New 4003S body/neck compared with 4001C64 questions

[fazeka]

Hi,

Am interested in the new 2015 4003S. Maybe those of you in the know can answer me some questions comparing the 4003S to the 4001C64.

How does it differ as far as the body shape and headstock shape (apart from being reversed) from the 4001C64?

Specifically, with the toaster moved away from the neck compared with the 4001C64, does that mean "more wood" between the neck pickup routing and the bottom of the fingerboard?

Does it come with the 5-screw tailpiece? Does this eliminate tail lift?

Are the modern strap buttons interchangable with the vintage strap buttons (i.e., is the thread the same)?

Cheers,
Chris

[4003Hippy]

Hey there chris, I find that tonally, the horseshoe/toaster combination and the half inch neck spacing on the 4001 makes it sound a little warmer, but that's just my take. With regards to the two extra screws in the tailpiece, Rickenbacker hasn't done that since about the mid 90's, but I wouldn't be too concerned about taillift. The extra half inch of wood between the neck and the bass pickup does not make much of a difference IMHO about neck strength and all that, and to me, the bass pickup being closer to the neck only adds to the bassiness of the bass. Modern strap buttons are not the same, but I am unsure if they are interchangeable with the vintage ones, but the modern ones are better (again just my opinion) because here's a little hint: The vintage strap buttons are actually the same as the mute screws! The body is thinner and rounder on the 4001 c64 than on the 4003s and the headstock is slightly smaller, as well as being the right way (but you already knew that ) Personally, if I had the choice I'd spend the extra cash and find yourself a 4001c64.
thanks,
Eli

[aceonbass]

The redesigned neck pickup route will make a big difference down the line on neck rigidity. I've heard from a few C64 owners who's necks have flexed due to the large route there going all the way to the fretboard, as well as others (including myself) who've had the neck move upward slightly. RIC blames it on strings with a tension over 138lbs. I call BS on that one. The new route is the biggest improvement RIC's made on these basses in years. Other than the fact that ping harmonics don't seem to register on the neck pickup in the 1" spacing, I find no difference tonally between the two positions. Modern Schaller locking strap buttons are indeed interchangeable with the old style strap buttons. I don't care for the machine thread in the wood since they often become loose and unscrew while playing, so I order standard Schaller strap buttons, dowell the hole, and screw them in with a larger than stock wood screw. Since the new 4003S can be had for under $1500, I don't feel there's any reason to pay extra for the C64, especially with the GIANT neck pickup route.

[fazeka]

Hey there chris

Hi Eli, thanks for your reply.

With regards to the two extra screws in the tailpiece, Rickenbacker hasn't done that since about the mid 90's, but I wouldn't be too concerned about taillift.

I have a friend with a 2010 C64 and he is frustrated with the taillift on his bass. (FWIW, he has Pyramid flats on it.) It has cracked the finish in front of the tailpiece and is simply unacceptable on a bass priced the way it was...

I don't want to have to go through that if I end up with a new 4003S and hoping the 2 extra screws will keep the tailpiece DOWN.

The body is thinner and rounder on the 4001 c64 than on the 4003s and the headstock is slightly smaller, as well as being the right way (but you already knew that )

I'm okay with the 4003S being less "rounder" (assuming you mean the edges?), but... how much thinner is the 4001C64 body compared to the 4003S? Are we talking thousands of an inch or eighths of an inch?

Cheers,
Chris

[fazeka]

The redesigned neck pickup route will make a big difference down the line on neck rigidity. I've heard from a few C64 owners who's necks have flexed due to the large route there going all the way to the fretboard, as well as others (including myself) who've had the neck move upward slightly. RIC blames it on strings with a tension over 138lbs. I call BS on that one. The new route is the biggest improvement RIC's made on these basses in years. Other than the fact that ping harmonics don't seem to register on the neck pickup in the 1" spacing, I find no difference tonally between the two positions. Modern Schaller locking strap buttons are indeed interchangeable with the old style strap buttons. I don't care for the machine thread in the wood since they often become loose and unscrew while playing, so I order standard Schaller strap buttons, dowell the hole, and screw them in with a larger than stock wood screw. Since the new 4003S can be had for under $1500, I don't feel there's any reason to pay extra for the C64, especially with the GIANT neck pickup route.

