RM1999 vs 4001S

[henry5]

I say it's a typo.

+1

Says he copied it from another forum. Who knows where this info came from.
I wouldn't put much stock in it.

Send a message to RIC and ask if they change the scale for fretless basses.
I highly doubt it.

If some piece of data is found on the internet the information contained therein must be fact! The interwebs never makes a mistake.

New fact: fretted and fretless Rickenbacker basses of the standard, long scale variety have 33 1/4" scale lengths. There, I said it, now let that be fact from this day forward (this official document supersedes all previous related documents).

In my 40-odd years of playing Ricks (and playing the odd Ric fretless) I’ve never heard of, or experienced, the scale length on the fretless basses being different. So I’d love to hear something from Rickenbacker to the contrary. FWIW, I’ve often seen the Rickenbacker scale length erroneously described as 33.5”.

[bassdroid]

+1

Says he copied it from another forum. Who knows where this info came from.
I wouldn't put much stock in it.

Send a message to RIC and ask if they change the scale for fretless basses.
I highly doubt it.

If some piece of data is found on the internet the information contained therein must be fact! The interwebs never makes a mistake.

New fact: fretted and fretless Rickenbacker basses of the standard, long scale variety have 33 1/4" scale lengths. There, I said it, now let that be fact from this day forward (this official document supersedes all previous related documents).

In my 40-odd years of playing Ricks (and playing the odd Ric fretless) I’ve never heard of, or experienced, the scale length on the fretless basses being different. So I’d love to hear something from Rickenbacker to the contrary. FWIW, I’ve often seen the Rickenbacker scale length erroneously described as 33.5”.

Same.

There is no reason based in physics or science that an instrument would require a different scale length in order to be fretless.

And, from a manufacturing standpoint, It makes no sense to retool for a different size neck for a fretless option that had virtually no market demand at that point in history.

It's true that the first commercially available fretless bass guitar was introduced in 1965. That would be the Ampeg AEB. But the idea didn't really catch fire until Jaco came along in 1973 and up to then public demand for fretless basses was very low- microscopic. As far as I know Fender didn't offer that option until 1970.

A very small company like Rickenbacker spending resources introducing an instrument with no demand is highly improbable.

I am certainly willing to consider a different viewpoint, but until someone from Rickenbacker presents hard evidence I'm highly skeptical that this is a factory fretless. Most likely modified at some point in the 1970s.

[Andir]

I got this from a vintage catalog http://vintage.catalogs.free.fr/rickenbacker.pdf

Says 33.5” which mine is, rosewood fingerboard which mine is and side dot markers which mine has.

I just don’t want to give up, put frets on, rerout the bridge and ruin a rare instrument

[Korladis]

If some piece of data is found on the internet the information contained therein must be fact! The interwebs never makes a mistake.

New fact: fretted and fretless Rickenbacker basses of the standard, long scale variety have 33 1/4" scale lengths. There, I said it, now let that be fact from this day forward (this official document supersedes all previous related documents).

In my 40-odd years of playing Ricks (and playing the odd Ric fretless) I’ve never heard of, or experienced, the scale length on the fretless basses being different. So I’d love to hear something from Rickenbacker to the contrary. FWIW, I’ve often seen the Rickenbacker scale length erroneously described as 33.5”.

Same.

There is no reason based in physics or science that an instrument would require a different scale length in order to be fretless.

And, from a manufacturing standpoint, It makes no sense to retool for a different size neck for a fretless option that had virtually no market demand at that point in history.

It's true that the first commercially available fretless bass guitar was introduced in 1965. That would be the Ampeg AEB. But the idea didn't really catch fire until Jaco came along in 1973 and up to then public demand for fretless basses was very low- microscopic. As far as I know Fender didn't offer that option until 1970.

A very small company like Rickenbacker spending resources introducing an instrument with no demand is highly improbable.

I am certainly willing to consider a different viewpoint, but until someone from Rickenbacker presents hard evidence I'm highly skeptical that this is a factory fretless. Most likely modified at some point in the 1970s.

