Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Pete - we appear to be on the same page with the thumbs-up to a RM spec reissue. Of course I don't think it will ever diminish the value or demand of the 64-66 era RM basses, and would probably be much more affordable, and well, available. Even if someone can pony up the dough for a '60s RM, who's selling? So an exact replica (as much as it's possible) of an RM would be the feasible substitute for those who want the playing & sound experience as a B option to the real thing. And like you say - for touring without running the theft & damage risk on a real RM. And actually, even though the V63 series is a contemporary version that isn't exactly spot-on, it's not a bad approximation.

Eden - will do on the burial shipment! How much is shipping to InYourWildestDreamsville?

"Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour"? I'm shamefully out of the loop on whatever that is!

Dane - thanks for the insight on another option to go with the restoration, but I'm going to stick with the "retro" approach, which isn't really the application of bu||schnit hammer & nail & gouge marks, but rather leaving some parts of the wood as-is in the areas where it gets a little roughed up during the reconstruction process. None of the chrome will be replated (except for the HS surround which has already been redone since it's one I cut myself) and all the old screws will remain part of the whole. I actually had to track all those down specifically to replace the newer ones that were on it when I got it.

So fortunately, pretty much all the hardware is already broken in sufficiently, and I guess that would be the preservation part of this project (see the Shiben glossary of repair definitions ) It'll just be a matter of matching the Fireglo to a '60s vintage look. But I'm not going to do a stupid looking post-finish sanding on the edges of the body to make it look like I wore sweaters made from Burlap sack every day for twenty years. My target is something close to DH153, minus the areas of chipped off top coat.

Out of curiosity, would there be any difference between a 1964 RM1999 and a 4001S from the same year?

The 4001S & the Rose Morris 1999 are identical except for two superficial aspects.

One is the model number. Once Rose Morris & Co. received their 4001S basses from Rickenbacker, they assigned them with their own model number, the 1999.

Secondly, are the knobs. The post-1964 4001S will have silver topped knobs & the 1999's were fitted with black knobs.

So basically, a RM 1999 is a 4001S.

opticnerve wrote:The 4001S & the Rose Morris 1999 are identical except for two superficial aspects.

One is the model number. Once Rose Morris & Co. received their 4001S basses from Rickenbacker, they assigned them with their own model number, the 1999.

Secondly, are the knobs. The post-1964 4001S will have silver topped knobs & the 1999's were fitted with black knobs.

So basically, a RM 1999 is a 4001S.

Thanks for that, so a 1964 4001S would have the black knobs?

Colonel Sanders wrote: Thanks for that, so a 1964 4001S would have the black knobs?

You're welcome Jeff!

The export 4001S/RM 1999 have black knobs & the non-export 4001S will have silver top knobs.

walker wrote:"Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour"? I'm shamefully out of the loop on whatever that is!

Mark, you really should be among those who've tried it!
Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour

All of this back and forth about what's original, repair vs. restoration, etc. is boring. To me. Let's see some progress on the dang bass already!!!

rickenbrother wrote:

walker wrote:"Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour"? I'm shamefully out of the loop on whatever that is!

Mark, you really should be among those who've tried it!
Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour

Wasn't it just on the Eastern seaboard and now heading back to the Left Coast? In fact, didn't it just leave NYC?

johnallg wrote:I wonder what kind of comments would be posted here if the RRF was around back in the late 60s and Macca had posted with the fancy paint job he put on his RM, then the aggressive sanding including turning the upper horn into a phallic symbol leaving it with no finish in the end? Where is the magnetic horseshoe pickup?

How about Squire posting the stickers, then the sanding and foil covering, then again sanding and painting his RM cream, after also converting it to stereo.

Those were different times, John; these conversations arise because of the time which has passed since then. Back then there was no real "vintage" instrument market, and musicians just saw their instruments as tools for expressing themselves; none of this pretense existed.

walker wrote: "Passive Cave Pedal RRF Tour"? I'm shamefully out of the loop on whatever that is!

I think Joey means that when it's done it should be shipped around "on-tour" to interested forum members so they can check it out for themselves (to paraphrase if you don't want to visit the thread linked above).

Very ambitious, thanks for all the step by steps. I'm surprised the headstock still pulls forward given the work that it received. I read that the one Roger Waters used for "One of these Days" had a headstock that looked like your 'before' pic. And that Ric couldn't have been been more than 6 years old if it were not brand new. He said he had to put rubber bands around the strings above the nut to get it to play.

Any progress on finding a blank for the lower horn?

To get the horns and filled in neck to mate perfectly, you will need to run the edges through a joiner. Your cabinet guy probably has one. It looks like an industrial strength router table. It's what guys who make tables use to profile wood edges exactly square and flat so all the planks mate perfectly. But you probably knew that given the intensity of your project.

Too bad about the comments regarding the level of restoration. If the instrument was almost unusable in its purchased form, all you did was buy an expensive piece of retro wall decor. Big deal. Theme restaurants are full of that kind of thing. To make it a players axe, do whatever's necessary to get it back making music, like it was designed to do.

Mark, you rebuild, and rock the @%#$ out of that bass. Nothing else matters. I can"t wait to hear this one "clank". Mark

I had some time to do a little bit of wood-chippin' over the pasts few days - here's where the resurrection stands now:

I got a great match for the new neck wood block from Greg Gurfein; got that set


Also cut out the 2nd top body wing (Wing B, on the left).


Again, here's top wing A, front & back laid out with the other pieces:



and here's top wing B front & back




After comparing Wings A & B, I think I'm going to go with B. Wing A is a little "too nice" being as uniform and wavey as it is, whereas B has a bit of that same chaotic asymmetry that the original bottom wing has. It's especially apparent on the shot of the backside.

Good choice Mark, B is definitely the one!

godber wrote:Good choice Mark, B is definitely the one!

+1.

B HERE NOW!