The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

[johnhall]

It was indeed the perspective in the photo I was referring to, not Paul's headstock itself.

Unfortunately, people use this particular photo for comparison all this time, not realizing there's some serious perspective and lens distortion effects in the photo, rendering it useless for an photogrammetric work unless some serious corrections are applied.

My recollection is that Tony's photographer shot this as a 6 x7 transparency, shot with a 75mm lens and the shot is obviously centered around the neck-body joint, meaning it's centered roughly only 1/3rd on of the length of the instrument. Had it been centered over the 12th fret, the data would be easier to acquire.

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

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

I have my '64 RM broken off headstock if anyone needed a tracing. I would put it face down so you get all the sharp edges and to line up the wood laminate dimensions and tuner holes.

[cjj]

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

I have my '64 RM broken off headstock if anyone needed a tracing. I would put it face down so you get all the sharp edges and to line up the wood laminate dimensions and tuner holes.

Maybe just photo copy or scan it with a ruler for accurate scaling?

[bobbolux]

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

I have my '64 RM broken off headstock if anyone needed a tracing. I would put it face down so you get all the sharp edges and to line up the wood laminate dimensions and tuner holes.

YES! I would like that.

[bobbolux]

sorry to dig this up again, but I'm just getting to this thread - strings voiding any bass or guitar's warranty is a heaping load. that's called "design flaw", straight up.

love this project by the way, great job Mark!

[johnhall]

. . . strings voiding any bass or guitar's warranty is a heaping load. that's called "design flaw", straight up.

What about the expected results if you use unleaded fuel in a classic car- isn't that a design "limitation" rather than a "flaw"? This is exactly the same situation. This bass, after all, was intended to replicate 1960's era instruments when only very low tension strings were in use. The design simply follows the norm for the era.

This further validates my theory that vintage reissue type instruments should NOT be made like the originals, as consumers expect modern day performance, no matter what. It strongly suggests that buyers of these type of instruments are looking primarily at the aesthetics, rather than the performance or sound that the original designs produce.

[admin]

There is this generally held view when it comes to the quality of products of yesteryear that older is better with regard to craftsmanship, performance and materials. While it is no feather in my cap, I am old enough to remember the quality and performance of older gear the first time around. In fact, I still have some of it.

In a nutshell, from my experience which is far from perfect as I was never a pro musician, older was not better. A lot of the time we just got used to the gear we had as it was all we could afford and there were no other options in many cases. (no pun intended but not bad!) We may now reminisce about how great things were during older times but I know that I have been mistaken having jumped on this bandwagon at one time or another.

As the saying goes, in the old days all I could afford was a used guitar and now all I can afford is a new one! As a rather imperfect analogy, have you ever bought your dream house after going through it with blinders while it was for sale only to find out later on that the quality and layout was far from perfect.

My conclusion is simply, new is new and old is old. It you are enjoying yourself accept it regardless of what your memory tells you about the past. Times change and so must we.

A great thread. I still love fixer-uppers!

[bobbolux]

There is this generally held view when it comes to the quality of products of yesteryear that older is better with regard to craftsmanship, performance and materials. While it is no feather in my cap, I am old enough to remember the quality and performance of older gear the first time around. In fact, I still have some of it.

In a nutshell, from my experience which is far from perfect as I was never a pro musician, older was not better. A lot of the time we just got used to the gear we had as it was all we could afford and there were no other options in many cases. (no pun intended but not bad!) We may now reminisce about how great things were during older times but I know that I have been mistaken having jumped on this bandwagon at one time or another.

As the saying goes, in the old days all I could afford was a used guitar and now all I can afford is a new one! As a rather imperfect analogy, have you ever bought your dream house after going through it with blinders while it was for sale only to find out later on that the quality and layout was far from perfect.

My conclusion is simply, new is new and old is old. It you are enjoying yourself accept it regardless of what your memory tells you about the past. Times change and so must we.

