The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

[cassius987]

Nice work! I'm confused how you actually got the neck angle to go from positive to negative with any amount of coaxing but glad for Rick's sake that you did it.

I think the reason for cutting deeper into the lower body wing like on Rick's C64 is to enable better upper fret access, as that is one of the few indisputable strengths of a neck-through design anyway. But the way it looks on Macca's bass would be fine for 99% of us, and I wonder if that extra mass wouldn't stabilize things a bit as far as the neck angle is concerned...

Getting the neck angle to stay put and in the proper position on a neck-through bass should be priority one, always, because there's no option to shim them and so we have to resort to pretty major surgery to correct any issues that may arise.

[jps]

Getting the neck angle to stay put and in the proper position on a neck-through bass should be priority one, always, because there's no option to shim them and so we have to resort to pretty major surgery to correct any issues that may arise.

I have a Rick bass that can be shimmed, if needed, but it is perfect as is.

[walker]

There was PLENTY of coaxing applied to correct that angle. The steam press was effective in getting the neck pitched back so the bass was playable again - notice that the pressure was applied at the 12th-13th fret. The object was to do the bending as close to the body as possible without changing the plane of the neck itself. The resin filler was put in while the neck & cavity were clamped back, offering support at that angle after the clamps were released.

I don't see how cutting the bottom body wing beyond the last fret is necessary - the way McCartney's bass and pretty much all 1999/4000/4001/4003 basses are cut to the last fret make it easily accessible. So why this C64 is cut substantially past the last fret is unknown to me. It's inaccurate in accordance with the established body design, and you bring up an interesting point about how that could possibly contribute to the weakness in that area, although at this point it's only speculation. If Rick's is the only one cut like it, then it was probably a poorly executed pass by whoever cut that wing. If all C64 basses are cut that way, then they're all off the mark from McCartney's bass and all other 4001S basses.

[fireglo]

How about a video of the bass in action?

[lucky]

Here's the opposite of that - Rick's bass in the normal perspective, and McCartney's reversed:



[/quote]

Great work Mark you nailed it .

[walker]

Thanks. I wish I had the time to take a more comprehensive series of photos of the bass and a test-drive video as well, but I was running behind schedule in assembling the bass when I set my own deadline, and Rick was on a tight schedule when he came over. But Rick might post more bass footage when he has time.

[bigbajo60]

FWIW, it looks like my C64S has the same lower wing alignment at the neck/body join.

[walker]

Wow... it sure does, Alvaro. That's amazing.

[walker]

How's the action? Does it play pretty comfortably?

[bigbajo60]

I think I've got the action nailed down pretty decently for my 'touch'. The neck angle seems to be in line with the plane of the body... the only obvious "off" thing I ever noticed was what I call the "oops block" in the control cavity.

Great job on Rick Roosa's bass, by the way! Something I think I'd do if I was "handy with the tools"!

[walker]

"Oops Block" HA HA! Good one. Well, at least it plays well and the action doesn't look a mile high; that's fortunate. But yours has that same baffling routing in the neck PU cavity, right down to that rough crooked swoop done without a guide. My gosh - they didn't even bother to sand off the fray. The thin routes in the body wings are pointless - the toaster pickup magnets don't even spread that wide. Gotta love the same sloppy glue job, too. But it's interesting that it appears there's a possibility that all the C64 basses were cut too deep on the bottom body wing, that is... "if accuracy was a concern" which is looking like wasn't the case.

[antipodean]

FWIW, it looks like my C64S has the same lower wing alignment at the neck/body join.

Interestingly my '00 jetglo V63 has the same wing alignment - does this crop up on any "vanilla" 4003 basses from the noughties?

[Colonel Sanders]

I think I've got the action nailed down pretty decently for my 'touch'. The neck angle seems to be in line with the plane of the body... the only obvious "off" thing I ever noticed was what I call the "oops block" in the control cavity.

Great job on Rick Roosa's bass, by the way! Something I think I'd do if I was "handy with the tools"!

Looks like RIC was fumbling with the knobs of their CNC instead of reading the user manual here.

They really did a **** job in that period. I wonder how long this dark period lasted.

For crying out loud, even the worst RIckenbacker copy will have a better routing job!

[congerz83]

I think I've got the action nailed down pretty decently for my 'touch'. The neck angle seems to be in line with the plane of the body... the only obvious "off" thing I ever noticed was what I call the "oops block" in the control cavity.

Great job on Rick Roosa's bass, by the way! Something I think I'd do if I was "handy with the tools"!

Looks like RIC was fumbling with the knobs of their CNC instead of reading the user manual here.

They really did a **** job in that period. I wonder how long this dark period lasted.

For crying out loud, even the worst RIckenbacker copy will have a better routing job!

You are correct!!!

[Badanovski]

I've always wondered if because the Rickenbacker routes were under the pickguards they never got much consistency to them. The pre-CNC 4004's had so many alignment problems with the pickups. It was like they were learning to do visable routing. These faker companies also do instruments with visible routes hence the clean lines.