4001c64 tailpiece lift?

[Tramper Al]

Hi, please forgive me this newbie question.
The forum has been really informative as I try to work through the process of buying a nice 4001c64 or 4001c64s. I am attempting to evaluate the beginnings of tailpiece lift via photographs on a couple of examples of these basses, and I have just a few questions.
1. Is the factory-equipped 4001c64 tailpiece more or less susceptible to the sort of tailpiece lift seen on some older 4001s?
2. Was the tailpiece material changed in any way during the run of the 4001c64, making earlier or later models more desirable form this standpoint.
3. Is the boutique sold 4003 tailpiece identical to the factory 4001c64 tailpiece (subject to answer (2))? The part numbers (4001c64 pdf and boutique) are the same, 01159, $190.
4. Assuming (3) is so, if I find myself with a problematic 4001c64 tailpiece, am I at worst looking at a $200 OEM replacement and a fairly simple DIY swap that would keep my bass completely stock?
5. For a Ric bass newbie, am I overly focused on tailpiece lift? OK, don't answer that one!
Thanks in advance . . .

[Colonel Sanders]

Hi, please forgive me this newbie question.
The forum has been really informative as I try to work through the process of buying a nice 4001c64 or 4001c64s. I am attempting to evaluate the beginnings of tailpiece lift via photographs on a couple of examples of these basses, and I have just a few questions.
1. Is the factory-equipped 4001c64 tailpiece more or less susceptible to the sort of tailpiece lift seen on some older 4001s?
2. Was the tailpiece material changed in any way during the run of the 4001c64, making earlier or later models more desirable form this standpoint.
3. Is the boutique sold 4003 tailpiece identical to the factory 4001c64 tailpiece (subject to answer (2))? The part numbers (4001c64 pdf and boutique) are the same, 01159, $190.
4. Assuming (3) is so, if I find myself with a problematic 4001c64 tailpiece, am I at worst looking at a $200 OEM replacement and a fairly simple DIY swap that would keep my bass completely stock?
5. For a Ric bass newbie, am I overly focused on tailpiece lift? OK, don't answer that one!
Thanks in advance . . .

1) from my point of view, it will be more susceptible to tail lift than the post 73 tailpiece with 5 screws.
2) my guess would be no. But it is just a guess
3) it should not be. The 4003 tailpiece is held by 5 screws and has no "gap tooth".
4 and 5) if you worry for how your tailpiece will behave in 5 years from now I would say "thou worry too much".

[Tramper Al]

Here is a tailpiece profile view of one of the basses I am looking at. Any opinions on this one? Should I be at all concerned about its future?

[Tramper Al]

Thank you Jeff. Just so I understand your reply, this means that the 4001c64 tailpiece is secured by less than 5 screws? Is it by 3 or 4 then? And so installing a replacement tailpiece #01159 on a 4001c64, am I correct in assuming that one would have the choice of 1) simply using less than 5 screws (the 3 or 4 holes line up), or 2) drilling one or two new holes in the bass for a 5 screw installation?

Would Ric use the same part number if the part were not identical, 4003 to 4001c64? It is true the the boutique lists it as a 4003 trailpiece, rather than for 4001/4003 or 4000 series. It does say though that is fits all bass models.

[Colonel Sanders]

Looking at your tail lift, I would not worry too much.

Use this lift to wedge your picks into, should you play with a pick.

[cassius987]

I am not a big believer in the idea that the barely visible tailpiece lift observed on some 4003s is going to ruin the sound, but I have played several C64s also and the ones with the very visible lift such as that one definitely did not sound as good. You could always replace the tailpiece with a 5-screw, and someone would probably trade you a new one plus cash for the 3-screw version.

[johnallg]

Alan, 2 of the 5 screws on the 4003 tailpiece are visible.

[Tramper Al]

Alan, 2 of the 5 screws on the 4003 tailpiece are visible.

Thank you John, I see now that the two tailpieces are different. Ric using the same part number really fooled me. The boutique seems to have only the 4003 5 screw version, while RickySounds (ricsrus.com) seems to have both that one plus the "Vintage-gapped tailpiece which takes the 3 screws only (none visable). These RickySounds parts are OEM Ric parts too, right? Expensive.

