New model 4005

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:41 pm

Instead of a reissue request, how about a "Modernized" 4005 model? Lets just start this off with say, classic 4005 styling, highly figured wood, transparent finishes and pickups ala' the 4004 model?

And while Im dreaming here, checker binding and full width MOP on the deluxe models.

Available in fretted, frettless, 4 or 5 string models.

I would buy one in a minute. Trans green deluxe 4 string.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:57 pm

Hmmmm, I wanted this in the " Rickenbacker Basses " topic.

Im just not having a very good weekend.

4003seagreen · Post by **4003seagreen** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:03 pm

I think John Hall once wrote either here or on VoxTalks that to produce a 4005 we as a consumer would have to plunk down money in the $3,500 range to buy one, and this was a few years ago. Might even cost up to $4K now, especially with the appointments you describe. I just wonder how many people would buy one at this price? I have to admit I probably wouldn't, though I'd really love to have one (though I'd want a classic version with toaster pickups). In my estimation, I would be dreaming, but hey, it's good to dream

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:25 pm

Original 4005's are very hard to find. If you are determined to find one, and are willing to pay the price, I guarantee that you will more than likely pay as much, or more than you are describing.

Myself, I like the classic vintage stuff, but I love roundwound strings and the modern truss rod system. If I'm gonna plunk down that kinda cash, I want the bass to be able to handle any type of strings I want to use, and perform as a player.

jps · Post by **jps** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:19 pm

I used to used 45-100 XLs all the time on my '67 4005WB with no problems. Now I use 40-95 Chromes basically to save the frets.

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:56 pm

I believe there was a comment in another thread some time ago that Ric "might consider" a "new" 4005 if there was a commitment by a certain number of buyers. If there are enough people interested to make it worth while is one problem and, while I would be interested (even at $4-5K), I am rather dismayed in the fact that I committed to purchasing a 4004LK 47 months ago and have yet to receive it.....and all I keep hearing is that it "shouldn't be much longer". I love Rics (they are my only basses) but I would certainly hesitate to order a limited edition from them in the future because of my LK experience. I understand there were reasons for the delay but four years signifies to me that there was/is no sense of urgency.
I would have no problem ordering special colors or trim options (if offered) but I am a little soured on anything more in depth for the moment.

wormdiet · Post by **wormdiet** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:12 am

I am interested in the reasons behind the high quotes on the "new"/imaginary 4005. Granted that I know nothing about lutherie, but. . . still.. .. . what exactly would make them so expensive?? Is it an issue of not enough tooling to run a 4005 line efficiently and still make everything else? Too much design overhead?

A semi-hollow bass could also be built with a 330 foundation rather than 360. That would be sweet as well.

Personally, I'd love to get one but probably would not if the price went above 1.5K or so. I don't care about the cosmetics, dots vs. teeth, binding vs. plain, etc. JUst a classic bass please

Wondering which we will see first - a 1.75 neck on a rick 12 semi, or a 4005 reissue. Not holding my breath on either. JH has stated many times that they have too many models already. Still, fun to dream

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:28 am

IIRC the last time this came up and JH participated in the discussion -- here, not the newsgroup -- he said it would have to list for around $3K and wondered how many would be willing to buy at that kind of list price. A number of people immediately jumped in and said they would.

It would take some searching to find that thread since the 4005 has come up so often in relation to how many were actually made.

4003seagreen · Post by **4003seagreen** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:20 am

Here's a link to something from this board posted by Peter (from comments JH made on alt.guitar.rickenbacker) - back in 2000. Second post down

../3345/818.html"#FFEECC">

bassman · Post by **bassman** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:05 pm

To those wanting a 4005;

Are you guys wanting a 4005 sure of exactly what you would be getting? Have you every played a 4005, or just seen photos of them?

In Mr Hall's comments, he states that the 4005 is a "BIG bass" that requires far more wood (to build and finish) than any other RIC bass.

I'm a longtime 4001 owner who had always admired the 4005. I had the opportunity a couple of years ago while in Chicago on business to drop in to see Scott Silver at the Chicago Music Exchange. Scott had two 4005's in stock while I was there.
I was naturally attracted to them right away and Scott told me to help myself. So I took one from the wall hanger and sat down and pluged it in and proceeded to play it.

I'm 6' tall and by no means a small guy. But I felt like a dwarf holding this instrument. It was big and it surprised the hell out of me. I couldn't get comfortable with it, so I put it back and tried the other one. Same results. I was blown away by the difference in size between the 4005 and 4001.

Since then I have totally lost interest in ever owning a 4005. Its a nice bass but not for me. Bottom line here is that i'm glad that I had the opportunity to try one before I made a commitment to someone to buy theirs (or order a new one should the opportunity ever arise) and then quickly discover it wasn't the bass that I thought it was.

If you've never actually played a 4005, find one and check it out (if you can). You may come to the same conclusion as I did.

Cheers,

wormdiet · Post by **wormdiet** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:53 pm

Thanks for the link - that answers my questions more than satisfactorily!

jal · Post by **jal** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:24 pm

Jon brings up a very good point about getting what you pay for,
for me my old 4005 is very comfortable more so then my 4003 was, is it big yeah but it feels great standing or sitting (for me anyway) I love the unbound top & the neck is unreal, I also play Fender P & Jazz Basses & 60's Gibson Tbirds both reverse & non-reverse so I'm use to "odd shapes" , that said however I know some players who find the tone limited & just don't think 4005s are worth the bucks they command these days, my only complaint is with all that room between the neck & bridge they could have added another pickup (or moved the bridge pickup forward ) right in the sweet spot, but hey they give me a blend control & that's a nice item to have ,

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:15 pm

My 4005 is now in my will....

I will die with it....

Don't ask where it goes after that....

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:17 pm

....And don't get your hopes up on a new 4005...

..it will be YEARS , if THEN , till one is made...

rickinroma · Post by **rickinroma** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:14 pm

I am 1,84m tall..don't know exactly how much is it in feet...and I have never had problems playing my 67-4005..standing or sitting... sure it is bigger than a 4001/3... but lighter... And how about the neck? the thinnest ever made.... the action is super smooth and easy...nothing to do with a 4001.
The only thing, Jaime is right, the treble PU is a wee bit weak.....you can hardly play it alone.
I guess Chris agrees with us