4004 visibility

[Kingbreaker]

I'm actually, on a selfish note, glad they are "the best kept secret". Keeps the prices lower for the rest of us who know!

Actually, I'll bet prices of these would drop significantly if they sold in large numbers. Given their less expensive content of parts, and the fact that they now share the 4003 neck, it seems they'd have to.

It depends WHY more would be sold. Demand or Supply?

Price and quantity relationships are not linear, necessarily. If some bass hero starts playing the 4004 and demand spikes, the price and quantity sold will both rise.

If the parts get cheap or cheaper, (The supply curve shifts right) price MIGHT go down as quantity increases, but I doubt it. The market for 4004s is NOT competitive in the economic sense. In a non competitive market, the firm has a lot more control over price than otherwise.

If 4004s were cheaper, it would probably cannibalize sales of the 4003. . . seeing as the two are much more closely in direct competition than, say, a 4003 and a Squier. I doubt it makes business sense to sell more 4004s at the cost of fewer 4003s.

[aceonbass]

From what I know of the way RIC figures their pricing, they start with the cost of production. 4004 Loredo's used to share nothing but strap pegs with the 4003, but now at least share the neck. Now I'd be happy if JH jumped in here any time to correct me, but basing their prices on the cost of production (if the cost of production dropped) would therefore mean that the price of an instrument would drop too. I'm leaving the 4004Cii out in this discussion because of the increased cost of the gold plated hardware and the MUCH nicer wood and the fact that each body wing is a three piece laminate. Since 4004's are more expensive at the retail level, I don't think RIC would mind it's sales cutting into 4003 sales, although I'm sure it would take some adjustment on the line to accommodate for the different numbers. If sales of the 4004 actually got that high, I tend to think the pricing would equalize between the two models. Again, from a content point of view, the 4003 has more while the 4004L is more austere, and therefore seems as if it could be built for less cost.

[teeder]

If my band ever starts gigging again on a regular basis, I'll be looking for a new 4004 L! I love my V63, but hate the noise in most bars we play in with the single coils.

[vulcan_creedler]

If my band ever starts gigging again on a regular basis, I'll be looking for a new 4004 L! I love my V63, but hate the noise in most bars we play in with the single coils.

Well - why not bung either one or two HB1s into your V63, complete with one of Dane's wiring looms? All completely reversible!
Both my 4003s have HB1s in the bridge, with push/pull coil tap - they're HOT!!! Because I bought them both as Ebay carcasses, there's not too much pressure to have all the original bits!

[vulcan_creedler]

Actually, I'll bet prices of these would drop significantly if they sold in large numbers. Given their less expensive content of parts, and the fact that they now share the 4003 neck, it seems they'd have to.

When did Ric start using the 4003 necks? All they need is the 4003 fingerboard, with the triangle inlays, and that would be my dream bass!

[aceonbass]

It was either one or two years ago that RIC started using 4003 necks on 4004's. Before that I had felt the 4004 neck a bit too wide, which is why they made such good candidates for conversion to five strings, particularly the ones with the later two piece necks. Now I think they're just right, which is why I'd like to pick up a new 4004L Ruby to convert to fretless.

[teeder]

If my band ever starts gigging again on a regular basis, I'll be looking for a new 4004 L! I love my V63, but hate the noise in most bars we play in with the single coils.

Well - why not bung either one or two HB1s into your V63, complete with one of Dane's wiring looms? All completely reversible!
Both my 4003s have HB1s in the bridge, with push/pull coil tap - they're HOT!!! Because I bought them both as Ebay carcasses, there's not too much pressure to have all the original bits!

That would mean I didn't "need" to get another bass!

[woodyng]

Some of us like the older wider necks,too,but even those had several different feeling profiles. My 2004 cii and laredo has a wide but shallow profile i love. I can see where the majority would prefer the new more rounded c profile,it feels a bit "faster".

[spongebob]

I think one of the reasons I sold my 4004 was the neck profile. I do like a chunky feel, but I did find it quite hard to play well!

[sloop_john_b]

I too would be more comfortable on the old wider-necks but I know I'm certainly in the minority there. I think the switch to the 4003 necks will probably attract more players than will dissuade.

[Kingbreaker]

From what I know of the way RIC figures their pricing, they start with the cost of production. 4004 Loredo's used to share nothing but strap pegs with the 4003, but now at least share the neck. Now I'd be happy if JH jumped in here any time to correct me, but basing their prices on the cost of production (if the cost of production dropped) would therefore mean that the price of an instrument would drop too. I'm leaving the 4004Cii out in this discussion because of the increased cost of the gold plated hardware and the MUCH nicer wood and the fact that each body wing is a three piece laminate. Since 4004's are more expensive at the retail level, I don't think RIC would mind it's sales cutting into 4003 sales, although I'm sure it would take some adjustment on the line to accommodate for the different numbers. If sales of the 4004 actually got that high, I tend to think the pricing would equalize between the two models. Again, from a content point of view, the 4003 has more while the 4004L is more austere, and therefore seems as if it could be built for less cost.

Good points.

Wondering if the increased contouring on the 4004 requires more hand labor?

[sloop_john_b]

I would venture a guess that binding a 4003, and later carefully scraping that binding, is more time consuming than any extra sanding that goes into the 4004 contouring (which I'd imagine is mostly automated these days).

[Colonel Sanders]

I would venture a guess that binding a 4003, and later carefully scraping that binding, is more time consuming than any extra sanding that goes into the 4004 contouring (which I'd imagine is mostly automated these days).

And while doing the extra work for the binding, they may as well go for the full Monty and add the checkerboard!

He he he...

[sloop_john_b]

I would venture a guess that binding a 4003, and later carefully scraping that binding, is more time consuming than any extra sanding that goes into the 4004 contouring (which I'd imagine is mostly automated these days).

And while doing the extra work for the binding, they may as well go for the full Monty and add the checkerboard!

He he he...

That's beside the point, but...yes.

[aceonbass]

Ben Hall has said that the CNC programming has already been done to add the extra route for checkerboard binding on 4003's , but the scarcity of it makes it out of the question to be done on every 4003.