Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:07 pm
by ken_james
200 blackstars, 100 Tux and Rednecks. I've had two blackstars one had a certificate and the other didn't, Ric isn't consistant on the certificates IMO. For instance my first 4001cs certificate wasn't even signed but the second one was, go figure.

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:44 pm
by jeff_ulmer
Of Ric basses, the Tux and Redneck would be two of my least desired, despite their rarity. I'd take a Shadow over a Blackstar as well.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:20 am
by shamustwin
Putting Fender in the headline probably gets him more hits from the ebay search engine

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:50 am
by kennyhowes
I'd like a 4008 Redneck.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:01 am
by rob
What's a 4008?

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 7:05 am
by kennyhowes

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:57 am
by rob
Oh. I always thought those were called either a 4001/8 or 4003/8.

I've never heard of any model over 4005.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 9:31 am
by agplate
As the original owner of a Tuxedo, here's what I have learned from RIC about this model (this is an excerpt from a recent email from Kenny at RIC regarding the Tux Bass:

"There were, according to our records, exactly 120 Tuxedo basses made. After the first 100 were made, there began a 2nd production run; there were only 15 made in this second run. Yours is indeed the first in this second production run. (The third and last run of 5 had different certificates altogether.)"

My certificate is #1 of 15, which makes it the first of the second production run. By the way, mine is from April of 1987, and I don't believe these were made as early as 1982, but don't quote me.

Coolbasses.com recently sold a mint (and very white) Tux bass for (I think) somewhere around $2500. I would've bought it, but could only afford the 4001CS they had at the time!

Also, look carefully- the horns on the Tux bass are larger and more clunky in proportion vs. the usual 4000 series bodies. Anyone care to comment on this?

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:11 am
by paul_yan
Hey Robert, check out the "Rickenbacker 4001-8" thread where variations of the 8-string 4001's are being discussed. My feeling is that there are at least 4 kinds of RIC 8 string basses:

-4001/8 (non-official model name) with frogfoot headstock (pre-'75?),
-4008 with normal headstock ('75-'83),
-4003S/8 with normal headstock ('87-current),
-4005/8 with frogfoot headstock ('67-84?).

I've yet to see a 4005/8 with normal headstock though.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:23 am
by paul_yan
Agplate,
The horns (along with front and back body countours) of my '86 Shadow are indeed larger and beefier than my '72 4001 and '98 4003 which are quite identical.
The neck width of my Shadow is narrower than the other two, which I like a lot. The '86 neck is as thick as the '98. The '72 neck is as wide as the '98 but thinner.

Does anyone here have similar observations?

I'm wondering if there's a RIc bass that has the narrow '86 neck and the '98 or '72 body. Gotta be a sweet player!

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:47 am
by rictified
I think that the horns from around 1975 up until the mid nineties were thicker than earlier and later basses. My 72 has thin horns, my 78, 79, and 96 have thick horns, and my later ones have thin ones like the early ones. My 72 neck is the flattest, my 78, 79, and 96 necks are pretty much identical, and my later ones are thicker. The narrowest neck I had was on a 93 4003.
I have also obseved three different head stock styles. The old long ones which have been brought back, my 98 and 2000 have them, the early 70's which were very small, my 72 has it, (and my 75 had it), and the middle length of which my 78, 79 and 96 have. (and I assume everything in between).

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
by kennyhowes
Hey, um, guess what...

I have been corrected. Despite what you may have seen in print or on the web, there was never any such thing as a 4008.

Oops.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:29 pm
by paul_yan
Yeah you nailed it right there, Bob.

The headstock of my '72 is a tiny bit shorter than the other two while being wider with sharper lower 2 corners. The Shadow's got a higher and slimmer cresting wave with quite a pleasing overall shape. The '98 looks longer with a fat cresting wave and a lovely "wind blown' tail.

L-R: '72, '86, '98
Image

Image

By 'flattest" neck of your '72, did you mean the back of neck or fingerboard radius flatter? I find the back of my '72 neck quite flat thus making it feel less thick like the other two.

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:38 pm
by paul_yan
Hmm, you got me scratching my head, Kenny.
Isn't the link you provided at the top of this page a 4008?
I thought you were quite correct...

According to David Axt's "Bass Models" article in the Registration Page:
-------------------------
4008
This bass is the eight string version of the 4001 model.
Features:
1975 - Introduced
1983 - Discontinued
-------------------------

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:25 pm
by bear
I just looked in my Smith book and there is a paragraph about (introduced in the '70s) and a photo of an '80s model 4008. I remember seeing one in Milwaukee years ago and was impressed as it had the octave strings on top (as you look down they were closest)