Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Jeff, did you find the picture with the tuner in the wave? I did a little mock up on a picture and while it's not real it does give you an idea of what it would be close to looking like. Not sure I'm digging that location so much now even though I think it would be totally workable. I going to try to mock up a picture with the tuner in the middle at the top of the headstock with the key shaft in line with the neck.

I went back and revisited this idea. Some of the pros are....it's not so far away from the nut, it has a more symmetrical look, it looks like something a boutique builder might do, its original(I don't think any one's tried this position on a rick). Some of the cons are....it does look kind of strange, tuner access is limited some, but not too bad(would be hard on a 34"/35" scale). The TRC has clearance, the shape of the tuner key gives it clearance with the "wave", and the key does not protrude past the wave and it fits in the case with no problems. Please feel free to give any and all opinions, I can take it and I'm very open minded.(If you haven't noticed, I like to think outside the box and I don't always take the road that everybody else does)

If you really want to think outside the box, get the ABM headless bridge/tuner setup.

Or use that one Joey Vasco has on his, where the tuner is at the bridge.

Definitely not good looking at edge of the headstock under the wave. You'd also have a heck of a time getting the trus rod cover off to adjust the rods. I like your first idea better. The tuner-less headstock thing just looks odd and non Rickish. The best thing would be to involve a luthier...but I kinda like the first idea with three on the top.

Just shipped my FG4004 Cii to Mr Rath for a 4-2-5 . It's all in his capable hands .

Barry, be strong. Jeff will take good care of it.

Yeah, he just posted recently his drill bit only has 3 or 4 chips in it!

Ok, just funnin' ya!

Drill bit? What happened to the chisel??

I need some more antacid now . Thanks for all the encouraging words

Barry- the race is on....I think if you're like me you were perfectly content with the Cii as a 4 string, but the width of that neck just screams out for a fifth string. I have medium sized hands and when I went from my 73 4001 to the Cii the difference was noticable, but not uncomfortable due to the flatness of the Cii's neck profile.
Dane- I'm leaning towards the three tuners on the top, but upon further review I think I'm going to reverse them so the key shafts are on the backside of the spindles, I hate reverse tuners but somethings going to have to give in this equation.

OK ... I am home ... back from Denver ... man I love that town ... the bars and restaurants are NON-SMOKING!!!! ... I had a good job interview ...

anyway ... here are some pics of 4-2-5 headstocks ...

this is a 2001 4003 fireglo 4-2-5




this is a 1989 4003s5 the binding is vinyl tape




and a 1990 4003s5 oil finished with stained headwings


and some diagrams ...




and here is one done by another forum member

Jeff, thanks for the pictures. I see why you don't advocate the tuner in the wave area from this picture as it is a 4003 application with the large key heads. A 4003 doesn't have the head stock area or thickness to make this acceptable to me. I going to do another photo mock up of my 4004 with the three top tuners reversed later today, I have a feeling that will end up being the final choice.

My vote is for the Rathenbacker. I think its the best looking of all the conversion options.

I have two of the Rathenbackers and there is no issue whatsoever with the extra tuner on the bottom side. One of the pics that he showed earlier in this thread is one of my basses.

I don't play either of my factory 4004Cii/5's because of how well the 4-2-5's play. In fact, I am thinking of selling one of these or trading for another Cii that I can ask Jeff to convert.