Who has a 4001C64S? Anybody?

mikeyesfan · Post by **mikeyesfan** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:55 pm

Hi all, I'm not jumpin for Blueburst 4003, I've wanted the 4001C64 and I was leaning to Jetglo until All the talk about the 4001C64 BlueBurst;
"It's not authentic to the vintage replica concept"
So I'm thinkin my next Bass is the 4001C64S...

Does anybody have one? can you give me the pros and cons.

bugman · Post by **bugman** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 2:49 pm

I bought a C64S from Chris at pick of the Ricks about a year ago. It has a nice slim neck compared to the 1999 V63 that I've got. That one has a chunky neck. The C64S has a great smooth satin finish and is a really cool bass. Th V63 to my ears is a lot more bassy or has more power in the pickups. The C64S is still a great sounding bass. I'm a big Beatle/McCartney fan as is I'm sure any one who owns one of these is. I've contemplated selling it to finance a Hofner Club bass but havent been able to talk myself into letting it go. I've got 4 kids and play bass for a hobby(no band or likely to be), so having these high dollar basses is a luxury that is sometimes hard to justify. It is a unique bass and I'm sure would raise a few "what the " comments from those that like Rickenbackers but don't follow the new products that RIC has produced. The flipped headstock is sure to confuse some.

lowendbob · Post by **lowendbob** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:46 pm

Mike, I just bought a c64 in MG. It's vintage right down to the slotted screws. As Geoffrey described the neck on this bass is very nice. Same width as the 4003, but not as thick. I like it much better than the 4003's. Pickups seem to have more punch also. The reverse headstock is cool and the contrasting walnut wings with the maple neck is very beautifull. My only complaint is with the silver vintage case that comes with it. The case is very pretty, but not nearly as roadworthy as the SKB cases.

bigbajo60 · Post by **bigbajo60** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:42 pm

Hey Bugman... a question for you since you own both a v63 and a c64...

Is it my imagination, or is the pickguard smaller on the c64 than on the v63? On every photo that I've seen of both models, it seems as though the c64's pickguards exhibit a size difference that's especially noticeable at the point on the control panel area that comes (or should come) closest to the output jack. I see more top showing between the pickguard edge and body edge at that point on a c64, whereas on a v63 the pickguard curves just shy of the body edge.

Finally, a hypothetical question: would your v63's pickguard fit on your c64 and correct this "discrepancy"?

bugman · Post by **bugman** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:04 pm

The pickguard is a small bit smaller at the area near the jack, but a very small difference. The surround on the bridge pickup butts right up to the pickguard on the C64S wheras the surround on the V63 has a small space between it and the pickguard. The surrounds are a different shape so this may account for some of this. I dont know if the guards would interchange or not as I'm sure there would be alignment differences on the screw holes.

bigbajo60 · Post by **bigbajo60** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:08 pm

Yeah, I figured that there would probably be issues with screw-hole alignments Bugman.

I guess what I was really aiming to get at were the fit and finish aspects of interchangeability... "Would the other pickguard fit around the pickups and butt-up against the fretboard properly?" "Would the pots still be aligned with the control cavity rout?" That sort of stuff.

Many thanx for your observations!

bear · Post by **bear** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:07 pm

Mike,

I took delivery on my July 2003 production dated 4001 C64 SMG in November of 2003, ordered in January of 2002. I then sold my 1997 V63 and bought a Fireglo 4001 C64. The factory strings on the 4001 C64 SMG were replaced with Pyramid flats and have just recently fallen into that perfect Macca Tone Zone. There are no cons, IMHO, that can speak of.

The only area that may be of some interest to you is that the neck heel on the 4001 C64 SMG is carved closer to the heel than the 4001 C64. Playing with the satin finish on the neck is very sweet feeling too and I have grown to prefer that feel over the gloss finish on the FG.

Fit and finish on both are impeccable examples of the Rickenbacker art of bass building.

In the for what it's worth category I have not played a single gig or studio session without getting raves about the quality of tone I obtain with either bass. I am still receiving repeat call backs from the local recording studios for the 4001 C64 SMG's tone to boot.

Played with a pick, fingers, thumb or muted it has that unmistakably and distinct Tone that others continue to tell me is to die for.

Most often I use an Ampeg PB800 with a pair of Bag End cabinets, the S12-B and a S15-B.

Should you have any other questions fire away as I would be happy to answer them as best as I can.

mikeyesfan · Post by **mikeyesfan** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:17 am

Hey Bear, Thanks for the feedback.
I love my V63. I didn't want to spend the Money for the 4001C64S, but lookin at the Prices of Basses on E-Bay, the c64 Looks like it's right in line. I was going to get a Jetglo C64, then changed my mind because it's to close to the V63.
Hopefully I get it Delivered in a Month.

What's the Deal with the Pyramid Flats? I'm not sure what they sound Like? I know they are popular around here.

bear · Post by **bear** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:41 am

Hi Michael,

The deal with Pyramids is they are the same strings Sir Paul used on his Rickenbacker for all of those tracks we cherish so much.

Most relate them to retro bass sounds ie pre Rotosound Rounds. They have the thump you want and can deliver a righteous click when called for. If you want the "Piano string" sound then you are looking for roundwounds, which many feel they can approximate the flatwound sound with by muting but they do excite different harmonics and still have that growl to them. I too have Rickenbackers strung with roundwounds and Nylon tape strings as well. Each has a distinct sound and feel to them and all are acquired tastes and style for playing. I just don't have a favorite and like to be able to cover all of the possibilities.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:52 am

IMHO it's impossible to get RW's to sound like FW's, each has it's mutually incompatible strength. Flatwounds have a solid sound you can't get with RW's even if the RW's are 5 years old and you have all the treble off, and RW's have that piano string sound (especially Rotos) that you can't get with the brightest flats. I too have one Ric strung with Ric Rounds. I also like Pyramids although they can get a bit floppy when I am really digging in.

chucksimms · Post by **chucksimms** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:02 am

Well, just posted about this in the 'C section' (pun intended). I agree about the quality- UNBELIEVABLE. Before I got it I thought I'd never be able to give up my 4001CS. Now I want a 40001C64 in fireglo! That satin finish is too much.

bear · Post by **bear** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:41 am

Agreed Bob,

That's why I said "approximate". Some may fell they get what they want live but once you go into the studio muted flats are merely poser's.
Flats are a different world and not all retro either, again they are just another useful tool in that ever evolving quest for your individual tone.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:22 pm

You mean muted RW's don't you? All I know is that I have gotten nothing but compliments on gigs ever since I switched back to flats 3 or 4 years ago. Flats lie right in the track like an anchor for everything else to build on.

bear · Post by **bear** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:08 am

Doh!
My bad yes muted RW's.
Same here with the compliments on tone with the flatwounds. And yes they place the bass like an anchoring foundation.