Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

coolhandjjl wrote:Here's my take- the new 4003's are extraordinary.

I agree with John; for the price -- which includes the warranty and hard-case -- a new 4003 is pretty hard to pass-up, and you'll find plenty of that vintage Rush sound there.

If I ever decide to buy another 4003, I'd prefer a brand new one. They are amazing, as are the 4004's.

rickenbrother wrote:If I ever decide to buy another 4003, I'd prefer a brand new one. They are amazing, as are the 4004's.

I concur! New 4003's are fantastic!

Sepp

I have an '89 4003s which I love. Very slim and fast neck...just a wonderful instrument. Back in the day, before great forums like this, I had a 70's 4001. I knew nothing about bypassing a cap...I didn't even know there was one in there! I always wondered why the rear p/u was "weak" but loved the sound I got.
Fast forward to today and I really love the 80's pickups and the extra low end from having no cap in the rear pickup circuit but I do sometimes miss that vintage tone. So, I'll echo what's been said. If I had to buy today I'd buy a new 4003. The vintge tone knob and top notch quality control are hard to beat. Especially when new is about the same price as used.

DriftSpace wrote: (Does anybody know if the truss rods can be removed from these instruments and flipped to function like the original design?)

I just asked this question in the restoration and repair section. I have a basket case '84 that needs a new board because someone ripped out the frets and did an awful job of it. I figured since the board was gonna come off and get replaced I wanted to look into flipping the rods or installing the newer style rods.

The only thing I would advise when shopping for an instrument from the 80's is to stay away from the basses made in the early 80's

Oh man, I'm glad no one told me that way back when I bought my '80 4003LH new. Of all the Rics I've owned it is by far the most stable. In fact I don't remember ever adjusting the rods, no matter what strings I've put on, and I've tried many different sets/brands/guages/flats/rounds over the decades.
Not to mention zero chance of tail-lift, ever.

iamthebassman wrote:

The only thing I would advise when shopping for an instrument from the 80's is to stay away from the basses made in the early 80's

Oh man, I'm glad no one told me that way back when I bought my '80 4003LH new. Of all the Rics I've owned it is by far the most stable. In fact I don't remember ever adjusting the rods, no matter what strings I've put on, and I've tried many different sets/brands/guages/flats/rounds over the decades.
Not to mention zero chance of tail-lift, ever.

Pretty much the same for my '84 4003, though I didn't buy it new...

i had an '83 4002 for about 11 years i guess. it,like Buddy Miles, had been put through a lot of "changes",but was a great bass,even in its diminished form. i sold it to an ex-forum member,he resold it,and it has been brought back to its original glory by Jdog. the weird thing is when i got that bass,it had SD pickups in it,and apparently the 4002 pickups were still in the neighborhood for years after i had it. i am meandering a bit,but my point is there's nothing really wrong with any era of RIC basses in general,but also like anything else,there are going to be variations that you may or may not find to your liking. it would just be too generalizing to state,"80's basses had fat necks" because you are going to find some that don't,etc.

iamthebassman wrote:Oh man, I'm glad no one told me that way back when I bought my '80 4003LH new. Of all the Rics I've owned it is by far the most stable. In fact I don't remember ever adjusting the rods, no matter what strings I've put on, and I've tried many different sets/brands/guages/flats/rounds over the decades. Not to mention zero chance of tail-lift, ever.

Yep, I don't doubt that there are great ones out there; I've got one myself. However, I think it's better for people to know this stuff than to not know, and Jay asked about the variables relevant to 4003s manufactured during the 1980's; truss-rod configuration is undeniably the most notable. Like I said: if it's special it doesn't matter when it was made ... and that FireGlo looks pretty damn special; that's a really nice burst there, Ronn. CJ might just have the best looking MapleGlo wood grain I've ever seen.

woodyng wrote:...there's nothing really wrong with any era of RIC basses in general,but also like anything else,there are going to be variations that you may or may not find to your liking.

Well said. However, RIC did change from the flipped truss back to the original over the course of a few years ... which might be interpreted by some people as RIC saying: "Whoops, that was the wrong thing to do." It at least indicates that RIC believes the current design is a better design, whatever the reason; it may have had nothing to do with function at all and could have been about production cost. Unless John Hall chimes-in we may not know why they switched back...

Well, the new truss rods, being adjusted at the headstock end it NOT the same as going back.

The old style truss rods were a folded rod design, where tightening the nut caused the rod to bow apart to hold the neck in position. When they switched back to the headstock end adjustment, they went to a standard type single piece rod (2 of them still) that fits into a curved channel...

RIC also switched the positions of the pickups on their 4004 models for a few years. evidently the "lowered" positions presented some issues with truss rod replacement,so they switched back to the "upper" positions. I have one of the lowered cii's ,and like it very much. (here's hoping i don't have issues with the rods....)
i only mention this as an example of a person preferring a design decision later reversed by the factory. the 2 piece pg /reversed truss rod models have their fans,too.

RIC did change from the flipped truss back to the original over the course of a few years ... which might be interpreted by some people as RIC saying: "Whoops, that was the wrong thing to do."

Just to clarify, the moving of the truss rod adjustment to the body-end was considered an improvement over the original arrangement, and was a "stop gap" measure 'til a completely new rod could be designed. The new design had the adjustment at the headstock. Apples/oranges.

Moving the adjustment to the body end was to help prevent popping the fingerboard when tightening the rods. As we all know that only happens when adjusting them improperly, but that has been done to many basses through the years.

ken_j wrote:Moving the adjustment to the body end was to help prevent popping the fingerboard when tightening the rods. As we all know that only happens when adjusting them improperly, but that has been done to many basses through the years.

Yeah. And sometimes more than just the fingerboard. It looks like this after it happens:

Is that from over tightening the truss rods ?