1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Vintage, Modern, V & C series, Fretless, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

User avatar
sloop_john_b
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 13843
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by sloop_john_b »

Grey wrote:I just noticed that hideous string tree someone stuck on the headstock. Why???
Because the pegheads on these old 4001s pitch forward, causing the strings to slip out of the nut or simply not have enough downward pressure.
User avatar
Kopfjaeger
Advanced Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by Kopfjaeger »

sloop_john_b wrote:
Grey wrote:I just noticed that hideous string tree someone stuck on the headstock. Why???
Because the pegheads on these old 4001s pitch forward, causing the strings to slip out of the nut or simply not have enough downward pressure.
John,
I was looking for that after seeing the before fotos of mark Walker's RM1999 but I noticed no forward pitch to this headstock. What I believe is the nut slot is cut way too wide and the M4 pegs sit much higher than the standard tuner. The G string was cut rather short and did not have enough wraps to put significant downward pressure for a good break angle with the long pegs. Oh there is a break angle but it's not enough. i think this will be a non issue once the new tuners are installed and new strings are on. I'll keep everyone posted via this thread when things start to go back into the bass.

I'm going to have to build up the nut slot and re-cut. The nut is crazy wide!! There is no way I'm going to be able to use a new nut unless it's custom made. It has to be 50% wider than the new RIC nuts.

Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
User avatar
xsubs
Member
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:22 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by xsubs »

Save the old bakelite nut for sure... put it away somewhere.
This will work for your bass though, as it has the proper thickness at a full 1/4". I used a white one on my 64 MG, which fits perfectly.

http://www.graphtech.com/products/brand ... 4033a484e5
Rickenbacker '64 & '68 4001 basses ♦ Fender Pre-CBS J & P Basses and 1968 Telecaster Bass ♦ Moog Taurus III Bass Pedals ♦ Hiwatt (Hylight) Amplification
"A good bassist determines the direction of any band."- Ron Carter
User avatar
xsubs
Member
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:22 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by xsubs »

Kopfjaeger wrote:
Was very happy to see the Schaller M4's did require the peg holes to be enlarged!! The C64's will work nicely.
If the holes were enlarged then the C64 bushings will be too small. They mic out at 0.45" IIRC... smaller than the 1/2" used on modern ricks (and the M4).
Rickenbacker '64 & '68 4001 basses ♦ Fender Pre-CBS J & P Basses and 1968 Telecaster Bass ♦ Moog Taurus III Bass Pedals ♦ Hiwatt (Hylight) Amplification
"A good bassist determines the direction of any band."- Ron Carter
User avatar
Kopfjaeger
Advanced Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by Kopfjaeger »

Sean,

Thanks for the tip on the nut! That is a great option! As for the peg holes, mine are at approx .473. The early Schaller M4's barrels are .468. I can see the original small diameter ferrule imprint on the headstock so I think I'm alright. I won't be out of the woods until I try them to make sure.

Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
daveman
Member
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:18 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by daveman »

xsubs wrote:Save the old bakelite nut for sure... put it away somewhere.
This will work for your bass though, as it has the proper thickness at a full 1/4". I used a white one on my 64 MG, which fits perfectly.

http://www.graphtech.com/products/brand ... 4033a484e5
Agreed - I used the same thing on my 73 - works great.
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6651
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by aceonbass »

Sepp's harness for the '65 showed up today. The original Switchcraft switch is salvageable, but I'll have to rebuild it. The two lower leaves were pinched and soldered together, and the output jack wired off of that. WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP REWIRING RICKS THIS WAY?! It must be a Gibson thing. Two of the pots are split shaft that have been squeezed together by over tightening the original style knobs. One of the two solid shaft pots appears original, and I'm gonna try and save it and incorporate it into the new harness (if Sepp doesn't mind). The weird thing is that, until I clean all of the solder off of these, it appears like all for pots have the same date codes? Did RIC mix solid and split shaft pots on the same harnesses? I'll post before and after pics when It's finished. Now I gotta talk to Sepp.......
User avatar
wints
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6481
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2001 11:21 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by wints »

Dane,

Ric usually used split shafts for volume and solid for tone on basses at this point in time. All with the same date codes. The split shaft often get pinched from being overtightened and that's why you occasionally see a knob sitting crooked on old Ric bass.

