The 4003S is back!!!

[squirebass]

I will probably replace my high gain bridge pu with a horsie, and put a toaster in the original neck position. But I may just leave the pickguard the same, however I would really like to replace both TRC/Nameplates with the vintage kind on the new 4003S and my MG 4003. Does Rick still do this with TRC exchange?

[Wiker]

That's interesting Dane, and as usual, good to know. I was just curious to see how people get the 1/2" spacing on a modern 4003,its definitely not worth it for me if it causes structural problems though.

How about the V63's and C64's though? are they of a different construction to allow for the 1/2" spacing

It doesn’t require a full depth expansion of the routing. 7 mm will do, only enough for the flange of the pickup.

Here's the extra routing on my 4001. I over did it, and ended up almost double as deep as needed.

[aceonbass]

Geir.....The routing and position of the body wings on your 4001 bear little resemblance to the area on current 4003's. As I said, the stock routing is so extensive that it actually affects the neck angle on my relatively new 4003. As far as I know, C64's are just as bad. I have a couple of customers with C64's that have such severe negative neck angles that the bridge won't go any lower, and the action is STILL too high. JH told both of them they were using high tension strings, which is complete and utter BS because they both had stock strings on them. The tailpieces lifted a bit on them too. Neither bass is under warranty, so you know what that means. Wood does vary, so will the results that different people get when they go to remove the extra bit of material required to move the neck pickup to the "really cool vintage looking magical 1/2" sweet spot". Geir's bass shows superior construction on the 4001 in this area, and these basses even had problems. Early V63 and C64 basses weren't nearly as bad as current basses.

[Kopfjaeger]

+1 on Dane's comments. While I'd love to put my new toaster from Classic Amplification in the .5 position, I'd never dream of removing more material that close to the neck on a 4003. I'm not willing to go that far to risk destabilizing that area further. Wile many vintage instruments suffer from negative neck angles, most likely as a result of decades of high tension strings, I too suspect the huge and un-needlessly excessively cavernous neck pup routes found on v63's and some 4003's are more to blame than what strings were used.

Sepp

[coolingitdown]

As far as I know, C64's are just as bad. I have a couple of customers with C64's that have such severe negative neck angles that the bridge won't go any lower, and the action is STILL too high...Early V63 and C64 basses weren't nearly as bad as current basses.

That statement isn't universally true. My C64 was built in 2010 and doesn't have any of those problems. The action is VERY low and fast. If it's at all relevant, it has had TI flats and Optima 4099 flats on it. It currently wears the Optimas.

[cassius987]

That statement isn't universally true. My C64 was built in 2010 and doesn't have any of those problems. The action is VERY low and fast. If it's at all relevant, it has had TI flats and Optima 4099 flats on it. It currently wears the Optimas.

Jon, if that's the bass I played at Wildwood before you bought it, then I remember it having an exceptionally similar neck angle to 4003s of the time (I was probably more plugged into how Rics were coming out of the factory between 2010-2013 than any other time, thanks to Wildwood). [I also remember of the two C64s they had in stock, it was the better sounding one and nowhere near as much tail lift as the one you didn't buy.] The profile seemed different than 4003s though. Anyway, they all have a smidge of extra action approaching the body. This is not exactly a bad thing if it doesn't get extreme as string excursion increases and needs the extra room down there.

With neck-through basses it can be pretty hard to nail the neck angle exactly right every time. On the flip side, I have been surprised how hard it can be even with a bolt-on due to unevenness in the fingerboard. Most good basses will get 95% of the way there and you have to look past the rest. In the case of my 4001FL, it was well below 95% so I had a luthier countersink my tailpiece. Extreme mod, but it was already a "butchered" bass and I can honestly say the mod is everything I'd hoped and more as far as effect on the playability and perhaps to some extent even the sound. However it's not something to do to a nice C64.

[cheyenne]

So... this is the reason for the 1" spacing Ric currently uses correct?

[cassius987]

So... this is the reason for the 1" spacing Ric currently uses correct?

They went to 1'' spacing in 72 or 73 right? My guess is as good as yours but reinforcing the neck seems to be the logic. Paul Boyer could probably comment on this with his extensive knowledge of Ric-o-history. On the flip side it could also have been to clarify the tone of the pickup a bit so it would play nicer with woofers of the time, although the sonic change from 1/2'' to 1'' is really minimal to my ears. What difference I can hear is more focus in the 1'' position and more open wooly stuff in the 1/2'', but again the difference is not huge.

My guess is that if RIC moved the fingerboard up to 21.5 frets (from the current 20.5) without changing where the neck attaches to the body, it would probably provide a lot of reinforcement to the neck angle. But there may be engineering complications I'm not aware of, and if nothing else it would mean longer truss rods and fingerboard material and redoing some of the CNC templates. I don't know how much work that would entail. It would also disrupt "the look" a bit and that would be sure to throw lots of people into a tizzy. RIC also has to ask the question, "If we are backlogged, why make changes?" And yet they still do, so clearly they have an eye to the future.

[aceonbass]

RIC moved the neck pickup in 1976. I don't know why, but I think it was to strengthen the area. In the last several years, RIC moved the body wings back a centimeter or so, and made the area weaker. They also started routing the neck blank all the way up to the fibgerboard, further weakening the area. Mark Arnquist spends a lot of time reinforcing the area with new maple on 4003 basses. Although obviously all C64's aren't flexing at the neck to body transition, it shouldn't flex at all regardless of strings used. TI Flats and Optima strings are low tension strings to begin with, and less likely to cause a problem.

[byu]

The move to 1" spacing happened in May '75.

[coolingitdown]

So... this is the reason for the 1" spacing Ric currently uses correct?

The reason according to Paul's book is to take advantage of a harmonic node over the 1" spacing, but it likely helped to stabilize the area also, I would imagine.

And yes, Cassius, that is indeed the C64 you test drove for me. As you say, the neck profile is very different from that of the 4003 of the time. It feels closer to the neck profile of some of the older Ricks I have tried, so mission accomplished for the factory. And I agree that the neck angle being a tad negative is by no means a bad thing since, as you say, it allows for string excursion and, therefore, a straighter neck yielding an optimal setup (to my taste, anyway). Maybe I just happened to score one of the better late model C64 basses around.

[aceonbass]

You can get that same string excursion by having a fretboard that's parallel to the top of the body, and raising the bridge. Having to file your string saddles deeper, or routing the top of the body to lower your whole tailpiece is NOT the way to deal with the problem.

[vax2002]

Lucky Enough to have one from the First early 90's 4003s run, For me the lack of binding and solid finger board makes them more of a players bass, have my 4003 for eye candy but the 4003's is just so hot melted butter to play.
Have been towing with selling one of the Ricks, but looks like they will be staying.

[bassduke49]

That Red one is likely late '85 or later. Red started in '85, and yours has the later one-piece pickguard indicating that it may have the newer rod system gradually introduced through 1985. Beauty!

[CanOpener]

Hello all, I am new posting here..

I think it's awesome the 4003s is back.. I don't really need another bass, but I do like the new 4003sw a lot! I've got my "S" V63 fix sastisfied in my Ricken-collection. My favorite Rickenbacker bass(es) are the 4001v63 and 4001cs.. I even had to dress up my 4003s5 in V63 features. Looks awesome... And, here is a pic of my collection.

P.S. I really love the Rickenbacker bass book, so it's part of the collection too.