Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hi Andy,
Yours does look like the old style 60's horseshoes that I've seen. My V63 is an '88 model, and mine has the slugs like the rest that came afterward. I wonder if it sounds different from those made later, like mine was. Not that it's any big deal mind you, I'm just being nosey!

I think, that armed with the Smith Book, and the '84 brochure, that we can certainly say that the bass is, if not THE prototype, one of the prototypes for the 4001V63 series. Obviously the bass in the '84 brochure would have to be considered a prototype.

The bass listed on Ebay is certainly the same bass as pictured in these two publications. No question at all. And it does have the long head, Ken. Look closely.

In addition, Ken, the only vintage items that the B series had on it was the toaster pickup. All else was standard issue 4001 including silver-top knobs, standard bridge pickup, non-split bridge, head length, and dots. Even the neck pickup spacing was standard issue.

Ken, how many v63 prototypes have you seen? How did you identify them as prototypes?

Rickenbacker was not always 100% accurate on neck heel shapes. The 1986 320/12v63 series also had rounded neck heels though the original obviously had a square heel.

Bob, you have a great and interesting bass there. The new owner will be lucky, and I for one have absolutely no problem with the word "prototype" in your sales description.

I think, that armed with the Smith Book, and the '84 brochure, that we can certainly say that the bass is, if not THE prototype, one of the prototypes for the 4001V63 series. Obviously the bass in the '84 brochure would have to be considered a prototype.

I couldn't disagree more. Smith specifically identifies this as an early V63, not as a prototype. It has a regular serial number that identifies it as early production, nothing special that would identify it as a prototype. The date of manufacture is May 1984, not the date the raw body was cut out.

It's already been established that the early production had magnetic horseshoes and a dot at the 19th fret. Neither of those make this a prototype.

When manufacturers introduce new models, they photograph them. That doesn't make those guitars anything other than early production models that happened to be photographed.

Bob doesn't say that it could be a prototype or might be a prototype. No, he specifically represents it as "PROTOTYPE - CRAZY RARE" and "a totally one off prototype" in direct contradiction to Smith. And this is obviously being done to get a higher price, which would be fine if he had some evidence to back it up. Yet I see nothing but wishful thinking.

Unless JH or someone else at Rickenbacker can confirm that the bass with that serial number was definitely a prototype and not an early production model, then I regard this as misrepresentation.

Hi Dave,

I’m beginning to wonder if you and Ken have a hidden agenda here.

I said that the bass is a totally one off prototype for the following reasons.

It was finished one month before the first production V63 was made.

It has No wings.

It has a round heel.

It has a dot on the 19th fret.

It has early magnetic shoes.

It has an S/N that corresponds to a guitar and not a production bass (confirmed by John Hall)

It is shown in the Smith book as a V63, when obviously it is not a production V63 model.

Soooooo ….. How many instruments are there out there like this one? Maybe just only one? That would make it a one off prototype I think.

The more Ken states that black is white the more foolish he is looking. “ my bass is not in the Smith book” nope got that one wrong. “ my bass obviously does NOT have a magnetic horse shoe” …. Not even close. “ It is a production bass with all the vintage stuff added” No, wrong again. The S/N is for a guitar not a production bass.

Dave, please don’t start going down the same road, it will not become you.

I’m beginning to wonder if you and Ken have a hidden agenda here.

I have no agenda whatsoever. I'm not interested in buying your bass at any price. I almost never comment here about eBay auctions, even with questionable claims. Only reason I did this time is because you opened it to discussion by posting your own auction here.

Over the years I've seen a number of guitars and basses with feature that aren't shown or described in any book. That doesn't make them prototypes, and it doesn't make them one-offs. That's a possibility, of course, but not necessarily. Companies change specs often as is, but especially in early production. I've also seen production dates before (or after) the production dates shown in a book. Having an earlier date than what the book says doesn't make it a prototype.

Now about your specific claims: (1) the magnetic shoes and the dot at the 19th are not unique, they are known to be on early production. (2)You've provided no evidence that no other production V63s were made before 6/84. (3)While it's possible that no other V63 had non-walnut wings and a rounded heel, you've provided no confirmation from Rickenbacker or other evidence. And even if true, that wouldn't necessarily make it a prototype.

It has an S/N that corresponds to a guitar and not a production bass (confirmed by John Hall)

Now if that's correct, it's really troublesome, because it calls everything into question. Rickenbacker serial numbers were not separated by guitar or bass. If they have info (from old records or a warranty registration) that that serial number definitely belonged to a guitar, that means it's not original to your bass. And you have a big problem.

It is shown in the Smith book as a V63, when obviously it is not a production V63 model.

Smith contradicts you, and yet you're using him as evidence to support you? That just floors me.

Soooooo ….. How many instruments are there out there like this one? Maybe just only one? That would make it a one off prototype I think.

You said it: maybe. It may be the only early V63 with a rounded heel and non-walnut wings. It may even be a prototype. But you're not saying maybe in your listing. You're representing it as a fact.

Irregardless it is a nice bass, Incidently does this bass have the .0047 cap inline with the horseshoe?

C'mon guys. Its a great bass. Its an early V63, maybe a prototype. WHO THE HELL KNOWS FOR SURE !!!!

Get over it.

I think that's the point of contention here Scott.

There you go Scott!

If not a PT, tham clearly one of the first and certainly a bass wirh vibe!

Has anyone seen this one? According to MP it came out of the Factory this way (IINM)

What would you call rhis?

cheers!

There you go Scott!

If not a PT, tham clearly one of the first and certainly a bass wirh vibe!

Has anyone seen this one? According to MP it came out of the Factory this way (IINM)

What would you call rhis?

cheers!

altered

Not post market it had factory finish

I understand that Bob, and I apologize for perhaps stepping out of line with my previous statement, Im not out to cause trouble here on the forum, hell, I've never even seen the "Smith" book. It looks real to me. As I said earlier, if I had the cash, I'd be all over it.

If maybe John Hall would chime in ??

John is on vacation so he can't help at the moment!

The bass is no longer for sale.

This, believe it or not, had nothing to do with any doubters here about its provenance. I just could not bear to part with it. Every time a question was asked about the bass I would open the case and a sinking feeling would appear in my stomach, I felt like I was selling the instrument into slavery!

Anyway I have her to keep, play, gig and cherish for ever (I hope)

Sorry if I got anyone too excited about the prospects of owning her.

Bob