Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Ted, you're going to have to co-write this book!



Please?

So the CNC change was later than I thought. That means the shape of the upper horn changed before the CNC age. Good info John.

I left out the C64 and the C64S models which are also based on the 4003 and that the tailpiece was redesigned a few years ago to resist lift. The zinc was thickened around the edges to give it a little more stiffness.

bassduke49 wrote:Ted, you're going to have to co-write this book!



Please?

Only because you said please,,,,,,,,

jingle_jangle wrote:Encyclopedic, Prof. Staberow!

Thanks for indulging me. I have to do that once in a while or else I will forget it all.

antipodean wrote:Silly question: when the fingerboard radius changed, did the bridge change to match?

No, I don't believe so. For what it's worth, the arc of the bridge is nearly the same as it was in the mid 60's, the first time the fingerboard radius was 10".

rickfan60 wrote:

antipodean wrote:Silly question: when the fingerboard radius changed, did the bridge change to match?

No, I don't believe so. For what it's worth, the arc of the bridge is nearly the same as it was in the mid 60's, the first time the fingerboard radius was 10".

Thanks Ted, you're a veritable font of wisdom!

rickfan60 wrote:I left out the C64 and the C64S models which are also based on the 4003

Huh? That makes no sense, they're totally different.

May 1984 Mapleglo... exquisite! Hmm, looks familiar...

That is a beauty! Nice wood. It is a good example of two-piece neck construction.

cjj wrote:May 1984 Mapleglo... exquisite!

4003_body.jpg

4003_body_back.jpg

Hmm, looks familiar...

That's some mighty fine mapleglo!

I have two recent examples and a third is on the way.



This is my 4003 AFG from 2007 (all of my pics of it by itself are too big apparently--this shot is from the night I debuted it with great success... the drummer was very pleased with it too). I don't want to sell it (it's one of the nicest playing fretted basses I've ever had, actually THE nicest) but I may have to to make room for the 4003 MG I originally ordered before I snagged this one from PotR, when I feared I'd never have a Ric in time to record my band's big breakout album. (The album turned out quite good but it wasn't a breakout.)


Sorry, this is the best pic of the 4003FL AFG without me in it. I haven't done a good job of documenting it with quality photos--that'll go on the to do list. This bass is a keeper--a real beast. I love its pure tone and clear, fat bottom end. Smooth as silk. If you dig in hard enough it gets really synth-y too, probably a feature of the Toasters. I can play Herbie Hancock without a synth pedal and still sound strikingly close to the recording if I use the correct right hand attack.

Frankly, the yellow binding and inlays on both of these really adds to the striking nature of the finish. Without that I think it'd be hard (but still possible) to distinguish from older FGs.

Here's a better shot of the 4003FL but unfortunately an ugly troll also made its way into the image :


EDIT: Sorry guys, I'm having a really hard time uploading the images I want, so you'll have to settle for what you see here...

1965 wrote:

rickfan60 wrote:I left out the C64 and the C64S models which are also based on the 4003

Huh? That makes no sense, they're totally different.

They are variations on the same theme.

Ted's right. The "Vintage" models are structurally similar to the 4003 (as far as wood laminations, truss rods, etc.), but they certainly look like the old 4001S models from the '60s, as was RICs intention. We'll be dealing with the vintage models later in our series of weekly parades, as well as the others Ted mentioned.

My '80 4003, gotta be one of the earliest lefty 4003s, I would think.