Page 2 of 5
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:17 pm
by jmh
>Ted said:
>Jack: Yours is the first one I listed.
That's what I thought when I saw the '02 4003. I didn't realize when you wrote:
>That one is from my seen-better-days pile. It has never been strung up in the time I have had it.
that you were referring to another bass.
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:18 pm
by rickfan60
Yep, calipers here.
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:49 pm
by throw_this_away
96' 4003
1st = .83
5th = .81
7th = .81
12th = .81
16th = .84
72' 4001
1st = .87
5th = .86
7th = .86
12th = .86
16th = .88
I think I win bragging rights. But seriously... I don't think a few 16ths of an inch make any real difference.
I can feel that my 96 is thinner than the 72', and way thinner that a post 2000 ric... but all of them feel just great to me.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:01 am
by henny
My 96' 4003S has an uber-thin neck, too.
Must be a 1996 thing.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:14 am
by edski
I'm not sure that using a micrometer is really necessary...but certainly care should be used to get as good a measurement as possible. In the past when we had this discussion and a few folks responded I used a string and then measured against a ruler. If the ruler has 1/16" gradations, you can estimate to the 1/32"...which is less than 1 mm. That should be good enough - this isn't a research physics lab.
Someone mentioned that some older 4001 models have a problem at the first fret, as the mass of the headstock starts to develop somewhere between the 1st and 2nd fret. I think my idea was to make 2 measurements at each point - the perimeter, and the thickness across the neck. IMO this allows on to visualize the approximate dimensions pretty well, with the assumption that the neck profile is some sort of curve approximating a semi-circle.
IIRC that old thread had maybe a half dozen data points - and there might have been at least one 70's 4001 with a "chunky" neck, and (probably) a mid 90's 4003 that was relatively slim.
I didn't save the data, at least on this computer, and my 4001 is not around here...so a little later I'll try to measure the 4004L...got lots of time, as I'm unemployed (again
)...
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:42 am
by teeder
Very cool exersize, but I think we should have width measurements too. My two V63's are less than a year apart, but the width at the nut is about .080 different. The thin one feels way better to me.
Personally, I'd like to see better than 1/32 in accuracy too. I can feel the difference of .030 pretty easy.
If anyone needs to borrow a pair of calipers, I have some to pass around.
Also, if we can get enough data points, I can enter them into a statistical program and see what the plot looks like.
Kevin
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:51 am
by rickfan60
I will make the data available to anyone interested in seeing it. I will measure all of mine over the next few days.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:05 am
by fran4001
Ditto here. I'll measure my '91 Squire, and '94 V63 (hopefully!) and post here. Hope to accomplish this by the weekend.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:09 am
by dswp
I will do some measurements within the next week.
I always thought that my shadow bass was thinner than my "72's". We will now see.....
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:21 am
by johnallg
Ok, my Nov. 2004 MapleGlo 4003:
2004
4003
1 .927
7 .946
12 .97
16 1.048
And I was right, the Austin is narrower. But where the Rick stays about the same thickness along the length, the J-Bass type neck continues to thicken - slowly - but the heel area where it bolts starts at the 14th fret. Flooby-dust for here though.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:56 am
by rickfan60
The data set so far.
J Hering 4003 2002 0.950 0.950 0.980 1.080
M. Hutchinson 4003 2004 0.920 0.920 0.950 0.980
T Staberow 4001 1975 0.885 0.865 0.875 0.880
T Staberow 4001 1963 0.830 0.850 0.850 0.925
C Merrin 4001 1975 0.868 0.835 0.838 0.870
J Drysdale 4003 1996 0.830 0.810 0.810 0.840
J Drysdale 4001 1972 0.870 0.860 0.860 0.880
J Allgaier 4003 2004 0.927 0.946 0.970 1.048
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:43 pm
by johnallg
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:59 pm
by jmh
Looks like I won that race by a full neck.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:34 pm
by rick_ovic
Here's the measurements (in millimetres) from my Rickenbacker basses:-
'72 4001 FG
1st 42mm
7th 49mm
12th 53mm
16th 55mm
'73 4001 FG
1st 42mm
7th 49mm
12th 52mm
16th 54mm
'75 4000 JG
1st 42mm
7th 48mm
12th 53mm
16th 54mm
All fairly consistent, eh?
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:28 am
by teeder
Darren,
Those are neck widths, correct?
We also need the thickness (front to back).
I'm sure you guys know this, but just incase:
To convert from MM to inches, just divide the mm's by 25.4
Also, I have a pair of calipers going to Dave Pascoe. If anyone else with a pile of Ricks needs them, let me know.
Kevin