Would you hit it?

edski · Post by **edski** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:43 pm

I think I remember JH saying that some of the early CS's had magnetized shoes? Or maybe one of the v64 types? But it wasn't for very long...

To ID a magnetic shoe I would guess that seeing if a paper clip sticks to it might be an adequate experiment...

just_bassics · Post by **just_bassics** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:52 pm

I have one of the later model V63 4001 basses, the bridge pickup cover is clearly cosmetic only - no magnetic charge. I know of one 4001CS owner that told me his horseshoe is magnetic, making it functional to the output. I have noted the difference in a lot of the photos of early V63 and CS models where the bridge pup appears to be a true horseshoe magnet as well. I believed this to be the reason that some of them have gone for a higher price. So educate me, please, are some of the reissue style pups on V63, CS and C64 models true horseshoe magnets, or are they merely cosmetic? And. if they are not functionally magnetic, why the great interest in them? I thought that the actual horseshoe magnets design created a field wherein the true 3 dimensional vibration of the string was accurately represented in the pup's output, whereas other pickups could only represent 2 dimensions of string vibration.

Out of my three Ric basses, a 4003 BBR, 4001V63 and 4001S, the V63 sounds the closest to what I've been hearing on YES albums for the past 30 years. But the 4001S certainly has the best action and is slated for a custom refin in 2007.

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:55 pm

If the shoes are not magnetized, there has to be another magnet(s) somewhere. The reissue HS pups use rod magnets where the pole pieces are, and they are 5/16" in diameter and shiney.

just_bassics · Post by **just_bassics** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:01 pm

I believe my V63 has a bar magnet under the poles to create the field, which would mean that the two piece pickup cover is only cosmetic, not critical to the output and therefore removable. So, I guess my question is, were the original horseshoe pickups true horseshoe magnets, as I always believed they were, and were they ever available on a 4001CS or V63?

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:05 pm

I still say this one was too beat up for $3500. I would never pay that much for anything other than a)a brand new bass, or b)the greatest bass in the universe. The only way to verify b) would be to go and play it. Oh well. I'm sure whoever bought this will be incredibly happy with how it plays and sounds.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:24 pm

no bar magnet here...

CS p'up, now where was the COA...

just_bassics · Post by **just_bassics** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:18 am

Thanks, Jared, great pic. Since that is not the same as the horseshoe that came on my 1998 V63,and it does look like the one from some CS models I've seen in pictures, perhaps you could tell me if 1; Is that a reissue or original 1960's HS, 2; Are the horseshoes magnetic (I believe they are), 3; Is that pup from a CS, V63 or other vintage reissue series guitar, 4; Why are some HS's in this style while others have split removable covers?

I have read in several reviews that some CS owners have had to have their pup re-magnetized to increase output, that the shoes can lose their magnetic charge over the years. I believe that was even the case with Chris Squire's at one point.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:11 am

Jim, could you post a picture of your pickup? Unless I'm missing something, there has never been a reissue horseshoe with a bar magnet (by that I assume you mean like the Seymour Duncan replacement, which is a black pickup with two continuous bars on it; I'd post a picture but I can never manage to post any pictures on here!). Unless you've got an original 60s 'shoe (which would still have polepieces so far as I'm aware, although not big alnico slugs like the reissues)the pickup on your bass should look virtually identical to the one above. If it doesn't, it's likely it's been replaced with a non-Rickenbacker one (like the Seymour Duncan mentioned above). If anyone else knows different I'd like to hear it; Mr.Hall?

All the reissues, so far as I'm aware, look ostensibly the same as the one in Jared's picture. I've had 2 CSs (91 and 95/96) and one V63 (98) and have played several more, and have seen pictures of dozens and dozens; I've never seen anything that looks appreciably different to Jared's. From what has been said on the Forum it would appear that a tiny, tiny number (at best) of the early reissue pickups may have had magnetic shoes, but you'd be talking about pre 90s basses, and even then I don't think they look appreciably different. I've never ever heard of a CS having magnetic shoes. I can't speak for Jared (maybe he'll clarify)but that pickup looks like a standard reissue horseshoe to me, and thus the shoes would not be magnetised.

