Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Great story!

My brother in law has a 360-12, probably a 1967, in a similar inaccessible room, but I don't think there are water issues. I was at his place in Nashville a year or so ago and wanted to play it, and was told "I can't get to it now"...

collin wrote:

pacealot wrote:to make it as close as possible to the instrument it was ostensibly meant to reissue - that's totally within my purview. Crushed pearl inlays in a C63? Absolutely!

Not that it wouldn't look great.... But CPI wouldn't be period-correct on a 1963 reissue. The reissue is correct already.

Not if all you've ever wanted all your life is a mid-60s 360 or 65 O.S., it ain't "correct". I don't care if it's supposed to be George's '63 guitar or not - and I love George more than almost any human on earth. I WILL crushed-pearl my C63. No-one will stop me. NO ONE.

edski wrote:Great story!

My brother in law has a 360-12, probably a 1967, in a similar inaccessible room, but I don't think there are water issues. I was at his place in Nashville a year or so ago and wanted to play it, and was told "I can't get to it now"...

Well, I hope he can get it out! They shouldn't be locked away, in principle....

collin wrote:

pacealot wrote:to make it as close as possible to the instrument it was ostensibly meant to reissue - that's totally within my purview. Crushed pearl inlays in a C63? Absolutely!

Not that it wouldn't look great.... But CPI wouldn't be period-correct on a 1963 reissue. The reissue is correct already.


Nice 4005 and great story! Your parents had great taste in Rickenbackers.

Okay, besides my stubborn (but humourously intended) response (but also true!), my other "defense" is that it is my opinion that they've never "correctly" reissued any '60s guitar that should have had crushed pearl inlays to begin with. If it was "really" a V64, then it should have been CMOP. '63? Yeah, well, of course George didn't have it on his, but he did on his '66 roundtop, and that limited reissue didn't get CMOP either - even though Paul W. and quite a number of other luthiers are now able to make very, very good facsimiles of the original stuff (no more inexact than other parts that have had to be recreated). So I reserve the right to call "CMOP" on a '63. Besides, there were other genuine '63 guitars that did have CMOP from the factory, since that was one of their big transition years.

So, yeah, I'm getting pedantic, and yeah, George's 360/12 didn't have it, but dammit, mine's gonna, because as much as I love George, the heart wants what the heart wants!!!!

(Oh and don't EVEN get me started about all the things that were anachronistic - or flat-out "wrong" - about my C63; this is the limited 6-string from last year that we're talking about: wrong neck pickup (a '58 reissue!), wrong harness, wrong TRC, technically it shouldn't have been in Ric-O-Sound but it was - the end is listless....)

Gilmourisgod wrote:That is an amazing find/save from obscurity and damage. Lovely bass! I'm one of many wishing Ric would re-issue the 4005. Based on the response every time one appears, I know they'd sell. I covet a Jetglo!

I'd forgotten how distinctly different and unique the 4005 is from the 4001/3 series until I played this puppy again. It's its own animal, and I agree - it deserves a reissue. A whole generation of bass players is being deprived of the experience due to scarcity and economic unfeasibility. I'm just lucky that my mom had this one, or else I'd never know, either!

pacealot wrote:I'd forgotten how distinctly different and unique the 4005 is from the 4001/3 series until I played this puppy again. It's its own animal, and I agree - it deserves a reissue. A whole generation of bass players is being deprived of the experience due to scarcity and economic unfeasibility. I'm just lucky that my mom had this one, or else I'd never know, either!

My old 4005WB (Jetglo, for those who have never seen photos of it or have seen played it in person ) served me quite well for 38 years; it has been totally restored by P.W. for it's current caretaker.

Here is our esteemed IT support member with it.

Well....I HAVE seen/played Jeff's 4005WB. But for some ODD reason, Jeff had the strings on upside down


BEAUTIFUL bass Paul!!!! Nice save, great family story as well.

Lord knows I can't , won't, and probably shouldn't speak for John Hall but he has gone on record saying a re-issue 4005 will not happen. If I remember correctly it was that he did not think enough would be willing to plunk down what such an instrument would cost. Look how long it took for the "S" bass to make it's appearance. How about a 4002 then?? I really don't think the 4002 sold all that well so I'm not holding my breath waiting for RIC to take a crack at making them either.

Would I buy a 4005? nope, sorry but I would not and I suspect the vast majority here would not either. I'm sure the retail price for such a re-issue would cause a large percentage of those interested to drop out of the running as well. It is an iconic instrument? Absolutely but it's going to take a huge grass roots type push to make RIC think about it.

Sepp

Lefty4003S8 wrote:Well....I HAVE seen/played Jeff's 4005WB. But for some ODD reason, Jeff had the strings on upside down

Nah, you were just in 'Stralia at the time!

pacealot wrote:

collin wrote:

pacealot wrote:to make it as close as possible to the instrument it was ostensibly meant to reissue - that's totally within my purview. Crushed pearl inlays in a C63? Absolutely!

Not that it wouldn't look great.... But CPI wouldn't be period-correct on a 1963 reissue. The reissue is correct already.

Not if all you've ever wanted all your life is a mid-60s 360 or 65 O.S., it ain't "correct". I don't care if it's supposed to be George's '63 guitar or not - and I love George more than almost any human on earth. I WILL crushed-pearl my C63. No-one will stop me. NO ONE.

Hey, go for it, it's your guitar. I'm just calling out that your complaint is technically misplaced about the C63. If this guitar wasn't accurate, Beatles fans everywhere would complain that it wasn't "like George's" but being anoraks, they do anyways.

For the record, no '63 instruments had CPI. Some early examples were made in '61 and they disappeared the following year and returned again in '64.

CPI make any Rick better. I make my own inlays and to my eyes they look more accurate than any others I've seen (but of course I'm biased.

Now that is special!! Great story; hope you plan to play it lots.
I should know this from old research on the 6 string Ric guitars....what's the function of the small, 5th knob? Overall master tone? Blend of the 2 pups?

Great family stories, great old instrument. But what does a 4005 sound like? Is the bridge pickup even useful that close to the bridge?

My understanding is that the fifth knob is a blend knob, but I don't understand how it works. I've looked at the circuitry, and it didn't make sense to me as a blend knob.

Great family stories, great old instrument. But what does a 4005 sound like? Is the bridge pickup even useful that close to the bridge?

My understanding is that the fifth knob is a blend knob, but I don't understand how it works. I've looked at the circuitry, and it didn't make sense to me as a blend knob.

Isaac wrote:Great family stories, great old instrument. But what does a 4005 sound like? Is the bridge pickup even useful that close to the bridge?

My understanding is that the fifth knob is a blend knob, but I don't understand how it works. I've looked at the circuitry, and it didn't make sense to me as a blend knob.

I didn't find the bridge pickup useful, no. For me, it was neck pickup only, all the time. And man did it sound good with a set of TI flats.

The 5th knob will allow you to set the balance between the neck and bridge pickups while the pickup selector is in the middle position. It's also a bass roll-off for the neck pickup.

Isaac wrote:...But what does a 4005 sound like? Is the bridge pickup even useful that close to the bridge?

Here is a quick demo recording of my old '67 4005WB, for one example of it's tone.