Under consideration,your opinions welcome.

[woodyng]

Oh wait, nevermind. I see you are looking for an "S" bass in the early configuration. Hmm, that is a game changer. Perhaps a 4003 "S" and mod it?? How about a v63??
Sepp

I did take your other points into consideration,but Yes,this is what made me think about doing this in the first place.
99% of the time,I prefer the S models,and would love to have one from this era with the 3-piece neck. Not an easy find,and $$$.
I did own a nice V63 for a few monthes, it didn't really "do it" for me,though.
I'm pretty sure based on what i've sampled of newer 4003 neck profiles that i wouldn't much like the new S that much,unless they've changed the profiles yet again.....plus right off the bat,i would need those pickups replaced,possibly wiring,too.(much like your plans for your upcoming walnut S).

[cassius987]

Sounds like a bad idea on an objective level. On the other hand it sounds like you really want to do it...

Considering how many people (rightly or wrongly) value the better neck angle associated with neck pickup-free Rics, why risk that? If you sell it, adding a 2nd pickup yourself (which you must disclose) is not going to increase value a bit.

[woodyng]

Not sure about that last bit,Cassius...wouldn't mind seeing what $$$ a '72 4001S might fetch.
I believe retaining or even increasing value would be down to the quality of the modification work done. But i'm guessing that would also mean i would probably need at least $3k back to cover the investment.

[aceonbass]

Woody......Do what you want to do, as long as you plan on keeping it. Otherwise, like many Rick owners who seem to have an eye on resale value as soon as they buy one, you may indeed decrease its value. Then again, that also depends on what you paid for it. I've done a 4000 to 4001 conversion before, so you could send it my way for the conversion if you decide to go that way. You've already got examples of my pickguards and wiring...

[woodyng]

My only thoughts about resale value are because i'm not getting any younger,and know at some point they will likely go out the door before i shuffle off.....hopefully not anytime soon,but the point is I won't be leaving them to anyone.....
And i always do what i want to do when it comes to this stuff.....

[Gilmourisgod]

A neck pup route of any appreciable depth effectively transforms a neck through design into a rather shallow set neck, a situation Ric has only recently improved on the newer basses by using a shallower pup route. The 1/2" pup spacing is about the worst possible structurally, right at the point of maximum stress. Your bass was not designed for this, I think it will weaken the neck and reduce resale value, don't do it!

[DavyR]

My 1971 natural color 4000 bass has a single piece neck. It had the route for the neck pickup when I bought it used in 1980. It has "NAT 4000" written in the route, so, I assume it HAD to have had the route for a neck pickup when it was made. My repair man said the neck is about at it's max angle to the body. Maybe the neck pickup route had something to do with this?!

[aceonbass]

A neck pup route of any appreciable depth effectively transforms a neck through design into a rather shallow set neck, a situation Ric has only recently improved on the newer basses by using a shallower pup route. The 1/2" pup spacing is about the worst possible structurally, right at the point of maximum stress. Your bass was not designed for this, I think it will weaken the neck and reduce resale value, don't do it!

This body and neck assembly is identical to any 4001 of the same era, so a conversion to a 4001 would not weaken the neck area any more than that of any production 4001. This is indeed what these basses were designed for back then. When these basses were produced, RIC did not route all the way to the fretboard. This practice started sometime in the 90's, I suspect after CNC production started. While the recent route change was a big improvement (it's not shallower, it's just not all the way to the fretboard anymore on the neck blank), it wouldn't have been necessary had RIC not started routing all the way to the fretboard in the first place. Current cutaways are still deeper than they were in the 70's (except on 21 fretter 4001's), and still a source of weakness. If this 4000 is converted, it should be done to put the neck pickup in the 1/2" location with as small a route as possible, and in the same manner with 12-14 3/8" Forstner bit holes connecting the pickup route to the control cavity like 4001's were.

[bassduke49]

Has anyone thought about a second layer of pickguard material (with cutout, of course) to mount the neck pickup. This would bring the pickup up toward the strings (which some wish for), but still leave room to drop it lower. It would also allow a shallower rout in the body at this crucial point. There wouldn't be much esthetic penalty. Your thoughts.

[aceonbass]

The bottom of the fretboard is already 1/16" closer to the body plane on the early basses, so I don't think getting the pickup closer to the strings is an issue. A route the same size and depth as a Toaster pickup should be a minimal compromise in strength here. A route like this worked great on all of the 8-string conversions I did once the area was filled with a block of maple.

[woodyng]

This body and neck assembly is identical to any 4001 of the same era, so a conversion to a 4001 would not weaken the neck area any more than that of any production 4001. This is indeed what these basses were designed for back then. If this 4000 is converted, it should be done to put the neck pickup in the 1/2" location with as small a route as possible, and in the same manner with 12-14 3/8" Forstner bit holes connecting the pickup route to the control cavity like 4001's were.

I'm thinking of even a shallower route,i saw a video where an 8-string Rick neck pickup cavity was repaired,and they actually drilled 6 shallow holes for the toaster magnets to snug into,in order to keep as much wood in the area as possible. I thought that was very clever.
And the forstner bit thing to me would be silly to do (always thought it looked very high school machine shop personally) if a very shallow channel route could be done instead. (It's for one small wire!) Similar to what Paul just said,I'm wondering if a small channel could be made in the pickguard instead of the body? (Probably not.) I am not into doing the exact procedures that were done "back then" just for "authenticity",especially if better methods have appeared in more recent years....
I'm spitballing here mostly,feel free to shoot me down or lift me up,whichever comes to mind....

[Grey]

Permanent modifications of any kind will be detrimental to the resale value, period. If that's not a concern to you (and you've accepted that you'll never get back the money you put into it) then go for it, it's your bass.

[Maccaguy]

Why not keep the 4000 stock, and look for a good deal on a new 4003S to play around with pickup spacing and neck profiles? Just throwing that out there...

[woodyng]

Why not keep the 4000 stock, and look for a good deal on a new 4003S to play around with pickup spacing and neck profiles? Just throwing that out there...

Already covered that question previously......

[aceonbass]

I think if you're going to do this Woody, it should be done as authenticity as possible. This is a true vintage collectable bass. Since you've only got $1700 in it, modding it properly shouldn't affect the value negatively at all. I think you could even recover most of the cost of modding it if you did decide to sell it down the road. Permanently modding a Rick does not necessarily decrease its value to most people, especially real players IMHO. I paid $900 for the 4003 that became my "4008CS". I'm pretty sure the bass is worth a lot more than that now.