The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

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

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

Post Reply
User avatar
congerz83
Intermediate Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:14 am

The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by congerz83 »

I have decided to dedicate a thread to the project I'm currently working on with Mark Walker.

I also chose to post it in BASS section instead of The Beatles section. I figured all the bass guys could get interested in this.

I sent my bass to mark to correct an neck twist & bow. Then I thought of someting... :idea:

I've decided turn THIS...

Image

[*]"Photos used by permission of Peter Levett"

Into THIS...

Image


Well to be truly authentic to ME, It'll be THIS...
Image


Into THIS...
Image

Yes. I'm taking the C64S to another level! This instrument will be an attempt to "carbon-copy" Paul's bass as it is today.

Darker "yellowing", more authentic body contours, thinner horn-shaping & every nick/scratch replicated...

And when I say "I'm working with Mark Walker on this" it should be "Mark does all of the great work he's known for, and I sometimes form sentences and speak to him about it.

I'm going to be proud to share this with you all...
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
teeder
Senior Member
Posts: 6396
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:00 am

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by teeder »

Cool! I can't wait to watch the process.
User avatar
ilan
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:00 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by ilan »

Yep, they should have done it in Amber Mapleglo.

Cool project.
"A Noble Instrument Must Be Nobly Regarded"
User avatar
johnallg
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 17688
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:13 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by johnallg »

Actually, isn't Paul's bass in WoodGlo? :lol: I mean, isn't it unfinished wood?
User avatar
JM82
New member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:30 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by JM82 »

I received my copy of Paul's book the other day; the strings in that picture look like they have orange silks, which is the same as labella 760fx strings I have on my 4003S. McCartney is known to use labellas on his hofner and the 760fx set is the same gauge as the labella Beatle bass set he supposedly uses (39 - 96) just a longer scale. My theory is he has the 760fx set on the ric (unless anyone knows of other strings with orange silks). So if you're looking to make it a carbon copy, that's the set to get.
User avatar
ilan
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:00 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by ilan »

James - McCartney's '63 Höfner has dark green silks.
"A Noble Instrument Must Be Nobly Regarded"
User avatar
bigbajo60
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:15 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by bigbajo60 »

(...setting microwave to "Popcorn" setting)
:D
User avatar
johnhall
RIC
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by johnhall »

johnallg wrote:Actually, isn't Paul's bass in WoodGlo? :lol: I mean, isn't it unfinished wood?
It is, which is to say Amber would be completely incorrect. SmudgeGlo or GrimeGlo would be more like it.
bugman
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:36 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by bugman »

I had a C64S years ago and am saving to get one again but while I loved the bass, I also wished it was more correct in shape,contour, and finish. I am going to watch this thread and will be interested in how close you get it to look like the present day McCartney RIC. Did you have to send the RIC away or is he located close to you?
User avatar
paologregorio
Senior Member
Posts: 6376
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:56 pm
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by paologregorio »

johnhall wrote:
johnallg wrote:Actually, isn't Paul's bass in WoodGlo? :lol: I mean, isn't it unfinished wood?
It is, which is to say Amber would be completely incorrect. SmudgeGlo or GrimeGlo would be more like it.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I've encountered that; pick up a vintage instrument, and . . "Ewwww!"; it's part of the reason I don't like tobacco sunburst guitars-I've picked up too many old tobacco SB guitars that were completely gritty and filthy; now when I see one I just think, "yuck!"
There is no reason to ever be bored.

...why yes, I suppose I do have a double bound guitar fetish...

"Uh, I like the double bounds. . . ."
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6651
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by aceonbass »

One detail impossible to replicate will be the end of the fretboard's location relative to the upper and lower cutaways. RIC appears to have lengthened and moved the neck blank further forward to allow greater access to the higher frets. Since the scale length hasn't changed, this means the tailpiece is also slightly further forward. The pickguard, still resting up against the end of the fretboard, is now much closer to the cutaways. I personally don't care for the way this looks. As an aside, this would have been a good time to add a 21st fret, since the guard would have moved back closer to it's original position relative to the cutaways.
User avatar
antipodean
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:27 am

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by antipodean »

aceonbass wrote:One detail impossible to replicate will be the end of the fretboard's location relative to the upper and lower cutaways. RIC appears to have lengthened and moved the neck blank further forward to allow greater access to the higher frets. Since the scale length hasn't changed, this means the tailpiece is also slightly further forward. The pickguard, still resting up against the end of the fretboard, is now much closer to the cutaways. I personally don't care for the way this looks. As an aside, this would have been a good time to add a 21st fret, since the guard would have moved back closer to it's original position relative to the cutaways.
It's been that way since at least 2000. The cutaways on my '00 V63 are about 1cm "deeper" relative to the fretboard than on my two '70s 4001s. I had never noticed until you mentioned it.....
"I don't want to sound incredulous but I can't believe it" Rex Mossop
User avatar
JM82
New member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:30 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by JM82 »

ilan wrote:James - McCartney's '63 Höfner has dark green silks.
Maybe, but the 760fx set has orange silks. That set is not the Beatle bass set but it does use the same gauges and is also in the deep talkin range http://www.bassstringsonline.com/La-Bel ... _1726.html
User avatar
ilan
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:00 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by ilan »

JM82 wrote:Maybe,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVcSuldAp8

Headstock closeup at 2:59.
"A Noble Instrument Must Be Nobly Regarded"
User avatar
JM82
New member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:30 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by JM82 »

ilan wrote:
JM82 wrote:Maybe,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVcSuldAp8

Headstock closeup at 2:59.
Ok, definitely, :)
Post Reply

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