Current Neck Thickness

[Gilmourisgod]

I remember the neck on my old 79' Jetglo as being pretty thin, about like a Jazz bass at the nut, but with a "C" profile, but much narrower than a Jazz at the 20th fret. I've read a few posts that make reference to the "new chunkier neck" or words to that effect, and references to older necks being thinner. Does anyone know the measurements offhand for current 4003 production? Thickness and width at the nut and heel? The older profile was perfect for my relatively small hands, hope they haven't changed it much, though I always worried about how little wood there is under the truss rod slot. From what I've seen, that's where a Rick will crack if dropped on the head. I've read that the older basses had a tighter fingerboard radius, around 7.25", whereas current production is around a 10" radius? Does anyone know what the 79' would have been vs. now?

[edski]

I'm interested in this subject a lot - I just had a custom made, and did a lot of measurements to settle on specs. I found that both my 2004 Laredo and my 1975 were the same exact nut width (1 5/8") and string spacing at the nut (7/16"). I'd love to know if there were Ricks that had 1 1/2" nut widths - that requires 3/8" spacing between the strings, and that is exactly why I don't like J basses that much.

"Chunkiness" as I understand refers to the up/down thickness of the neck - i.e. the profile. My 75 was a damned consistent 22 mm thing from the top of the fingerboard from the 1st fret to the 17th or so where the neck heel starts. The "chunkier" Laredo was about 23 mm to 24 mm. Not that big of a difference, but we all notice it.

My guess is the mid 80's to early 2000's had periods of the chunky necks, and lately I've heard they're more like the 70's profile now.

[Captain Bob]

There are many experts here with instruments that span the years, that can answer with more information. FWIW, I owned four 4001's from the early 70's thru 1980, and all four necks were (felt) different. I kept two at a time. Memory recalls the '80 as the thinnest. The '77 (modded 4000) as the thickest. I remember I perceived the '79 felt wider.
I would bet the technology employed at RIC today most certainly guarantees greater consistency. Any handwork could induce nuances. It's amazing what one's hand may perceive.

I have a 2013 SnowGlo and I am pleased with the neck (and I was playing a super thin Lakland J neck on a P type body). So pleased, I would purchase another.
If you're fortunate enough to be proximate to any RIC dealer the best course of action is to place one into your hands. Or, if you travel, search beforehand for the dealers near your destination.

Cheers,
Bob

[cassius987]

Neck profile also matters. I know johnallg and some others maintained a girth registry, which I think was a measure of total perimeter length, but I'd be really interested to see profile values, since girth is compounded by profile and width. Wildwood publishes profile values and I have been keeping track of them recently.

[78 rpm]

Hi all,

I too have just purchased a SnowGlo. I usually play rhythm but this is a great Bass to play, very easy and comfortable.

[ricosound]

I just bought a 2013 4003 online and was suprised at how huge the neck is both in width and girth. I have 6 basses (no other Ricks) and this this by far the biggest. It is even with only 4 strings, chunkier at the nut than my Carvin LB75 5 string. The only one I have ever owned that was bigger was my Slab body P-bass that was like a baseball bat. I got rid of my '08 Laredo because of the W-I-D-E fretboard. This one makes my 60s Jazz feel like a pencil. I have had other 70s 4001 that were much more comfortable (thinner). Considering this is the age of CNC routing I would only assume this to be a standard trend.

I'm kind of bummed since I have saved for a long time to get a newer 4003 with all the latest features like walnut wings, full width inlays, and vintage tone circuit. It's a gorgeous Fireglo finish and sounds like a million bucks but after years of playing Jazz basses, I'm not sure I can warm up to the neck. Would it be too much to ask to get all the above features yet a slimmer neck? Most people seem to prefer this and I have never heard anyone say "gee I wish the neck were bigger". The only other gripe I have is the G tuner is mounted "cocked" to follow the curve of the headstock relative to the other three which are straight. I have not seen another 4003 this way in photos. I know it's only cosmetic and still functional, but these are the small things that turn people off on a $2K purchase.

Since I have read that the 4004 are using the same neck blank these days as 4003, that would make the 4004 narrower at the 12th fret than they used to be but chunkier at the nut?

[spongebob]

My 2013 FG has, compared to say Fender basses, a large neck profile.

This is a plus for me - I can't stand skinny necks, always give me hand cramps!

It's a great profile that you know you've got a bass in your hands. I did own an older 4004 with the very large necks, and from memory it was considerably larger than the current 4003s.

For me, they've got it spot on.