It's especially unlikely to use a slightly different scale length, particularly a scale length that is only very slightly different, for a model with very low demand as it complicates manufacturing. It would make more sense to just use S model boards but without putting the frets in.

[henry5]

I got this from a vintage catalog http://vintage.catalogs.free.fr/rickenbacker.pdf

Says 33.5” which mine is, rosewood fingerboard which mine is and side dot markers which mine has.

I just don’t want to give up, put frets on, rerout the bridge and ruin a rare instrument

I’ve got some of the old Ric catalogues. As I said before, I’ve seen ALL Rics referred to as having a 33.5” scale in the past. If you really want to clear this up to your satisfaction, you need to contact Rickenbacker.

FWIW, I’ve had a ‘73 4000 and it was the same scale length as all my others. And as others have already said, the saddles will vary anyway.

[Andir]

So from the horses mouth as it were smashing all my false hopes.
On the other hand I have found the answer to my original thread question and it is a RM1999 shipped from the Rickenbacker factory to London on 28 February 1966.
I can now safely fit frets to it.

Hi Andi,

Thank you for providing pictures. Unfortunately, that would not be the original fingerboard on that instrument as the FL models had the dot inlays on the board and would not have used such dark wood.

John Hall states that the scale length has not changed, and the difference is the difference between the old method of measuring scales vs. a more modern method. In the past, the scale length was measured from the inside edge of the nut to the average of plus and minus bridge adjustment. This takes into account that some strings maybe be adjusted longer than "scale" and others shorter to intonate properly. Now most companies, including ourselves, measure from the inside edge of the nut to the inside edge of the12th fret and double it, which is more theoretically precise number. All RIC 4000, 4001, 4002 and 4003 instruments have a scale length of 33 ¼”.

Unfortunately, I do not have any old media available to provide. You will want to look online for images of factory stock instruments from that time period.

Take care,

Rickenbacker Customer Service
3895 S. Main St.
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-545-5574
Fax: 714-754-1055
[email protected]
www.rickenbacker.com
Image
“Brother Musician, Listen to a Miracle!”
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

[jps]

Ha!

[Andir]

Thanks

[bassdroid]

Well even though our suspicions have been more or less confirmed, I will say that you have got yourself one very cool bass!
It's definitely worthy of a detailed, accurate, and thorough restoration. Congratulations and best of luck!

Oh, and if you haven't already, you might want to add it to the registry.

[jps]

Well even though our suspicions have been more or less confirmed, I will say that you have got yourself one very cool bass!
It's definitely worthy of a detailed, accurate, and thorough restoration. Congratulations and best of luck!

Oh, and if you haven't already, you might want to add it to the registry.

Ditto.

[jps]

Thanks

What are you sad about. Information/questions/concerns have been answered for the historical record.

[Andir]

Just bummed that it wasn’t an original fretless but I did get the answer to my original question, although from a facebook group, that it is a RM1999.
Now should I replace the brazilian rosewood board for bubinga or just go with it realising it’s never going to be original anyway.

[jps]

Just bummed that it wasn’t an original fretless but I did get the answer to my original question, although from a facebook group, that it is a RM1999.
Now should I replace the brazilian rosewood board for bubinga or just go with it realising it’s never going to be original anyway.

Instruments get modded all the time, particular old one back in the day when they weren't "vintage". Given the value of BRW and the various CITES issues regarding it, I would not change the fingerboard out, it is part of the bass' history.

IDR, do you play fretless, or is the plan to install frets on the fingerboard?

[bassdroid]

Just bummed that it wasn’t an original fretless but I did get the answer to my original question, although from a facebook group, that it is a RM1999.
Now should I replace the brazilian rosewood board for bubinga or just go with it realising it’s never going to be original anyway.

I'll second leaving the fretless board on.

In the interest of making it operational, you might begin by looking for the missing parts. Period correct originals from the 1960s will be very expensive and hard to find, but they are out there. Or you could go with factory reproductions, as found on the V63 model.

Be patient, keep your eyes open, and take the time to do this right

[teeder]

If it were mine, and the fact that I don't play fretless, I'd put frets on the existing board.
It would be a shame to ruin that piece of wood.

Love me some BRW!