Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

rickaddict wrote:

ben_brown wrote:...and less chance of someone filing the nut like this!

So Steve...I'm not seeing the problem with the nut in the photo you posted. All of my Ricks from the 70's and 80's have nuts that look the same. I like the way RIC used to hand-file the triangular grooves because they work well with different string gauges. There must be something I'm not seeing?

I am surprised to hear RIC filed the nuts in this fasion. Filing a triangular groove in the nut is the worst thing you can do IMO. Different string gauges will sit at different heights and if you're like me and use a very light set such as a 40 for the "G" sometimes it sits too low. I figured some idiot filed them this way because the "proper" nut files weren't around.
Isn't that why they make nut files?

It did seem kinda strange to me that RIC used a triangular file (or at least cut a triangular groove) instead of a nut file, but for me it works well 'cuz any string gauge I use seems to fit just fine (Well, sometimes I have to tweak a little bit with a file, but usually not). But I don't go as light as you on the strings. My newer Ricks that have nuts filed with a nut file are a little tougher to accommodate different string choices. I usually use 45-65-85-105's and the first time I take off the RIC strings and put on a new set, I usually have to widen a nut slot or two. I prefer the old triangle grooves, but whichever nut you have...Once you take care of it, its done so its not that important to me.

One thing I definitely have noticed and prefer about the older nuts like in your photo is that the strings are slightly closer together and inboard from the edge of the fretboard. That's what I'm used to as I've had a 1980 4001 for the past 26 years.

ben_brown wrote:

rickaddict wrote:I like the way RIC used to hand-file the triangular grooves because they work well with different string gauges. There must be something I'm not seeing?

I am surprised to hear RIC filed the nuts in this fasion. Filing a triangular groove in the nut is the worst thing you can do IMO. Different string gauges will sit at different heights and if you're like me and use a very light set such as a 40 for the "G" sometimes it sits too low. I figured some idiot filed them this way because the "proper" nut files weren't around.
Isn't that why they make nut files?

I'm with Jeffy T. I also like being able to use strings of different gauges in the V shaped nut slots.

I can't believe that RIC would file a nut this way....I have never seen any new guitar or bass come from the factory this way.

I agree with ben_brown. Certainly mine did not arrive from the factory like that. And no decent luthier would tolerate such a nut slot. The slot should have a rounded bottom, of the same diameter as the string, and slightly angled back (away from the fretboard) to create a good witness point at the front of the nut.

David, I see you are in Westchester county, so is Marc Seligman, our resident badA$$ bassist with a frying pan.

daveman wrote:I agree with ben_brown. Certainly mine did not arrive from the factory like that. And no decent luthier would tolerate such a nut slot. The slot should have a rounded bottom, of the same diameter as the string, and slightly angled back (away from the fretboard) to create a good witness point at the front of the nut.

Well, what year Rick bass are you talking about? Somewhere between my 1992 and my 1994 4003's the nuts got more squarish and the slots got less hand-filed looking. I just checked a few of my older Ricks (older than 1992) and although I didn't take any photos, the nut on this '77 4001 looks almost identical to Steve's:

http://rickresource.com/register/user_i ... llsize.jpg

Some of mine were rounded out by me with a nut file in my never ending quest for the perfect setup. But most were pretty rough looking when I started and I'm pretty sure many of mine had more or less V-shaped slots.

Maybe I'm wrong, but Steve's example just looks like someone cut a pilot groove into the nut and then enlarged it with a triangular file or maybe a nut file, not necessarily trying to cut the most careful, perfect slot.

I read that the zero fret on PM's bass was attached to a small piece of wood that extended the fingerboard slightly. The mod on his bass is supposedly totally reversible just by removing the extension/fret combo and placing the nut back in it's original place. A zero fret should be located exactly where the nut would normally be so the nut must be shifted up or the intonation will be off.

Jeff, mine's a '73. So I guess they changed the nut-cutting method... way later.

jps, thanks for the heads-up about Marc. Fryin' pans is da bomb.

Thread Resurrection.

Questions:

--Does every 4001C64 that is finished in "sanded body (natural finish)" (as oppposed to FG or JG) have a zero fret?

--What does the "S" in 4001C64S mean?

--If "S" means "sanded body (natural finish)", what would you call a FG or JG 4001C64 that has a zero fret?

Thanks.

libratune wrote:Thread Resurrection.

Questions:

--Does every 4001C64 that is finished in "sanded body (natural finish)" (as oppposed to FG or JG) have a zero fret?

--What does the "S" in 4001C64S mean?

--If "S" means "sanded body (natural finish)", what would you call a FG or JG 4001C64 that has a zero fret?

Thanks.

The 4001C64 shouldn't have a 0 fret.

the jetglo 4001C64S WOULD have one.

tennis_nick wrote:

libratune wrote:Thread Resurrection.

Questions:

--Does every 4001C64 that is finished in "sanded body (natural finish)" (as oppposed to FG or JG) have a zero fret?

--What does the "S" in 4001C64S mean?

--If "S" means "sanded body (natural finish)", what would you call a FG or JG 4001C64 that has a zero fret?

Thanks.

The 4001C64 shouldn't have a 0 fret.

the jetglo 4001C64S WOULD have one.

That's kind of what I thought. So does this mean the "S" designation is for a C64 with a zero fret, reagardless of whether it's natural or jetglo finish?

That's right Ron. It would also have a standard 4003 tailpiece (not a gap-tooth) and standard treble pup surround (as opposed to a '60s tapered surround), as well as the custom-shaped body.

...and a satin finish.

There has been at least one 4001c64S in FG.

antipodean wrote:That's right Ron. It would also have a standard 4003 tailpiece (not a gap-tooth) and standard treble pup surround (as opposed to a '60s tapered surround), as well as the custom-shaped body.

Thanks, Evan, that helps. So you are saying that the "S" designation signifies all those features, including the custom-shaped/sanded body, even when it is finished in Jetglo.

But can the Jetglo (or FG) finish be a "satin" finish?