A great thread. I still love fixer-uppers!

well...my '64 P bass has had all kinds of strings on it over it's 50 years of life, and under my ownership it's had flats and rounds of all tensions. I have never had to touch the neck, same goes for my '71, so I certainly don't agree with that. Not saying one make is better than another, I love them all, just that the "older is better" saying absolutely does apply to many vintage instruments, of all makes, and construction practices.

what I absolutely do agree with is that we all love these old (and newer versions of "old") basses, and will go to great lengths to make them work properly, make them exactly what we want, and we get great fulfillment from the process.

now back to the first post, and Macca's updated bass - is his bridge on crooked? like, angled up from tail to neck?

[walker]

Comparing guitars to cars is not even the same situation, John, not even remotely, especially comparing fuel type to string tension. (???? I could see load bearing limitation of a vehicle compared to string tension limitations of guitars, maybe.)

In one sentence you say that the C64 was "designed following the norm for the era" - which is how you validate the necks caving under normal string tension. Yet in the next paragraph you conclude that it's your theory that people want modern day performance which is why the RIs are designed to accommodate that need. Aside from the contradiction in those statements, and in spite of RIC's attempt to give customer's "modern day performance", we're still seeing basses with neck problems. If you actually listened to what people have to say, and were willing to look at the design flaws as they're pointed out, you could learn something about how to improve upon the guitar designs. An FYI, which I'm guessing will fall on deaf ears: most people that I've talked to and LISTENED to, do indeed desire more than just similar aesthetics to vintage instruments, and seek the same feel and tone as well.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that these theories you're offering up are conjured solely to serve your peace of mind, and to attempt to validate a flawed product. This is just a continuation of your ongoing campaign to try and save face, and it's only getting more embarrassing. Is it really so hard to just admit that mistakes were made, learn from them, and move on?

[johnhall]

Yet in the next paragraph you conclude that it's your theory that people want modern day performance which is why the RIs are designed to accommodate that need.

No, that's not correct, nor what I said. The C Series reissue is like the original, and certainly NOT built to accommodate modern day specs- specifically to provide the original feel and tone.

And yet, people put modern tension strings on these instruments and expect them to accommodate this. As it happens quite a few pieces of wood will handle the tension fine due to the inherent "safety factor" but there's quite a few that simply won't.

All of this goes further to re-emphasize to me that building reissues may well be a waste of our time if this much education is required.

I also stand by my comparison in that both situations an important part of the performance of the product is not within specs.

[congerz83]

All of this goes further to re-emphasize to me that building reissues may well be a waste of our time.

I guess that's why they have been discontinued?

if this much education is required.

We don't need a diploma to understand string-tension recommendations. If they were ever made available, it would be easy to prove that.

[Wiker]

... This bass, after all, was intended to replicate 1960's era instruments when only very low tension strings were in use. The design simply follows the norm for the era. ...

... The C Series reissue is like the original, and certainly NOT built to accommodate modern day specs- specifically to provide the original feel and tone. ...

This is ridicules. The critique has been that there is too little wood joining neck and body - less than on 60’s basses.

[Grey]

The C Series reissue is like the original, and certainly NOT built to accommodate modern day specs- specifically to provide the original feel and tone.

So by extension of this statement, modern production 4001 and 4003 basses are not adversely affected by high tension strings? Thus making the special warranty-voiding clause specific to a certain generation of basses.

[johnhall]

This is ridicules. The critique has been that there is too little wood joining neck and body - less than on 60’s basses.

The C Series bass neck joint is virtually identical to Paul McCartney's. Many other instruments produced right around the same time are the same as well, although there are two well known variations.

So by extension of this statement, modern production 4001 and 4003 basses are not adversely affected by high tension strings? Thus making the special warranty-voiding clause specific to a certain generation of basses.

The C Series bass IS a 4001 and many 4001's HAVE been adversely affected by high tension strings over the years. The primary raison d'être of the 4003 is the change in construction to accommodate heavier tension strings.

[marcinkus]

If I remember correctly the big problem on 4001 basses were the hairpin trussrods, not the neck joint.