The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

[walker]

Of course accuracy was intended. "If". Good one. And aside from that 2 paragraphs of ambiguity, Rick's happy with how it's looking and he's the one who gave me the photos to follow, so I'm fine with using them as reference. He's happy with what I've done so far, so hopefully I can stay true to that vision to the point of completion.

[johnhall]

All that matters is that Rick is happy with it.

My only point was that to be perfectly like Paul McCartney's, based on that well known photograph, one has to remove the significant perspective error. If there's any ambiguity, it's in the difficulty of explaining the process, not the fact that it's a problem that has to be corrected if strict accuracy is required.

[walker]

Yep - it's tricky to apply 3-dimensional work based on an insufficient number of 1-dimensional photos, alright. This must have been a challenge for RIC as well - otherwise I wouldn't have been asked to do this mod.

[Kopfjaeger]

Mark,

Good to see this project is moving forward nicely!! I take it the strings have been up to pitch since the last installment and the neck angle is holding nicely?? I've been wondering how this has been going.

How does the photographic MACCA headstock dimensions compare to your 1964 RM 1999? I'd like to think that McCartney's headstock is very similar to yours. If you pulled the tuners of out your bass and traced the headstock, would you have been able to use it as a template, flipped around of course, to mark the areas needed to be sanded? I'm attempting to replicate the procedure in my head and to me, it seems like it would work, unless there was nothing to reference the template to in order to place it correctly.

If that would have been impossible then tell me to shut up and I'll sit quietly for the duration and just watch this project come to life!!

Sepp

[walker]

Rick's bass sat for about two weeks tuned standard with the Optimas until I took it apart a couple of days ago and did the sanding. I played it on occasion, too. The neck angle and string height remained stable, so, so far, so good.

From what I can see of the Macca photos and my RM, his headstock lines go a little deeper all around, especially along the lines between the E & G tuners and the nut. I'd have to see some good close-up shots of McCartney's bass before he did the painting and sanding to know whether the headstock came out of the factory with those dimensions or whether McCartney ended up slimming it down himself when he stripped the paint off. ???? But whatever the deal, here we are. The McCartney bass seems a little precarious being so narrow in the section between the nut and E & G tuners, but Rick's bass has the advantage of being thicker there.

[gii_patrick]

Looking good so far!

[ilan]

I did not know that McCartney's bass had undergone a headstock angle change. When did that happen?

[admin]

This is a great long and winding road, thread. Thanks for all the detail Mark. I love the history lesson with regard to McCartney's bass too.

[Lefty4003S8]

Mark,

Since the 4001v63 PMC is supposed to be a replication of what McCartney's bass originally looked like......Would it help you if I
took/sent you pics. of the headstock on my bass??????

Let me know.
Rick's bass is lookin' GOOD!!!!!!!!!

[walker]

Thanks, Greg... your headstock would be interesting comparison, but I think I've already taken off all the wood I should from Rick's headstock at this point!

How much wood would a woodchuck shuck if a woodchuck could shuck wood? Something like that?

[walker]

Just to be clear, I didn't alter Rick's headstock angle at all. I think risking it's current integrity would not be worth any cosmetic accuracy that may be achieved, especially if it meant pitching it forward to any degree.

[jps]

Just to be clear, I didn't alter Rick's headstock angle at all. I think risking it's current integrity would not be worth any cosmetic accuracy that may be achieved, especially if it meant pitching it forward to any degree.

I think John was just referring to the angle in the photo of Paul's bass; this would change the effective shape of the headstock since it is not viewed straight on. Unless, I misunderstood this part of the discussion.

[cheyenne]

Where's Doseck?

And, Mr. 366/12?

Im here!

[deaconblues]

Great work, Mark.

[teeder]

I could be wrong, but I think the angle of Macca's peghead was due to the camera perspective and not that the angle was physically changed on his bass.
John?