[woodyng]

It seems like every time i pick up any Rick bass,the neck feel is always different. My impression last year of a new Ruby 4003 was thin,rounded c shape. This year i tried a 4003w,and felt like the neck profile had a flatter more d shape to it,while still being thin. It was one of the nicer feeling neck profiles i've found in recent Ricks. (The oil finish felt great too). On the other hand,i love both my wide-and-shallow '04 4004's necks,too.

[ricosound]

The fault/problem is mine. I agree one should always tryout an instrument before purchase. One of the big problems with ebay and other online resources is just that, you never quite know what you're getting sight unseen. An musical instrument of any kind is such a personal connection.

[billythebass]

Neck thickness is something I am very sensitive to; and my 3 ricks are different. The thinnest is my 1974 4001 Jetglo, just about the thinnest neck I've come across and it almost plays itself when I strap it on. It's been hard or find a better 4 string out there. I have a 2001 V63 mapleglo which is much thicker with a different tone as well. A lot mellower. The last is a 2012 4003 in brown. I think it's the same profile as the V63 excepting that it 'feels' thicker. I have no idea why as I can't think the paint makes any difference whatsoever so I would be interested to know if there is any logical explanation for this. I'm interested in the new 4003W but need to road test one first in case it's a baseball bat in disguise and not my thing. The woods look so lovely I might find myself seduced though anyway.

[johna]

I've got a 64 RM1999 and the neck is very thin all the way down - in fact the thinnest neck I've ever played. At the other end of the scale I had a 20 year old MIJ Precision which was I found almost unplayable due to the baseball bat neck size (now sold), and just bought a MIM active Jazz which is somewhere between the two and quite a fast neck. As with all these things it just comes down to what you are comfortable with.

[jdogric12]

It seems like the only people here praising the "new thin necks" that are "like the 70's necks" are the same people who are really proud of their "diverse collection" of a 2011 4003 FG, 2012 4003 JG, and 2013 4003 MG.

I think this speaks volumes:

My 2013 FG has, compared to say Fender basses, a large neck profile.

This is a plus for me - I can't stand skinny necks, always give me hand cramps!

[cassius987]

I have been tracking weights and neck measurements posted by a Ric dealer for a while to observe variance. Weight is pretty spot on, but neck profile varies quite a bit within models and even within <1 year. It will go thin, thick, thin, thick, with no real trend. (The other measure is profile gradient if 1st and 12th fret values are provided, and this is also prone to more variance than I thought.)

I have never really thought any Ric I held had a neck that compared to ANY Fender except for my modified 4004L, which has a chunky P Bass profile. The rest are uniquely Ric-like in the hand. No Ric I've played has ever felt like a Jazz (thin but wide), but my 4001FL has similar depth.

It seems like every time i pick up any Rick bass,the neck feel is always different. My impression last year of a new Ruby 4003 was thin,rounded c shape. This year i tried a 4003w,and felt like the neck profile had a flatter more d shape to it,while still being thin. It was one of the nicer feeling neck profiles i've found in recent Ricks. (The oil finish felt great too). On the other hand,i love both my wide-and-shallow '04 4004's necks,too.

This reminded me that the profile shape is sometimes changing as well. A friend here bought a 2013 FG and I was shocked by its pronounced "D" profile, it's normally more of a "C" in my experience with Rics. Played great but just a different beast altogether. And now they're back to "C" AFAIK.

This might cause some trepidation for some folks but I think it makes Rics more fun. Each one is a new experience.

[woodyng]

I have been tracking weights and neck measurements posted by a Ric dealer for a while to observe variance. Weight is pretty spot on, but neck profile varies quite a bit within models and even within <1 year. It will go thin, thick, thin, thick, with no real trend. (The other measure is profile gradient if 1st and 12th fret values are provided, and this is also prone to more variance than I thought.)
This reminded me that the profile shape is sometimes changing as well. A friend here bought a 2013 FG and I was shocked by its pronounced "D" profile, it's normally more of a "C" in my experience with Rics. Played great but just a different beast altogether. And now they're back to "C" AFAIK.

This might cause some trepidation for some folks but I think it makes Rics more fun. Each one is a new experience.

This may seem a weird question,but does the CNC process not include the necks? Or is there a further hands-on processing on the necks that would account for all the variances? Or are they just resetting the cnc specs every week to see what comes out? (Ok,that last one was just a tease,don't get yer feathers ruffled....)

[cassius987]

This might cause some trepidation for some folks but I think it makes Rics more fun. Each one is a new experience.

I've wondered the same for years. My guess is CNC gets you 80-90% of the final neck shape and then there is some sanding and profiling that takes place.

The "D" profile to "C" profile transition just about had to be CNC-derived, since it requires a certain amount of mass to be left behind on the neck.