Nice to meet you, man.
Does McCartney's 4001 have that ultra-slim neck some of us lust for, or somewhere in between, like the new ones? D'ya recall?
Do you know anything about the zero fret?
I've heard there was variation in the necks because of the number of times the necks were sent thru the planing machine to smooth out the imperfections: the more imperfections, the thinner the neck. I started playing professionally in '69 and so used flats exclusively (still do) and so that wafer thin neck really turned me on. I've owned five V63's and way too many 4001's and only two had the right kinda neck - for me, and probably only cos the original '84v63 bass they sent had totally unacceptable neck pitch problems. The replacement was perfect... of course that was stolen. I put tapewounds on it for studio work and it still played better than sex.
The other was a '73 4000 w/ double rods that for some reason had a glued in neck and horseshoe pu... burgundyglo. I couldn't believe the neck was as thin as it was! John Hall told me I was one of the very few fans of that model, tho'...
And when did they start with the huge neck heel?
Was the idea to add strength for rounds?
I'm still perplexed they took the 4000 model totally outta the catalogue.
Thanx.
Rick Harper
'nuther McCartney question
Moderator: jingle_jangle
Lots of question and only my opinion for the answer....so here it is ...disclaimer # 720,421
These are from my memory (however faded/clear it may be and are in NO way the opinion of the Rickenbacker Corp.
That said ...McCartney has the standard width fret board ,but the depth (from the fret to the back of the neck) is quite shallow .Mu guess would put it at about .725 thick at the 1st fret and .850 at the 12th fret.The heel was the old small one .
One reason for the change in thickness over the years is tooling .Jigs wear out .That and using a shaper does not remove 100% of the material from the back of the neck .It cuts down one side ,then the other .THere is a thin 'V' shaped piece that remains from the 5th fret (or so) to the heel.This is removed using a bladder sander.This operation also smooths out the roughness of the shaper cutters.Plus ...the operator of the sander fine tunes the shape of the necks .He is doing lots of them.
I'll also guess that the cutters used over the years have changed ,and for a variety of reasons.
One being availability ,another type and another ,the resharpening of the cutters.The shaper cutters are not cheap and they get used every day.
End of part one.
These are from my memory (however faded/clear it may be and are in NO way the opinion of the Rickenbacker Corp.
That said ...McCartney has the standard width fret board ,but the depth (from the fret to the back of the neck) is quite shallow .Mu guess would put it at about .725 thick at the 1st fret and .850 at the 12th fret.The heel was the old small one .
One reason for the change in thickness over the years is tooling .Jigs wear out .That and using a shaper does not remove 100% of the material from the back of the neck .It cuts down one side ,then the other .THere is a thin 'V' shaped piece that remains from the 5th fret (or so) to the heel.This is removed using a bladder sander.This operation also smooths out the roughness of the shaper cutters.Plus ...the operator of the sander fine tunes the shape of the necks .He is doing lots of them.
I'll also guess that the cutters used over the years have changed ,and for a variety of reasons.
One being availability ,another type and another ,the resharpening of the cutters.The shaper cutters are not cheap and they get used every day.
End of part one.
So you too want yours "ALAPWOB"?!?!
The changes of the heel are from operators on the bladder sander and the jig for shaping the back of the neck.
It WAS NOT increased in size for structure.It is purely an alteration from factors that were not designed nor need they be.
I know that PRS owners are having a fit about the changes in that companies heel (it has grown quite large-bordering on being a goiter) so heel are not stay put all over the industry.(did I leave myself open ?!?)
Why was the 4000 bass removed from production?
I have a few opinions .I too was a fan of it .My gut feeling is two fold.
1- it was not the bass that Chris Squire was using .
2- it was a cut rate version of the 4001 and should have been altered cosmetically to really be another model (this was universally thought at the plant at the time .We thought the two models were 'our' Jazz and P.models of bass.)
The guys on the line felt that if we rear mounted the two controls and removed the guard ,then we would have a visual difference and change the pickup to two coils side by side.Of course we had no say and there was no suggestion box.Plus our opinions were not held very high by the plant superintendent.We were 'cotton pickers' at best.
The zero fret is something that was done after we worked on it.If you look closely at photos ,you can see that it is an add on piece.I'm sure he felt that the Hofner zero fret was lasting longer than the nut on the Rick and had this done .The other reason is tone and trying to get a similar open string tone from the two basses.
He could have done this to his Fenders too,but I have never seen a photo of that done to those ,nor his Wal ,nor his Yamaha
It WAS NOT increased in size for structure.It is purely an alteration from factors that were not designed nor need they be.
I know that PRS owners are having a fit about the changes in that companies heel (it has grown quite large-bordering on being a goiter) so heel are not stay put all over the industry.(did I leave myself open ?!?)
Why was the 4000 bass removed from production?
I have a few opinions .I too was a fan of it .My gut feeling is two fold.
