Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

When I see the later 4001CS basses with the post-97 headstocks and the not-so-correct bridge pickup surrounds on them, I cringe.

+1!

gellkeller wrote:

FretlessOnly wrote:Did the RM1999s not have the extended PG that goes almost up to the surround?

Like this?

Boy, look at that!!

Agree with Pete here.

The 60's basses do seem very light compared to the later gear, especially when you take off the horseshoes!
I've played a couple of C64's and they were nothing like my two RM 1999's. Not that any two of them are the same either!

Comparing a 60's bass with any RI is a bit like comparing apples and oranges...

I've often heard how light the RM's were. I wonder if they were made out of Western Big Leaf maple instead of Eastern Sugar or "Rock" maple. Western maple is considerably lighter than Eastern, though quite a bit softer too.

teeder wrote:I've often heard how light the RM's were. I wonder if they were made out of Western Big Leaf maple instead of Eastern Sugar or "Rock" maple. Western maple is considerably lighter than Eastern, though quite a bit softer too.

It could be a good guess, I think the timber is perhaps a bit softer which could add to many necks not surviving on 60s basses.
Eden.

wints wrote:Comparing a 60's bass with any RI is a bit like comparing apples and oranges...

Or comparing a Granny Smith to a Golden Delicious.....

Eden.

....or Honeycrisp and Mutsu.

I suppose it depends on what one wants.

A year ago my band played a wine fest, and the band before us, the bassplayer had a MG 4001, nice bass, fairly beat up, with checker binding. He let me hold it and play it, pretty cool, LIGHT as hell, almost too fragile to my tastes. I would never give up my C64 for that 4001. In a perfect world, yeah, I'd like an original RM 1999 from the mid 60s in great condition. But unless I have the time and $ to get one, I honestly don't have the patience (or $) to ever get one. With that in mind, the C64 is perfect for me. I love it. Wouldn't trade it for anything!

teeder wrote:I've often heard how light the RM's were. I wonder if they were made out of Western Big Leaf maple instead of Eastern Sugar or "Rock" maple. Western maple is considerably lighter than Eastern, though quite a bit softer too.

I'd be surprised. Big Leaf maple is horrible wood for making guitar necks due to its weakness.

How about making 4003 body wings from alder instead?

Alder=bad wood grain, no MG or FG there. Plus, it could do some weird things to the tone of the instrument, as it boosts the low mids a bit, while maple scoops them in favor of lows and highs. Although I think body wings are much less important than neck construction as far as tone.

RIC_FACTORY wrote:

teeder wrote:I've often heard how light the RM's were. I wonder if they were made out of Western Big Leaf maple instead of Eastern Sugar or "Rock" maple. Western maple is considerably lighter than Eastern, though quite a bit softer too.

I'd be surprised. Big Leaf maple is horrible wood for making guitar necks due to its weakness.

How about just for the body wings?

How about just for the body wings?

Body wings would be ok actually. In fact, Big Leaf maple is often very charactered and is highly coveted by acoustic makers.

I should also mention that Western Big Leaf maple is usually more salmon colored than Eastern Hardrock, which is generally white. If one used Big Leaf maple body wings on an Eastern Hardrock neck you would see a contrast.

usually more salmon colored

Good point. I forgot about that.