Page 2 of 2
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:19 pm
by rickfan60
I should add that JH was correcting me on a statement I made based on information in the Smith book. My selection of words was perhaps not the best so he offererd up better choices.

That should explain the apparent non-sequitrs in the quote.
Anyway, that is why there are 4001s with post '80 SNs. I say '80 because there are 4003s from '80. That was probably the transition year. JH did not remember for sure when I asked him so it could have been '81.
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:11 pm
by blueflamerick
If you read all of those catalogs from the 80's, it seems that the 4001 was being marketed for use with flatwound strings, while the 4003 was marketed for use with roundwound strings.
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:03 pm
by rickfan60
I think they were mostly trying to clear out the remaining 4001s but yes they were pushing the 4003 as a bass that could "take" round wounds. Now, did the first 4003s come with factory rounds or were they still only selling flats at the time? My memory is a bit foggy about that but I seem to remember the first Rick rounds to surface closer to '85. Anyone?
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:11 pm
by ricnbacker
Forget numbers it should be know as "the Rickenbacker bass" 4001/4003 who cares. It is A Rci bass that in itself sets it apart.
Maybe Just Ric 1 or Ric 2
If 666 stands for evil then maybe it should have numberd 999, the oposite of Evil...pure Heaven!

Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:14 pm
by jwr2
According to numbers in scripture 6 is the number for imperfection and 3 is for complete ... so 666 is complete imperfection ...
Source Number in Scripture EW Bullinger

Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:57 am
by jwr2
rickfan60 wrote:Both models appeared in the catalog for several years. JH had this to say a few years ago:
Perhaps the only detail that's not immediately apparent to you is that up
until at least the mid 1980's there was always an enormous inventory,
awaiting sale. Goods arriving from the factory were inspected prior to going
into the warehouse; many were sent back for additional adjustment or rework
and sometimes those were waylaid, even for a few years. Sometimes they were
remanufactured completely, even being stripped, then assigned new serial
numbers in assembly. (They are never, EVER, reassigned today, as a matter of
control for things such as work in process.)
All of these instruments were flushed out of the system in the mid 1980's,
and as the world changed the factory was retooled to be somewhat more
"just-in-time" to eliminate a large, expensive warehouse where instruments
had time to be damaged or needed adjustment due to age.
The operative phrase in your incorrect statement is "sold". Goods are sold
after they are received in the warehouse, whether the old mega-warehouse or
the modern mostly empty one, long after the serial number was affixed in
assembly
AAHHH I long for the good old days ... when there was an abundance of instruments in the warehouse ... now days there is a backlog
It is much more profitable for Ric to have a backlog than have a warehouse full of instruments ... This is a better business model for them ... but for us it makes Rics harder to find and more expensive.

Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:37 am
by rickaddict
I think part of that back log at RIC might have something to do with today's guitar collecting mentality. Among forumites, I wonder what our average Rick count is? And I wonder what the average Rick count was back when RIC had a warehouse full of instruments. I think there's a whole lot more guitars in circulation than there were 35 years ago.
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm
by jwr2
Ya ... for many years I got by with 1 Ric bass ... now I have 6 ...

Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:35 pm
by heinpete

I'm also happy only playing one Rick at a time. So, I only wait for my 4001 coming back from Paul W. after successful "surgery" (pre-'73 conversion), then I probably will sell my second Rick, a 2004 4004CiiTR. Jeff R. do you still look for such model?

Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:47 pm
by jwr2
Yes I have one 4003, one 4003s5, one 4004L, one 4004ci, one 2022, and one 2030 ... I am thinking about a 4004cii trans red. preferably with the walnut wings ... I am not sure that I want to pay to ship one from europe though ...
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 pm
by rickfan60
I started with one but always managed to have 2 or 3 around the house. It was not really a collection back then. At least not in sense it is now.
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:20 pm
by aceonbass
Jeff, I shipped a bass to Germany a couple weeks ago USPS Priority Mail and it was only $125.00. It was oversize, and could not go Global Priority, which meant it couldn't be insured for over $500.00.
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:46 am
by heinpete
jwr2 wrote: ... I am thinking about a 4004cii trans red. preferably with the walnut wings ...
...that is exactly what I have, look here: (Hardware changed to Chrome, recently all knobs original RIC)
Re: Why did Ric call it the 4003?
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:57 pm
by ram
Damn Dane, I get nervous just shipping across the country… overseas- definitely chutzpah and bravery!! My hat is off to you.
Peter nice Trans Red!…. Some day I too…. Some day…
Maybe they called it a 4003 cause 4002 was already taken??
