Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

8mileshigher wrote:SpongeBob, you requested a picture of a FireGlo with a Hipshot.... this was my 2010 that came with a Hipshot, before I had the Original Ric tailpiece reinstalled, as I'm a traditionalist.

Close up.jpg

Nice one Rich, love it. Can't wait to get mine on!

daveman wrote:

pag wrote:There must be a valid reason why Hipshot use different metals in various editions of the same bridge . . .

Nah. It's just sales & marketing. They know that some people swear by brass, some prefer aluminum...etc... perhaps irrationally. It's easy enough for Hipshot to make them up in different materials once they have the design.

There is a weight difference,if nothing else. The aluminum hipshot weighs about the same as the zinc unit it replaced on my bass. Plus,having used a number of heavy brass bridges like the badass (1&2),i wanted to try to keep my bass sounding as much like original as i could.

I'm absolutely convinced I can hear the difference between zinc, aluminum and brass, with a high preference to aluminum.

Here's my old V63 (which may not exist today) when it had the Hipshot.

teeder wrote: Here's my old V63 (which may not exist today) when it had the Hipshot.

May not exist?

Ya, the guy that bought it from me is in a Beatles tribute and was having it converted to "lefty".

I've asked numerous times for pictures of how it turned out, but no luck.

Is this it?

No, but this is! I asked again and he sent these.

I hope you're sitting down!

Wow.... interesting way to deal with the wing swapping...

What exactly is the advantage of going with the hipshot vs oem?

Oh, my...............Good thing it wasn't a special bass or anything! Just a V series............

T28 wrote:What exactly is the advantage of going with the hipshot vs oem?

Easier to set intonation, for one thing. Although that doesn't often need to be done. For me, I just like the look of it much better. Plus, when going all black on a Jetglo, these are easier to find than a factory black tailpiece.

cjj wrote:

johnallg wrote:Wow.... interesting way to deal with the wing swapping...

jps wrote:Oh, my........Good thing it wasn't a special bass or anything! Just a V series.....

Guess I'm having a hard time understanding how those reversed body-wings make it more McCartney-like, especially with the standard right-handed (non C64) headstock shape. ?

But that's it. The old lefties didn't have a reversed headstock - it was the standard headstock played upside down. What I don't understand is why he just didn't try to find a lefty C64 or a PMC version of the V63. Maybe they're just too scarce and expensive(?)

I did try a Hipshot as one of my Black bridges had tail lift due to the last player using telegraph wires for strngs.

I found that during the gig, the saddles would pop over and you had to stop between songs and slide it back, what an absolute arse of a design I thought.
I took the old stock bridge, wrapped it in a tea towel and put it in a wood vice and quarter turned the handle daily, it came out flat again, put it back on and it has stayed put .

As for the hipshot unless they have addressed the saddle pop issue, they are not for me, soundwise, it did not sound any different, lack of sustain has never been an issue on Rickenbacker basses, in fact the opposite, sometimes you think you might have to shoot the damned thing to stop it ringing out sustain.
On a good day with new strings, they could give a grand piano a run for it's money.

This is it with the 4003, it is what it is, I would say the design was just a fluke, nobody knew in those days how they would sound with roundwound strings, but everybody does now and nothing can even get near.