The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

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

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

User avatar
deaconblues
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:14 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by deaconblues »

That "oops block"...WHAT?
Last edited by deaconblues on Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wiker
Member
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:08 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by Wiker »

@ walker:
Compliments on the finish - looks old and dirty just like McCartney’s. :D
bobbolux
New member
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:16 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by bobbolux »

I don't understand a few things about the construction methods on the C64.

first, why not route the pickup cavities AFTER gluing the body wings? I mean, that's the way they used to do it when the RM1999 was made, correct? certainly was true through the 70's and 80's.

secondly, why route all the wood away on the neck piece up to the fretboard? Again, the originals still had a quarter inch of wood or so between the cavity and pickup route.

thirdly/lastly, why the heck is that front pickup route so large and deep? the pickups are very shallow and relatively narrow. that's a lot of fudge room, and a lot of supportive material missing.

these things always left me scratching my head as they just seem, well, pretty obvious.
User avatar
deaconblues
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:14 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by deaconblues »

While we're on the subject of the c64's shape, here are some comparison shots. I sourced these from a thread back in '09.

1999RM vs. 4001c64:

Image

4003 vs. 4001c64:

Image
User avatar
walker
Advanced Member
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by walker »

Interesting comparison, Dan. Even that RM looks like it has the bottom wing cut just a little deeper than McCartney's. But it's not like RIC didn't have a chance to use his bass as a template.

For further comparison, my RM is cut pretty close to the Macca bass:

Image

Bob - all those questions are a mystery to me, too. *sigh* I remember the good old days:

Image

For awhile in 1968, RIC used short-pole toasters in the 4001 series basses - simple shallow cavities, stronger necks... too bad it only lasted a year. Some people say that the short-pole toaster pickups are brighter than the long pole, but that's where the tone roll-off pot comes in handy.
User avatar
walker
Advanced Member
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by walker »

...but then that same year they cut those long grooves across the neck for rear access to the truss rods, even though for the life of me I've never heard of anyone having a practical use for rear access to the rods. Hard to win with this company. Oopsenblocker.
User avatar
walker
Advanced Member
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by walker »

Wiker wrote:@ walker: Compliments on the finish - looks old and dirty just like McCartney’s. :D
Thanks! That's a special "Dirty Vintage" formula I created just for this job.
User avatar
DriftSpace
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:07 pm
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by DriftSpace »

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

Image

Image

Great work Mark you nailed it 8) .
I'm not sure how exacting the reproduction was supposed to be, but did anyone notice the shapes of the guards in these two photos are different?

On McCartney's bass: the guard is not flush with the treble surround; it's parallel with the top and control-cavity side, but there's a small gap between the treble surround the and control array.

The part of the guard by the input jack also seems to follow the body outline less on McCartney's bass, and covers slightly more area.

Regardless: it looks pretty excellent, Mark. 8)
User avatar
walker
Advanced Member
Posts: 2908
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by walker »

Thanks, Sean. As with some parts of the body wood, the C64 pickguard is smaller than McCartney's on the side running below the knobs. Not much I can do about that with Rick's PG obviously, but we never discussed replacing it altogether with a Pickguardian piece, which would be easy enough to do if Rick decides he'd like that aspect more closely replicated.
User avatar
cassius987
Senior Member
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by cassius987 »

Based on my instruments, the body wing cut depth may be less important than the depth of the pickup rout in determining the rigidity of the neck angle. I have three basses with the modern cut, and all have good angles with no "fallaway" in the upper register. (All 4003-type models.) However, my '76 4001FL which did have neck angle issues that I bypassed with tailpiece countersinking, has a lower body wing cut very much like Macca's bass. On the other hand the neck pickup rout is quite generous, but this is partly because someone came along and made room for 1/2'' pickup spacing at one point. (Maybe the same guy that thought it needed a P Bass pickup...)
Colonel Sanders
Intermediate Member
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:39 am

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Nic shot of what looks to me as a good neck pickup routing.

download/file.php?id=45049&mode=view
1973 4001 Jetglo
2017 4003S Jetglo
2023 4003 Mapleglo
2022 4005XC Jetglo
1979 MusicMan Stingray
2021 Epiphone Thunderbird
User avatar
Lefty4003S8
Intermediate Member
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:05 am

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by Lefty4003S8 »

Beautiful job Mark!!!!!! Although....I STILL can't get used to seeing it "Righty" :lol:

You have GREAT skill.
Do not drink from the toilet when taking Lyrica
User avatar
s4001
Senior Member
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 am
Contact:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by s4001 »

FIFY :lol:
Attachments
Screen shot 2013-10-12 at 8.22.04 AM.png
User avatar
sloop_john_b
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 13843
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by sloop_john_b »

I can't believe how good this turned out. 8)
User avatar
Kopfjaeger
Advanced Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...

Post by Kopfjaeger »

sloop_john_b wrote:I can't believe how good this turned out. 8)
I can! :D Mark is a wiz and he really cares.

Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
Post Reply

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