Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'd think aging of wood and finish would both be important factors too. I like the idea of using a modern bass and AB'ing with the vintage tp.

The only problem with switching the bridge is that your playing style and recording methods will have to be as exacting as possible. I once listened to a Badass vs. stock Fender bridge AB test on another forum and the results were really inconclusive. If you do a test like that, be sure to play very simple parts for comparison, like I tried to when I did my 4002 pickup vs. HB-1 comparison using "Sing A Song of Song". Even then I know I didn't play it exactly the same both times.

jdogric12 wrote:I'd think aging of wood and finish would both be important factors too. I like the idea of using a modern bass and AB'ing with the vintage tp.

I'm with JD on this one. I've got a new*er* bridge on my 68 and it's got all the sweet 60's tone - and then some. Check my YT for reference.

Anyone have EXACT measurements of an RM1999 or early 60s 4001? Like weight, body thickness, etc..? Every time I see a picture of an early 60s rick bass it looks SO thin.. thin body, super thin neck, etc. They must weight less than a modern 4003.

There probably are no exact measurements as most likely each one a is bit different.

jps wrote:There probably are no exact measurements as most like each one a is bit different.

I meant exact measurements of an example...

walker wrote:Another variant in the equation is the difference in the thickness of body & neck wood on the '64 basses vs the reissues. Also, the difference in the type of fretboard woods.

My belief is this is the main difference.

emac.

IMO, it's the sum of all variables with the wood age and mass being #1. I do believe the TP is a large factor though. I've often wondered about the finish too. The finish on my older basses seems so thin compared to my V63. The V63 looks like it was dipped in a syrup vat. That can't help the instrument.

The fretboard on an RM is quite thick the timber is deep red and the ammount of maple behind it very thin even clay markers and different weight truss rods must be a factor as has been mentioned.
I used to bend the neck on DH163 to get a vibrato effect as it was so thin.
The headstock is also thin and the tilt/break angle is fairly straight from the nut which must affect the string tension add that to the tonal effect of the aluminium lump anchoring the strings plus a hot HS and there you have it.

I still wonder that after so many instances of bending zinc TP that Rickenbacker never resorted to a re-vamped version of the original aluminium one.
Cosmetically the original aluminium unit looks way better with the screws hidden under the bridge and having to add the extra (visible) screws on the zinc one must mean that it wasnt considered as stable or strong as the aluminium one.

Just curious as to how an ongoing design flaw like tail lift and the addition of extra screws has never been resolved.

I thought that a new version of the BTP all in aluminium that fitted both old and new basses would have been easy to make in numbers these days and for those wishing to replace a bent zinc model or a missing vintage one or whatever it would be the answer to many prayers.

Ps.
Wints,if you see this thread,could you take a close up pick of DH163 of the fretboard in profile to illustrate the thinness of the neck and the angle of the headstock?

jamespaul71 wrote:What is it about the pickups then? Material? Winding? Magic?

60s RM had a horseshoe pickup with magnetized shoes and a fairly weak output. A CS has a horseshoe with magnetized alnico slug pole pieces and a hot output. I imagine there's a little magic to both as well.

gearhed289 wrote:

jamespaul71 wrote:What is it about the pickups then? Material? Winding? Magic?

60s RM had a horseshoe pickup with magnetized shoes and a fairly weak output. A CS has a horseshoe with magnetized alnico slug pole pieces and a hot output. I imagine there's a little magic to both as well.

I thought he was referring to the toaster, we all know the new horseshoe is for visuals only.

jamespaul71 wrote:

gearhed289 wrote:

jamespaul71 wrote:What is it about the pickups then? Material? Winding? Magic?

60s RM had a horseshoe pickup with magnetized shoes and a fairly weak output. A CS has a horseshoe with magnetized alnico slug pole pieces and a hot output. I imagine there's a little magic to both as well.

I thought he was referring to the toaster, we all know the new horseshoe is for visuals only.

The current 7.5k toasters are very close in sound to the mid 60s ones. I wouldn't fancy having to do a blindfold A/B test.
The 60s ones degauss a little bit, but not much really.
Rickenbacker really got the scatterwound toasters right...

emac.

I've wondered why the current zinc tailpieces haven't been beefed up in the "tail" area more then it was in the first change. Look at the underside pic Jeff S has posted numerous times and see the difference between an aluminum one and the current one. I realize it would add weight, but strength is worth something I would think.

While we are on the topic of tailpieces.....I noticed the current one is "temporarily unavailable" on the RIC Boutique. Being new to the forum, is this really just a temporary situation or has it been that way for a while? With all of the issues surrounding the tailpiece you'd think RIC would at least make replacements available to those of us who would look at tail lift as a routine maintenance.

MaplegloMatt wrote:While we are on the topic of tailpieces.....I noticed the current one is "temporarily unavailable" on the RIC Boutique. Being new to the forum, is this really just a temporary situation or has it been that way for a while? With all of the issues surrounding the tailpiece you'd think RIC would at least make replacements available to those of us who would look at tail lift as a routine maintenance.

no idea, but it would be nice if rick sold an adapter + another better standard sort of bridge. They could even sell a chrome plated plastic cover to make it look like the original!