I must admit I don't quite understand the comment about "some HS's in this style whilst others have split removable covers"; Jared's pickup does appear to have split removable covers; you just unscrew each half and they slide out. Maybe someone else would like to chime in, and maybe provide pictures of (a) an original 60s horseshoe, (b) an early (magnetised) reissue, and (c) the standard reissue which is on 99.9% of CSs & V63s.

FWIW a lot of people really like the sound of the reissue horseshoes (which to my knowledge sound somewhat different than the original 60s ones, being far more powerful for a start)which is why the interest in them. They have a lot of balls. The reasons for the interest/high prices on the CSs/V63s are many, but not just to do with the pickups.

bob_atherton · Post by **bob_atherton** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:30 am

Shaun, good post. My prototype of the V63 had a magnetic horseshoe, it sounded good but the one thing it didn't have was balls. The neck toaster was way more powerful than the HS. If only the HS didn't get in the way so much I would have kept it.

just_bassics · Post by **just_bassics** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:21 am

Sorry if pic is not hi-resolution. Okay, I just took a long look with a light and magnifying glass and was able to determine that my HS is the same as Jared's... I had assumed to this point that my covers were similar to a 4003's cover, only in two pieces to simulate the look of a HS. Now I can see that it is indeed a correct RI HS.

The point is really moot, though, because this is hands down the best sounding instrument I have ever owned or played. As a guitarist playing out out in the 70's and 80's, I had always persuaded my bassist to play rics, (my high school bassist still has his blue 1976 4001) but I never owned one myself until this year, when I actually bought three. Being a sound engineer, I am naturally curious as to what is really going on behind the scenes, so the HS pickup issue fascinates me.

So all of the V63, CS and C64 HS pickups are this same design, with apparently only a very few having actual magnetic shoes? If that is indeed the case, I can end my quest to acquire a CS model, as the V63 is the same, at least as far as the pickups are concerned. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please correct me. Otherwise, I'm satisfied to own a V63, 4003 BBR and my 1982 AG 4001s, all which play and sound spectacular, with the V63 topping the list. My poor Guild B302, while still being a nice bass, will probably never make it on another one of my recordings, now that I finally have my Rickenbackers. Here's to the Halls for keeping it real and true all these years!

bob_atherton · Post by **bob_atherton** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:36 am

Jim, you have some classic Ricks! As you have found out they don't all sound the same and I'm sure you would warm to a CS as well.

I think most CS owner prefer them to the V63 or maybe that's because they spent so much money on them

(ducks for a little cover...)

just_bassics · Post by **just_bassics** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:46 am

Plus I've always been a huge Chris Squire fan. As a guitarist that worships Steve Howe, I must still admit that CS's basslines and vocal style have been most influential.

The 1982 4001s that I recently acquired was my best find, with a fast, straight neck and great sounding hi gains, improperly listed on ebay originally as a 4003, but the azureglo finish is weak at best and is going in for a refin after my wife and I return from England next July. Yes, I'll be visiting Abbey Road!

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:18 am

Here's a 60s horseshoe ...

The one that Jared posted a picture of has 4 alnico magnet rods in it and the shoes are passive steel ... the one I pictured is from a 1968 4001 and it has the magnetized steel shoes ...

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:02 am

Thanks for the posts guys! Glad to see that's pretty much cleared up; I really was wondering if I was missing something. Sounds like you've got some nice basses Jim! You're correct in assuming that the pickups in a V63/CS should indeed be pretty much the same (obviously all pickups are not created exactly equal, as many on this Forum could testify), although I have to say my 2 CSs have sounded a little different to the V63s I've played; that could just be down to the wood or even the finish. I'm sure you would probably like a CS though!

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:29 am

just like Jeff's...

(patent drawing)