Great looking old bass. Don't even think about touching up the finish! Get it set up properly with light gauge strings and enjoy it...
User avatar
jps
RRF Consultant
Posts: 37497
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:00 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by jps »

aceonbass wrote:Did RIC mix solid and split shaft pots on the same harnesses?.
My old 4005WB was/is that way. I do not know if Paul modified that when he did the restoration on it. :?
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6651
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by aceonbass »

Thanks for info Andrew! I'd seen this before, but was never sure it was original. Now it's the other way around. I can get solid shaft vintage style CTS 250K pots, but I can't get solid shaft CTS 500K vintage style pots. Well, if the pots are still within spec after I get done cleaning them up, then I'll "un-pinch the shafts", and put a brass bushing on them so the knob fits squarely, and re-use them. If they're shot, then I'll take them apart and put modern CTS guts inside them to keep the original date coded pot cases.The whole thing turned out to be wired like a Les Paul. The main difference functionality-wise, is that the tone pots interact with each other, which I DON'T like.
User avatar
johnallg
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 17688
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:13 pm

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by johnallg »

aceonbass wrote:....... The whole thing turned out to be wired like a Les Paul. The main difference functionality-wise, is that the tone pots interact with each other, which I DON'T like.
Yeah, that would suck on a bass.
User avatar
Kopfjaeger
Advanced Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by Kopfjaeger »

aceonbass wrote:Thanks for info Andrew! I'd seen this before, but was never sure it was original. Now it's the other way around. I can get solid shaft vintage style CTS 250K pots, but I can't get solid shaft CTS 500K vintage style pots. Well, if the pots are still within spec after I get done cleaning them up, then I'll "un-pinch the shafts", and put a brass bushing on them so the knob fits squarely, and re-use them. If they're shot, then I'll take them apart and put modern CTS guts inside them to keep the original date coded pot cases.The whole thing turned out to be wired like a Les Paul. The main difference functionality-wise, is that the tone pots interact with each other, which I DON'T like.
Dane,

This is exactly why I sent you the harness! I knew you would have the drive and ability to make it right and keep it vintage!! So glad the original switch can be saved!! It would be nice to keep the pots or at a minimum keep the parts that make them appear to be original. Not that anyone will be looking under the hood, but based on the scarcity of the instrument, it should be as right as possible.

The harness took a bit of a vacation, courtesy of the USPS!! I mailed it out of northern NJ on July 8 along with the original pickguard, which went to Pickguardian. The guard arrived safe on July 10 while the harness went to Los Angeles and sat for two days before being re-routed to Kansas, to Dane. It arrived there today. So much for sending it Priority!! I hope the harness got a tan and some autographs while it was in LA!! :(

Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
User avatar
Kopfjaeger
Advanced Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by Kopfjaeger »

Here is another question for all you pre 73 bass owners. What is the major difference between the post 73 saddles and the pre 73 saddles/ I mean the look similar. I have not held them side by side yet so can the second pattern (new style) saddles be modified to fit in the cast bridge?? Is it worth doing??

Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
Colonel Sanders
Intermediate Member
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:39 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Kopfjaeger wrote:Here is another question for all you pre 73 bass owners. What is the major difference between the post 73 saddles and the pre 73 saddles/ I mean the look similar. I have not held them side by side yet so can the second pattern (new style) saddles be modified to fit in the cast bridge?? Is it worth doing??

Sepp
The old saddles are casted aluminium. They are slightly less angular than the newer ones (made from a zinc alloy I think).

I know that Dane modified new saddles so they could fit in an old aluminium cast bridge. So it can be done.

Cheers
1973 4001 Jetglo
2017 4003S Jetglo
2023 4003 Mapleglo
2022 4005XC Jetglo
1979 MusicMan Stingray
2021 Epiphone Thunderbird
User avatar
chefothefuture
Advanced Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:00 am

Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC

Post by chefothefuture »

Colonel Sanders wrote:
Kopfjaeger wrote:Here is another question for all you pre 73 bass owners. What is the major difference between the post 73 saddles and the pre 73 saddles/ I mean the look similar. I have not held them side by side yet so can the second pattern (new style) saddles be modified to fit in the cast bridge?? Is it worth doing??

Sepp
The old saddles are casted aluminium. They are slightly less angular than the newer ones (made from a zinc alloy I think).

I know that Dane modified new saddles so they could fit in an old aluminium cast bridge. So it can be done.

Cheers
It can be done, but the trick is with the intonation screws; the modern saddles will sit up too high unless the bottoms of the saddles are milled down and a new
hole is drilled and tapped.
If you know any machinists, or some one with a mill and machining skills, you might have aluminum ones made to your specs.
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Basses: by Joey Vasco & Tony Cabibe”