Hi aceonbass, thanks for your reply.

Some (hopefully not stupid questions) I need some clarity on...

Are you saying the neck pickup routing is smaller on the 4003S? AND moved down 1/2 inch compared with the C64?

Re: ping harmonics, are these harmonics that are played at the 24th fret location or harmonics (overtones) due to string vibration? Don't think I would be concerned about the former... =)

Finally, I haven't seen any new 4003S basses for < $1500. Any clue you can give me on where these could be found?

Cheers,
Chris

[4003Hippy]

Hey again chris, the 4001c64 i VERY VERY slightly thinner, i mean I've never measured it but its very small, but the 4001 just feels a little thinner to me probably due to the more rounded contour on the body edges. I find it interesting that your friend is having trouble with taillift with pyramids on his c64, because my friend's is wearing LaBella 1954 style flats (VERY heavy and tight tight tight, (were talking about an approximately 60 g string), and he can barely slip a piece of paper under the bridge. Also, I don't believe that there are two extra screws in the bridge of the 4003, but I will check ( I always thought they were both five screws, but who knows?). Anyways, if you dont mind having less body contour, then you should get the 4003s, especially if you plan on it being your main gigging bass. Just to let you know I have nevver used a 4001 on a gig, but my friend says that the 4003 is more reliable, so I'm taking his word for it.
Thanks,
Eli

[aceonbass]

All C64's have a three screw tailpiece like the original cast aluminum part. All current 4003's have a five screw tailpiece, which helps in the tail lift dept. Both are the same heavy duty casting, but I've never seen the C64 three screw tailpiece not lift eventually. The neck pickup routing on all current 4003's has the same basic rounded rectangular shape, and I think size, BUT, the extra 1/2" of material removed from the neck blank all the way to the fretboard previously, has been restored. There are two narrow routes for truss rod removal, which I'd expect. The neck pickup route for C64's was the same size as for 4003's, PLUS, and extra 3/8" worth of material was removed to put the neck pickup in the half inch position. Given that the cutaways were also moved rearward with the whole body wing about 1/4" on all RIC basses at the same time several years ago, a bad situation was made worse. By ping harmonics, I mean all harmonics along the string at whatever fret positions normally found such as the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 12th, etc....Someone on another thread recently ordered a new 4003S with a 15% coupon for around $1275 from one of the major online music retailers this week. And finally, there are no stupid questions, just stupid responses to perfectly good and accurate info.

[4003Hippy]

Good to know, I'll notify my friend. He is the one who owns it by the way, and I am sorry to have provided some confusion due to my somewhat inexperience on the 4001c64. I do know however, my 4003s kicks a$$ and its totally hip for gigging.
Thanks,
Eli

[fazeka]

Hi aceonbass,

Pulled the trigger on a 4003S FG thanks to your suggestion. Now the only thing to do is wait patiently...

Cheers,
Chris

[bassman4001]

You will be happy you got the 4003S. It's a great bass. I have both the 4003S and a 4001C64S. Both great basses

[basmansam]

I've owned '06, '09 C64 basses and currently own an April '15 4003S bass.
I think the S neck is thinner front to back than the C basses.

[rictified]

Never mind the C64, haha! How does it compare to a new 4003 or a late 70's 4001? I fell in love with a jetglo 4003S, first new Rick bass I've wanted to buy in a long time.

[basmansam]

I measure my new 4003S bass (as previous measurements on measure your girth post)

2015 4003S
1rst fret: 11.6
3rd fret: 11.9
12th fret:13.4

2009 C64S (my bass, measurements)
1rst fret: 11.3
3rd fret: 11.6
12th fret:13.0

The 2015 S bass feels thinner front to back, measurements indicate otherwise.
Also on the list, a 2010 4003 had the same measurements, must be the CNC tolerance are the same.
http://files.rickresource.com/Rick_400x ... ements.xls

[bassduke49]

Those measurements are in centimeters, BTW, and "girth" is the total circumference at the points mentioned (not including the strings, of course).

[jps]

And hopefully, not including the frets, themselves!