Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

kiramdear wrote:CJ, has that crack been mended? I presume so. I think I saw this bass online a while back. The rest of the damage is nothing, but as was said earlier, it would be nice to know exactly how that break occurred. But if it plays well, that's 95% of the battle won at a good price too. Congratulations!

No, I don't think you saw it online. I've had it in my possession for a couple of years, and my friend had it in his guitar room for probably at least 5 years before that. I've been trying to get him to actually sell it to me instead of a permanent loan for all that time. There was one a few weeks back on Ebay, they called it a '76, but it was a Mar '77, not as beat up either.

The crack had been fixed before my friend acquired it, it seems quite stable, even with the new set of Rotosounds I put on it. The crack looks like it was probably due to someone adjusting the truss rods the wrong way.

Anyway, it's a great sounding and feeling bass. So far I like it a LOT better than the '84 4003 I bought recently. The '84 is gorgeous, but just doesn't feel or sound the same. I need to do a setup on the '84, that may help, but I just haven't taken the time.

wow nice price, over here ricks arnt cheap, especialy with the economy dieing.
the first comment i usualy get it 'woow man, how could you afford a rickenbacker'
the problem as i have said before, is once you have one you want more.
some days i think, i wish i had a rick with rounds on as well as flats. some day i would love a 70 jetglo 4001, eperiance the different in neck compared to mine.
it took alot of work and saving to buy this baby, i wont be able to afford another for a long time.
That said, in thankfull for what i have and deffinatly know i will never let this bass go

My July '73 4001 has certainly been loved. It is not a beater by any means, just some nice mojo and a great feel and sound to it.

Wear and structural damage are fefinitely different aspects of 'battle scarring' of instruments. Here are some pics of the wear on my 1967 RM3261 FG (4005 w/ f-hole):
I consider these to be part of the 'mojo' on this particular instrument, and owning to its rarity, I would not likely refinish it. If it affected the playability of the instrument, I would then consider correcting it.

Any vintage instrument never looks that bad as long as it's good old playing wear. Gary's 4005 is a case in point here.

You don't change them when they look like that!

mann that 4005 looks the bees knees. that makes me salervate.
I suppose, for me, its like everything in life. theres something that is special about something when its spotless and brand new, virgin like and un perrished, but then for me that feeling can only be bettered by the feeling of that same somethign when it is worn in, like a pair of smart leather shoes, they look stunning when they rist arrive strong firm and un scuffed, but for me they reach their prime when the leather softens up and they become a familiar feeling.

That 73 4001 is MOJO in bass form. i have always been attracted to the toaster/ hs combo, but for a finish like that i think i would even consider mugging my granny!!

This is abuse....

ricky22 wrote:that 73 4001 is MOJO in bass form. i have always been attracted to the toaster/ hs combo, but for a finish like that i think i would even consider mugging my granny!!

It is available! And for less than you might think.

kiramdear wrote: In general my feeling is this: Preciousness is the death of art.

I like this quote. Although my Ricks are generally very clean, I play them all and I'll gig all of my favorites as well. They are there to make music and I'll be damned if fear of dings will keep them from getting played.

I once saw a severely relic'd 4001CS on eBay and it was probably the coolest looking CS I've ever seen. No COA, no signature pick guard and nicks and dings all around the edges. It went cheap and for me, it was tempting.

Having said that, I'll also say that I think the S basses look cooler a little beat up than the deluxe basses. When binding gets nicked up, it looks defective and/or flood damaged to me.

And I'll also say that player wear and nicks are one thing, but neck splits, truss rods bent into the neck, bridge saddles that don't work, cracked pick guards (from someone who thinks you need to crank on the neck pickup screws to make it louder), moldy, smelly cases, poorly executed bridge swaps/mods, pickup changes, tuner swaps, glue drippin' nut swaps, rusty hardware/electronics, etc. don't count as "mojo" to me. They're just an ugly reminder of somebody else's poor judgement.

wints wrote:Any vintage instrument never looks that bad as long as it's good old playing wear. Gary's 4005 is a case in point here.

You don't change them when they look like that!

I'm with you Andy!

Here are the battle scars on my '72 4001:-

rick_ovic wrote:Here are the battle scars on my '72 4001:-

1972 4001FG #3.jpg

1972 4001FG #4.jpg

Hey Darren,
Looks like honest, old fashioned play wear from here!
Nice!

Spot on, Mike. That's just the way I like 'em!