Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Excellent! Thanks for the info Jeff.

Hopefully a C64 owner will post a tailpiece picture for the archive.

Thanks again for another great "Anatomy Of A Rickenbacker Bass" thread, Ted. These will be great for Rick enthusiasts to refer to for years to come.

rickfan60 wrote: ...The intonation screws were still difficult to reach on most basses and the mutes were no easier to adjust. The fit of the bridge into the tailpiece is a bit looser that the aluminum version allowing the bridge to lean back sometimes requiring manual correction.

While we're on the subject of Rick bass bridges leaning back I thought I should offer up this little tip that was given to me by the guitar tech at a certain Chicago based Rickenbacker dealer that I (and probably you too, Ted!) will never set foot in again:

As you string up your Rick bass (those ones that have the cast zinc tail piece, of course) make sure that the bridge piece is tipped all the way forward so that it hits the wall of the mute housing. If you do this then: A) Tightening the strings will hold the bridge in place and keep it from tipping back, B) Once you set your intonation, it's easy to put the bridge back in exactly the same place so that your intonation will be correct for the next set of strings (provided you use similar strings, of course) and, C) The intonation screws on the other side of the bridge will be as high (and accessible) as they can be.

That works and is good advice. I won't spoil the thread with a Crazy Monkey Extravaganza reference.

BWAA HAA HAA HAA!!!

That actually did get me to LOL, Ted!

Those Crazy Monkeys make me laugh too.

Does anyone have a picture of a 4001C64 tailpiece to post?

rickfan60 wrote:Does anyone have a picture of a 4001C64 tailpiece to post?

Here you go, Ted. This one was for sale recently...

Thanks John! I did not know that version existed. It makes perfect sense though.

Except structurally!

Tailpiece lift, eh?

*goes off to check her bass again*

Well I'll be darned. Mine has about 2mm of lift at the end, probably about the same as what I recall noting when I bought the bass. Back then I thought it was a bit odd of Rickenbacker to make a bridge like that, given that the quality of the construction was otherwise so high. Mine actually has perhaps 0.5mm of lift at the corners of the mute end of the casting, too. In fact, the whole thing is bowed.

I also noted just now that last time I changed the strings, I installed the saddles hard up against the mute section to get better access to the screws.

Becky, with the bowing at both ends you report, the three screws beneath the bridge are pulling the tailpiece down into the oversized rout and causing the ends to rise up. Yours is a perfect candidate for the washers or wood shim.

I don't remember the rout under the tailpiece being "oversized" on my 1977 4001. I don't own this bass anymore so I can't check... but if anything, my (admittedly foggy) recollection is of the casting pattern on the bottom of the tailpiece being ever so slightly embossed onto the surface of the wood at the bottom of the rout. Have tolerances been allowed to get that much "looser"?

Also... has anyone come up with a "window of correction" as to how far off the routs tend to be from the bottom of the tailpieces on the newer basses? One millimeter? Two?

Alvaro, my '91 and newer basses all have a gap from the bottom of the tailpiece to the maple of about 3 washer thicknesses, approx. 3/16" if I had to guess. IIRC, the '75 4001 has washers too, but not as many; one perhaps?

Some basses, even older ones have very tight fits with some actually touching the wood.. Others have gaps of as much as 3/16".

pacealot wrote:Except structurally!

I have to wonder now if the later tailpieces were beefed up to allow for the return to a three screw model for the C64 in addition to making them stronger in general.