Page 2 of 7
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:22 pm
by rickfan60
David and Jerry thank you. I will be asking both of you and Jeff Scott for a lot of details as I work through the planning. Seeing as they are handmade there will be some, perhaps a lot of variation. Having so many expamples will help to determine the acceptable ranges for tolerances. Thank you all for offering. This project seems to have hit close the hearts of a lot of you. My mailbox is filled with tips and comments from well wishers and those wanting to help. There are apparently a lot of people who read the forum but don't post.
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:13 pm
by jps
Francesco,
My 4005WB has the thinnest neck of all my Ricks, and is a joy to play, although my favorite is my '73 4001 which is only slightly thicker. Speaking of martians, I knew one back when I was living in Los Angeles in the '80s. His name was Ray Walston. Very nice guy. RIP Ray!
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:11 pm
by rickinroma
OH, Andrew, really that '68 4005 went to Italy??? I must find it then!! And yes, thin necks were common on sixties ricks but it wasn't a rule at ric factory since several ricks from the 60s have thick neck... Lead guitarist in my band has a aug68 345 w/thick neck...only a few months after my 67 4005 and 360... and my late 66 330 has thick neck also.. so maybe there wasn't a starting/final point
Anyway it's really too bad that RIC discontinued producing thin necks since everybody here seems to love it much more than the "regular" one...
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:21 pm
by rickfan60
The neck on my '63 4001 is so thin it is frightening. It is a wonder it was never broken.
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:38 pm
by rickinroma
maybe they discontinued thin necks because they were weak..even if i have never heard of broken ones..well except Pete Townshend, but it's another story
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:04 am
by wints
http://www.hendrixguitars.com/Ba777.htm
Here it is Francesco..ever go to Genova?
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:06 am
by wints
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:21 am
by rickinroma
Thanks Andrew...just finished talking on the phone with them...they just put this bass in their collection gallery..so they dont sell it..nice try
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:47 pm
by rickfan60
So, time for some pics. I have to warn you. They are a bit gruesome. The fingerboard is off and there is something of a mess underneath. Not unworkable but daunting nonetheless. The project here is to restore the original truss channels and fill the new one.
Here is the head end of the neck. There is a lot of wood missing from the center area. Some if it stuck to the fingerboard but most was simply left out. This is not as bad as it looks. The single truss rod can be seen on the left side of the picture.
Here is the body end. The round thing is the truss anchor. This is the thing that makes replacing a Gibson style rod next to impossible without major surgery. Rickenbacker rods can be normally be removed and installed without opening any laminations.
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:16 pm
by kennyhowes
gruesome indeed...
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:22 pm
by ilan
Ted, are you going to install old-style expansion rods or post-84 compression rods?
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:12 am
by jps
OPEN NECK SURGERY!!! I puked when I saw the pics!
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:49 am
by jaymi
Sometimes to be redeemed, surgery is the only way.
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:20 am
by beatlefan
Does the 4005 take a special set of rods due to the increased neck length? The neck appears to be a good bit longer than the 4001/4003....
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:52 am
by rickfan60
This bass will get a set of the old style rods. The 4005 has the same scale as the 4001 so the neck length is about the same. The overall length of a 4005 is greater but that has more to do with the body than the neck.