I guess all else being equal, I'd prefer to have my new to me 4001c64 be without a significant tail lift.

Can I please get some more opinions on the picture I posted above. That is a bass I am considering buying, and the 2 responses above that addressed it were split as to whether it is a significant tailpiece lift gap.

Thanks all.

[johnallg]

Yes they are OEM but RickySounds is not an Authorized dealer so the parts wo0uld be more expensive because of the way they purchased them.

As to lift, that is a fair amount, but there are threads here on how to re-bend them flat. Also, the strings on the bass now look pretty big in diameter and their tension may be higher and causing the lift. Another factor could be the wood tapering off towards the edge of the instrument laking it look like more lift. Been known to happen.

I would not let that lift stop me from buying the bass if all else is in order. Check it out and decide.

[Tramper Al]

It has taken me a while to figure this out, but please let me know if I have it right.
Only the 4001c64 FG has the 3 screw tailpiece that seems to be somewhat more susceptible to lift over time.
The 4001c64s MG actually has the 5 screw tailpiece which seems to be somewhat less prone to lift. This different tailpiece is a reflection of modification done to the McCartney 4001s. I knew about the sanding shape difference and zero nut, but not this.
Have I got that right? Until just now I thought they both had the 3 screw type.
Thanks!

[jps]

It has taken me a while to figure this out, but please let me know if I have it right.....This different tailpiece is a reflection of modification done to the McCartney 4001s. I knew about the sanding shape difference and zero nut, but not this.
Have I got that right? Until just now I thought they both had the 3 screw type.
Thanks!

Correct!

[Colonel Sanders]

It has taken me a while to figure this out, but please let me know if I have it right.
Only the 4001c64 FG has the 3 screw tailpiece that seems to be somewhat more susceptible to lift over time.
The 4001c64s MG actually has the 5 screw tailpiece which seems to be somewhat less prone to lift. This different tailpiece is a reflection of modification done to the McCartney 4001s. I knew about the sanding shape difference and zero nut, but not this.
Have I got that right? Until just now I thought they both had the 3 screw type.
Thanks!

Now let's add a layer of complexity...

Pre-June 1974 (about...) the tailpiece was a 3 screws type aluminium casted. These were not prone to tail lift but the plating was very susceptible to flake off. My guess is that flaking and the fact that the tailpiece were casted using sand moulds were the main reason why RIC changed the tailpiece to what is used now.

Personally, I will take the old style over the new style. But I am a follower of the "Cult of Archaism"...

[godber]

...I see now that the two tailpieces are different. Ric using the same part number really fooled me. ...

Just to mention that RIC don't use the same part numbers for the C64/4003 tailpieces, check out their guitar diagrams for info.

4001C64 = 01169 (3 screws)
4003 and 4001C64S = 01159 (5 screws)

I ordered a C64 3 screw 01169 direct from Rosetti. It took a little while to get (import), but they were helpful.

[Tramper Al]

...I see now that the two tailpieces are different. Ric using the same part number really fooled me. ...

Just to mention that RIC don't use the same part numbers for the C64/4003 tailpieces, check out their guitar diagrams for info.

4001C64 = 01169 (3 screws)
4003 and 4001C64S = 01159 (5 screws)

I ordered a C64 3 screw 01169 direct from Rosetti. It took a little while to get (import), but they were helpful.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I think going in with the (incorrect) assumption that the C64s and C64 parts were the same, I must have looked at the C64s diagram. I also used C64 as shorthand for both models, again thinking the tailpiece was the same.

[coolingitdown]

If you won't have any peace of mind with that amount of lift and have the money to spend, another solution is to buy a new 5-screw tail piece, drill the extra two holes, and swap the new tailpiece for the stock one. Keep the stock one, and if you ever decide to sell the bass, you can put it back on and no one will be the wiser.

Just a thought.

Edit: also, as someone else said, make sure it's not a situation where the tailpiece is straight and the body falls away from it (a good straight edge should tell you). That's been known to happen, and it's harmless as far as I know.