 67, and then reappeared in mid 71. My '64 4001MG and 64 4001FG
both had long poles..
Interestingly, Capris had a short pole in 58 to early 59, and then got a long pole for the neck pup...
Wow! What a find. Wiring and shielding look unoriginal. I would also think that the TRC screws would have been slot heads, but that's nit picking. The rest looks good to me. I'm a little out of the loop though! Someone should contact Andy Winter to add another opinion to the great ones we already have here. As far as price...I would put it over $10,000; probably even over 15... but again, I haven't been paying attention to Rick prices for a while. If it is an original jetglo and the finish looks that good...I don't think I've ever seen another and it's in fantastic condition.
Going back and re-examining the photos, I'd say that there is enough about this bass that looks original and in un-played condition that I'd have to give it the benefit of the doubt. The chrome all looks fantastic. The screw heads are mostly un-rusty, the nickle plated tuners aren't even tarnished. When one of these basses gets played, tuners get tarnished, screws rust, jack plates rust, the jack itself gets nicked up and worn...I see none of that.
There aren't multiple screw holes for the pick guard which leads me to believe that it is original, and in fact with the large forstner bit routing there aren't many good options for relocating a screw hole anyway. Plus the way it fits the surround, the cut of the guard, and the odd location of some of the screw holes leads me to believe that it is original.
Also the frets look original, the white fret board filler looks original (no re-fret/re-fin), the nut looks original (and slots have not been filed deeper), the saddles look original (and also the slots have not been filed deeper)...These are parts that usually get filed and adjusted as the bass gets played, broken-in, and set-up...
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I think this puppy looks all original to me with the exception of the wiring. Better pics and a pic under the copper foil would help, but without them, I'd call it an amazingly well-preserved original Rick bass.
Last edited by rickaddict on Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
BTW...When you replaced the strings, Jorge I hope you went with something low tension like TI flats. Those early necks were quite thin and many developed problems from higher tension strings.
If you noticed a substantial change increase in relief/action when you changed the strings you might want to de-tune it and look for a lower tension string set.
At first, I thought it was original, mostly because (as Jeff said) the excellent condition the hardware matched the like new finish...but the more
I looked at it, the more I thought that it must be a re-fin. Just too darn new looking for a 50 year old! I don't think that there's any way to tell for
sure just by looking at the pictures. Even if you took the copper shielding out & find the writing was covered over before spraying, it wouldn't prove anything.
The person who did the possible re-fin could have also covered it. I would think an in hand examination is needed.
About the strings, A luthier, not a Rickenbacker one but really good in my country(the best I'd say) put the strings with lots of care....of course knowing the gem he was working on.
I don't want to go thru the process of taking the strings out...
It's a drag not living in USa...in Peru there are only 3 ricks and mine is one of them.
So Jorge, the shielding tape is hiding something, it's not needed and Ric's don't have it. A few nice pictures under the plate that says Rickenbacker too will help a lot.
The pots are original too, 6247, 47th week of 1962, close enough for me.
Certainly an interesting find. I have no doubts about it being a '63, but I'd lean heavily towards a refin, with changed wiring etc, and the odd piece of hardware, such as the TRC screws.
