Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I tried other 5 string basses ... I prefer a 5 string ric bass ... ric's have a distinctive sound ... and I need a low b for the music that I play ... I prefer my 4 to 5 conversions over the 4003s5 basses ... there are a lot of 1986 or later Ric basses ... if I mod 3 or 4 of them that really doesn't effect the market for the rest of you ...

I understand that I am too progressive for most of you guys ... you don't like me adding a low B to a ric bass ... but I feel the same way about flat wound strings, mechanical mutes, ric-o-sound, pickup covers, horseshoe pickups, and bass cut capaciters ... I hate all that retro stuff on a ric bass ... and I find a 4 string bass very limiting ... it is missing a string ... try removing your E string and playing ... that's the way I feel without a low B ...

also when I am done modifing my bass it still looks like a Rickenbacker ... Also what I do is pretty similar to what Ric did when they made the 4003s5 bass they took a 4 string ric and made a 5 string bass ... I just do it with a different model than the 4003s ...

Jeff, I'm with you on the need for 5 strings. Before I had my 4003S/5 and I wanted to use a Rick bass, it had to be strung BEAD, it loses the G string, but the other 4 are more important. I've been thinking about selling some of my 4 string basses like my PRS. I never use them anymore.

It has nothing to do with being progressive, the objection, when it comes to basses that are extremely rare, is that you are destroying them. Drilling out holes in the headstock is no different than routing out the body to put an EB3 pickup in it - except that you can't cover it up by replacing the pickguard. For the 4003 models of which there are thousands, have at it. I'm sure some here would object if I were shortening the scale on a 4005, or defacing any of the limited issue guitars.

I like a low B too, and when I need it, I grab one of the other 5 strings I have, most of which are far better sounding for the B string than my 4003/S5. Anyhow, there's not much point arguing about, we obviously have very different ideas about the value of guitars as built by the artisans who built them.

I agree that I wouldn't want a Ric altered with the 5th hole drilled for the tuner or with major body routing but if Mr. Rath buys it he can do as he wishes. He could do whatever he likes to the rarist of the rare Rics and I wouldn't care because it isn't mine. I would only voice my opinion if he asked for it (which he has in the past and has taken my opinions graciously) and if he sold it, I would price it accordingly. Luckily I find my 4003 strung BEAD to suit all of my "detuned" needs. If I had to resort to using the 4003s5 I would have a problem (I had one and had problems with the spacing) and I cannot see myself with a non-Ric so luckily I found my solution and so has Mr. Rath......cheers to you for doing what you need to to keep playing Rics. That's all that really matters IMO!

Someday I'd like to find a Jetglo 4004Cii or 4004L and perform "Rathification 425" on it.

yep the 4004 makes a good 425 conversion ... you know the way it comes from the factory sucks ... the toggle, volume, tone wiring does not take advantage of the potential of this instrument ... you can't blend the pickups ... you can only toggle them on and off ... that is lame ... you miss out on the low end or the growl ... you can't blend the best tone in ... the 2030 and 4003 and 4001 all have 2 volume controls ...

Also I when I go out and play with a modified Ric bass I NEVER hear oh my God you ruined that bass ... nope they love the sound of the Ric with the low B ... it blows away the high end 5 strings with active electronics ... the 4003 has single coil growl and the 4004 has series humbucker growl ... you don't get that with a warwick, schecter, ibanez, spector, musicman, or other similar basses ...

If you are trying to nail a bass line from sgt peppers album with you v63 and flat wound strings and mute applied then you don't need the low B ... but modern rock, heavy metal, blues, jazz, and modern country all take advantage of the low B ...

...even Paul McCartney has been playing a 5 string for about 14 years now. Didn't he get his first 5er, a 5 string Wal bass about 1990?

I agree with Jeff to a point. The 5 string bass is a prominent factor in todays music. A lot of stuff we do in the 10 piece R/B blues band that Im in, I can do on a "standard" 4-string bass. But I find myself more and more reaching for my Warwick 5 because of convienience.

Two or three tunes at first, tuning down to a low D, then along comes a song clearly written around the low B on a five string bass, I find myself becoming very comfortable with the five, and using it alot just because everything you need is right there under your finger tips.

Jeff isnt converting anything that I would consider highly collectable, hey, they are still plenty of first generation 4004's out there, and I think just from forum conversation with the man, can safely say he would never convert something considered "vintage". Think about it, he owned one of the finest '68's that ever graced this forum, but never modified it.

( Im sure the thought crossed his mind though!)

He converts 4's to 5's, I'd probably buy one off of him if he could produce a "wide-5" Rick.

Bottom line: You go Jeff, Ricks are musical instruments made to be played, you just take it one step beyond.

If ric did custom shop work I wouldn't need to do what I do ... but they have enough work to do just to produce what they have on order ...

I did one reversable mod on my '68 ... I took out the horseshoe and capaciter and I put in a modern high gain ... boy did that bass have balls ... it had a very edgy treble bite and a real mid punch and a full bottom ... but I put it back stock when I sold it ... the problem was the bass became too valuable to take out of the house ... I can't gig with a $6500 bass ... especially when the whole band is making $500 a gig ... and I'm not interested in having a non played collection of basses ... so it is gone ...

or perhaps I earned the right to modify ric basses because I played a 1968 4001 unmodified for 28 years???

...you have the right to modify an instrument of your liking to best suit your needs.

I'm just guessing that RIC not offering custom shop work might be one of the ways JH manages to not need to have a line of his instruments made in other countries.

From the looks of Jeff's work, he doesn't take anything away from the instruments he mods. I was amazed looking at the 4 to 5 string conversion pics he posted the link to recently...

That said, I am slow to consider modding an old guitar...but I am not a 5 string guy, and I have changed the pickups in an old Fender 6 string (guitar) I have.

As for complaining about botched Rick mods on eBay, I don't think there's a comparison between Jeff's work and some of the hack jobs seen onthe 'Bay. Now, this is only an impression, as I've never seen Jeff's work personally, but it looks professionally done.

BTW, if I were ever to get a 4004, I *might* consider the VVT mod.

"or perhaps I earned the right to modify ric basses because I played a 1968 4001 unmodified for 28 years???"
Or perhaps you earned the right to modify ric basses because you paid for them with your own money.
Look at what Sir Paul and Lemmy have done to their basses,,,and those are now limited productions.

The 2 most famous ric basses were both modified ...

they belonged to ...

Chris Squire and Paul McCartney

Modified? putting a replacement pickguard is "modified". Active electronics is "modified". The Rath 4-2-5 mod is "modified". Geddy's 4001 was "modified". CS's and PMC's basses were butchered. The line is crossed when someone is altering body contours or dimensions. Just MHO, of course.