Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hmmm...output on my 4003s have always seemed roughly equal. If actually measured out of the bass, I believe the bridge pickup would have more output; but in position, this should be counteracted by greater string travel at the neck position.

Comments?

Hi Serge,

Well, I've always liked the RIC 400x headstock, no matter what the year. It echoes the body beautifully, like a perfectly proportioned lady (not meaning to sound piggish, gals!)

What I really dislike is that god-awful C64 / C64S reversed headstock.

"What I really dislike is that god-awful C64 / C64S reversed headstock."---John.

Reminds me of the ladies in Picasso's Cubist paintings and sculptures. I don't want my wife(wives) to look like them. Scary...

Mortivan: don't get me wrong. I find the headstock on the 4000 series as attractive as can be, it's only that its shape and size in the 50s and 60s are noticeably different than in the 70s, 80s and 90s and as far as I'm concerned they don't become the current 4003, that's all. I dislike the reversed headstock, too.
Paul, with the new toaster p.u. on your bass you will definitely have a pickup output mismatch problem unless you do as John Hall suggested. Keep us posted.

Interesting, Serge! I really wasn't aware of a major difference.

Does anyone (Pete?) have a 70s/80s/90s vs. 60s/Current 400x headstock comparison picture?

I don't subscribe to the opinion that the new 4001 C 64 "reversed" headstock looks "god-awful".

It may be due to the fact that the first Rickenbacker I was aware of was McCartney's and that's what I liked first off.

Or it may be because I'm looking at it as a former art student:

To me, the fact that the logo "sword" points UP counterbalances the body's tendency to lead the eyes DOWN... what with the cluster of control knobs on the lower bout, the "cresting wave" cutaway looking absolutely like a wave that is about to crest and fall down over itself, etc.

It's a subtle visual detail, but it does make a difference to me, and I am actively LUSTING after a C 64 even as I write this post. ;P

Mortivan, check out the headstocks on these Rick basses:

http://www.tcgakki.com/smashfolder/inst/bass/a-Gibson.html

Holy Cow! There is a noticable difference!

It looks like someone dropped the bass on its headstock squashing it!

Does it also look like the upper body horn is thinner on the new ones?

I much prefer the 70s, 80s and early 90s headstock too.

Thanks Sergio.

Alvaro,

You can't be alone: Mr. Hall said the C64's are selling quite well.

I'd say both body horns on the current 4003 are exactly as on the 4000/4001 of the 60s/early 70s.

I think the latest 4003's look quite nice. They seem to have the body/headstock shape similar to the 4001v63. I have a '92 4003 JG, but sometimes wish it had the style of a newer one. If I was richer and had the cash to blow, and more room to be a collector, I would love a 4001c64 in JG or Turqoise to add to the arsenal. But I am Happy with what I've got.

The new headstocks are similar to 60's headstocks ... the 70's headstocks were made smaller to balance the instrument ... since the made the neck fatter they had to make the headstock lighter to balance the instrument ... I believe the new 4003's have a slightly bigger and a slightly bigger headstock than 70's and 80's basses. The 4003 has an even bigger headstock, neck and body ....

I meant to say the 4003s5 has an even bigger headstock, neck and body ....

Getting back to the original line of thought of this post ... dead spots on necks ...

Most of us play through speaker cabinets that are retangular in shape ... if they are not baffeled properly then they will have standing wave resonance problems .... in other words some frequences will resonate and be louder than others.

I have one bass amp that resonates on a D and another one that resonates on a C .... this makes the other notes seem quieter in comparison .... or seem deader since the cabinet does not resonate on that frequency ...

What I usually do is play through 2 speaker cabs of different shape, and run a line out to the PA and that minimizes the problem

So my point is ... is there a really a dead spot on the neck???

To test this out play a different bass through the same amp, and play the Ric through a different amp ...

What is it with Rickenbackers getting more and more expensive over the years. The price of a brand new 4003 at Musician's Friend is up to $1150 these days. The S.R.P. is $1529.00. I can remember about a year and a half ago they had them on sale for $999.....and around '98-'99- 2000, I can remember being able to get a new 4003 in the $800-$900 range. In 1992 I got a NEW 4003S for $650 from Sam Ash. I have since traded in that bass. Is it just inflation?, or is a new Rick really worth almost $1200. That used to be the price of a V63. I am glad I got all my Ricks when I did.. I don't know if I can spend the kind of money for another one someday at the rate they keep going up...Ebay seems to be an answer. Soon the 4003 will cost over $2000. The C64 is expensive and will go up in price soon too.. If I every buy another Rickenbacker, I will probalbly buy used. Most of my instruments have been bought used anyway and all are in good or excellent condition, who cares if it was not bought brand new....Screw the Jones'. The used market reflects the true value of any good condition bass or guitar anyway, I think.. I don't really need another Rickenbacker anyway, I have a nice little family of them now that need lots of attention anyway.