1- it was not the bass that Chris Squire was using .
2- it was a cut rate version of the 4001 and should have been altered cosmetically to really be another model (this was universally thought at the plant at the time .We thought the two models were 'our' Jazz and P.models of bass.)
The guys on the line felt that if we rear mounted the two controls and removed the guard ,then we would have a visual difference and change the pickup to two coils side by side.Of course we had no say and there was no suggestion box.Plus our opinions were not held very high by the plant superintendent.We were 'cotton pickers' at best.
The zero fret is something that was done after we worked on it.If you look closely at photos ,you can see that it is an add on piece.I'm sure he felt that the Hofner zero fret was lasting longer than the nut on the Rick and had this done .The other reason is tone and trying to get a similar open string tone from the two basses.
He could have done this to his Fenders too,but I have never seen a photo of that done to those ,nor his Wal ,nor his Yamaha
So you too want yours "ALAPWOB"?!?!
-
rick_harper
Wow. I KNEW he had the thin neck.
However: (and this is MY opinion):
The 4001's weren't what Chris Squire was playing either. I have ALL the price lists and spec sheets of those days and nowhere but via telephone would they even tell you there was a such a thing as a 4001S (which I've a feeling alot of guys had in mind)You had to order them sight unseen where I lived (Kentucky)... and the 4001's (Got my 1st one in '73) had to have had all that extra work on it: the binding, the triangle inlays, stereo, the weird bent tuners.
RICK12DR has a great title for the tome on the subject: 4001:A Bass Odyssy.
Thank you VERY much for the info. I tried for years to get it from FC Hall, who really was so sweet on the phone, if a trifle elusive.
I wonder if the "C" series has the huge neck heel? Perhaps that's why they're so expensive: re-tooling... I don't know much at all about serious woodworking tools.
Also: My 4000 was exactly like a 4001 but w/ dot inlays, controls mounted from front, it just had a glued-in VERY THIN neck, with hardly any heel at all. When I Emailed J Hall about it his response was exactly this: "I really don't remember much about them. It was an unremarkable period. Glad you liked 'em, nobody else did"...
I actually saved the Email! Ha!
Thanx again.
Rick Harper
However: (and this is MY opinion):
The 4001's weren't what Chris Squire was playing either. I have ALL the price lists and spec sheets of those days and nowhere but via telephone would they even tell you there was a such a thing as a 4001S (which I've a feeling alot of guys had in mind)You had to order them sight unseen where I lived (Kentucky)... and the 4001's (Got my 1st one in '73) had to have had all that extra work on it: the binding, the triangle inlays, stereo, the weird bent tuners.
RICK12DR has a great title for the tome on the subject: 4001:A Bass Odyssy.
Thank you VERY much for the info. I tried for years to get it from FC Hall, who really was so sweet on the phone, if a trifle elusive.
I wonder if the "C" series has the huge neck heel? Perhaps that's why they're so expensive: re-tooling... I don't know much at all about serious woodworking tools.
Also: My 4000 was exactly like a 4001 but w/ dot inlays, controls mounted from front, it just had a glued-in VERY THIN neck, with hardly any heel at all. When I Emailed J Hall about it his response was exactly this: "I really don't remember much about them. It was an unremarkable period. Glad you liked 'em, nobody else did"...
I actually saved the Email! Ha!
Thanx again.
Rick Harper
I believe that JH was not working for his Dad at the time .He was over in the sales office and I /the plant about two miles away .
I knew who he was ,He might have known who I was ...it was not a big deal .
F.C.Hall was a typical owner of a company .The details were not important ,just make it all work and make money .The fact that it achieved the staus that it has I'm sure was very gratifying for him.
As to the Bass the Paul has ...it was just a bass of that moment in time .The specs to every detail were not that important ,just that it worked and did the job well .It did that just fine .
Think about anything you might have done 6 years ago ....do you remember all the little details ?
It was great the Beatles liked Rickenbackers ,but I'm sure that F.C. was busy just getting product out .It did not matter whether the body was alder or maple ,or that the guard had a finger rest or not .Make them ...sell them.
He was an easy man to work for .
I knew who he was ,He might have known who I was ...it was not a big deal .
F.C.Hall was a typical owner of a company .The details were not important ,just make it all work and make money .The fact that it achieved the staus that it has I'm sure was very gratifying for him.
As to the Bass the Paul has ...it was just a bass of that moment in time .The specs to every detail were not that important ,just that it worked and did the job well .It did that just fine .
Think about anything you might have done 6 years ago ....do you remember all the little details ?
It was great the Beatles liked Rickenbackers ,but I'm sure that F.C. was busy just getting product out .It did not matter whether the body was alder or maple ,or that the guard had a finger rest or not .Make them ...sell them.
He was an easy man to work for .
So you too want yours "ALAPWOB"?!?!