Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Actually, JH says the first 4000 was built in 1955 so the series turned 50 two years ago.

Ted, did you catch Vinnie on "Dirt" last night?

i also think this would make a fine reissue. i have a 74 4000 set-neck,and am finding that i am favoring single pickup instruments in general. a reissue with the through neck and the single (horseshoe) pickup would be awesome.

So it was built in 1955: does this mean RR didn't design the Bass?

Hmmm, maybe under Paul Barth then...?

It was inadvertently posted elsewhere. I think JH meant to say this about RR.

"He started in '54 as I recall."

Dang! (I am not gonna infringe here on Jared's copyrighted "damn!" )

I wish I could find and buy a 1955 4000! That was the year I was born

Page 201 of the Smith book quoted John Hall as saying that "the factory sent the prototype to the sales office to have it photographed in April 1957. They produced the first commercial model in June 1957." He then shows a photo of the first 4000 along the left edge of Page 201, and although black and white, the description says it is a thick mahogany neck, and thick maple body wings, dot inlays in the unfinished-looking neck, and wonky tuning keys with a long white lettering on black TRC. By 1958, it got a sliding cover plate and a walnut neck/body.

I don't see how this could have been a 1955 thing Isn't two years kinda long to elapse between making the first design prototype, and sending that prototype to be photographed and then produced a couple months later??

1955 is what the man said. I don't know the timeline but developing a new model could take that long especially seeing as the concept was still quite new at the time. It seems unlikely that the design came all at once. That prototype was probably reworked a time or two before the first example was produced 1957.

I'd say that 2 years would be a reasonable estimate given the fact that so much more of the shaping and finishing would have been done either manually, or with limited power tools.

Tom bought the 4000 from Craig Brody "The Guitar Broker." I was at his house in Florida and tried to buy it but he had it on hold for Tom, who has purchased many pieces from him in the past. Couldn't blame him -- a good customer. That bass had a helleva bow! Most of them do, except any of the two 50's 4000's that Graham has. Those are perfect examples that are beautiful examples and really ready to play!

Elys, your quote from the book is accurate, but it is not attributed to John Hall (no attribution at all, along with no photo credits and other handicaps). In a conversation with John Hall in August 2005, I mentioned that I was trying to get my Rick Bass book out in 2007, the 50th year of the Rick bass. He said, "That would be too late. The first one was made in 1955." He didn't elaborate, so I will make the safer assumption that the prototype was developed in the mid 1950s and the first catalog listing was in 1957. I will also assume that with the possible exception of earlier production samples being given or sold to favored customers, that the first available Rick basses to purchase through dealers would also have been 1957. This may all seem like splitting hairs, but in producing a textbook, one strives to get it right. While there is plenty of value in Smith's book (and he did a great job telling the story, overall) there are a lot of errors of omission and commission. I hope to tell the bass story with the most accurate information I can get and not make unsupported logic leaps in the process.

"The Bass Book" by Bacon and Moorehouse (ISBN 1-1871547-84-9) has the 4000 first appearing in "Rickenbacker's July 1957 pricelist at $279.50 ($60 more than a Precision)."
That book also has Rossmeisl joining the company in early 1954.

I personally think it is more accurate to date the "birth" of a model by it's market availability date, not some approximate date when a prototype is first produced. Are many aware of just how long an automobile design cycle is? It is years. We all date car models by their official year though - which is actually a bit early.

I've read that Rickenbacker actually had shown an 8 string bass at NAMM a year before Hagstrom sold the first production 8 string electric bass (which I also have), but most references site Hagstrom as the Ric 8 string remained a special order for some time.

Paul, since John Hall was maybe four or five years old at the time, and therefore not in any way a reliable first-person witness, would it not be more appropriate to cite his testimony as merely "hearsay", and try to dig deeper for something truly factual and first-person? Like something written and third-party verified by his dad F.C. or someone? After all, if you are trying to be far more journalistically accurate, you have to cite sources closer to first-person than a four or five year old kid.

No offense meant toward John in any way, of course, but there is a limit to reliability of testimony and sources, and for the case of a kid four to five years old, your work begs John to qualify and back up his blanket statements with some verifiable proof.....

Right. Minus multiple sources, the wording will have to be vague ("in the mid 1950s"), but I hope to contact Richard Burke and perhaps others who may have been around at the time. I'm sure John is recalling something he has seen or heard, and he probably is correct.

One of the problems I'm facing right now is that company records are being archived by the University of Edinburgh and are not accessible. Even if they were, it might be difficult, if not impossible, to isolate information like the date of the first bass built, which in turn, may not be all that useful to the reader anyway.

I would not go so far as to dismiss it as heresay. The man did grow up around the business and certainly has the inside track on this. There was also the work done by Scott Jennings and Richard Smith. I am sure a lot of RIC-archaeology was uncovered over the years.