Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

It looks to be a 69. I had one just like it in that shade of Fireglo w/ walnut wings and the early grover tuners (the non-wavy kind).

That head stock looks like the 70 to 71 shape.
It is shorter than a 69, but the crest is a bit fatter than
the 72.
Cool.

That's a great shade of Fireglo.

My old Dec 71 on the right, looked similar, but was slightly lighter in shading. It was still rather dark though. The 64 is on the left. I'd say the guy in the paint booth didn't care too much for the "glo" that day.

The bass for sale is (apart from the scratchplate obviously)almost identical to my Feb 72 (I wish I could post pics!); maybe slightly darker but that could be the poor photos. Mine is pretty dark. The headstock is exactly the same and it isn't the larger headstock: as I've discussed before, it's just a slightly different (and to my eyes more aesthetically pleasing) shape. I find it rather peculiar that people still seem to have a hard time accepting there are '72 basses with this spec as mine was the first 72 I ever saw, so at one time assumed they would ALL be like this!

In fact if someone will post photos for me I'll show the difference between my 73 4000 and 72 4001 headstock wise. My 72 also has walnut wings and no skunk, and all the goodies. This is awful actually as I've been looking for a spare with the same spec as mine for the longest time. I would'e preferred a different colour as mine is fireglo, but I'd be quite happy with it. The only thing is it would completely ruin my plans for my 8 string if I were to go for this, but I would love it. Timing is, as they say, everything.

Having just enlarged the pictures, it's in worse condition than mine, but I'd say is the same shade. What I do want to know is what idiot put that bolt in the neck heel? What is it with people? Obviously it had a strap button at some stage....arrrgghh.

So if this UK bass is a March 1972 model, then why does it not have the finger-rest? Is it just proof that the pickguard is not original, or is it because the finger-rest (that was still there on my March 1971 4001, for example) had been dropped by the factory prior to March 1972?

Arguments here that it looks like an even-earlier model should indicate that it must have had the finger-rest when it was manufactured. I know the finger rest was still there in Dec 1971, from Andrew's pic above.

My June '72 has a finger-rest.


Interesting bass in the ad!

Hi Elys, welcome to the Forum.

Good eyes- this bass should have a finger-rest, but the pickguard is non-original....I'd bet we'd find the holes for it on the body.

I have two '72 4001s, one October/the other November, and both of these basses have finger-rests from the factory. Other than the replacement 'guard, this bass looks original to me.(Needs a mute too, but I'm not really counting that...)

"Please tell me that bass is not hanging by a piece of rope around the tuners!"

I know mine wouldn't be hanging long! Only the tension of the strings keep them together!

Yeah, it appears to be hanging that way. Gulp!

Hey, Kevin, my "Mink" (formerly Mapleglo) '72 is also a June: LF 500. What's your's?

LF-513!
Yours is much older!

Elys, mine has holes for the finger rest (the actual rest was long gone), but we know that the pickguard on this bass is not original: I can't imagine that someone fitting such an ill-fitting pickguard would bother drilling holes for a finger rest they doubtless no longer had. FWIW I hate the things as they get in my way when playing. I'm 100% certain this is indeed a genuine March 72; mine's Feb and the spec is identical, except that mine has the original pickguard, a mute (though the sponge fell off!), a back pickup courtesy of Sergio (although I have the original of course), and two small screws behind the pickup surround which some idiot screwed into the body before I got to it and which I've left in. I don't have the finger rest or pickup cover/handrest.

By the way, some pics are to follow as that rather nice gentleman Jim Glen has offered to resize and post them for me. Thanks Jim!

Was looking at the one in the ad again, and I really like the looks of this peghead shape with the walnut wings! Very Cool!

Here you go Shaun, those were large files, so my apologies for the size / quality, Peter's 36k 500x500 really bites at times like this.



By the way I'll take 1st and 3rd left please ...