Have you ever seen......?

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:38 am

The body shapes are slightly different. Notice the distance between the edge of pickguard and the binding in the lower cutaway. My last fret is even with the binding where the book bass has a deeper cutaway. The last fret is well past the binding. BTW the serial number on mine put it at March of 1963.

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:48 am

Speaks to the largely hand-made nature of the seminal instruments.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:07 am

Ted, the more I look at this bass in the Rittor book, the more I think it could be a model 4000 that was converted. There are some extra screw holes in the upper bout (wing) up above the tailpiece. A pickguard from a 4000 would reach up into this area without a problem.

(edit) Having said this, I would think there would be more extra screw holes, for the old-style 4001 'guard was quite big, but who knows...

One of my lefty 4001 basses from 1972 has screw holes with nothing but air underneath them, they were both cut with a Forstner bit...

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:29 am

The upper horn of the Rittor bass is consistent with the 4001 not the short horn of the 4000. When did the 4000 get the longer uppper horn?

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:27 am

The first evidence I've seen (in pics) of the longer, thinner body was on a model 4000 that was exhibited at the trade shows in 1960. It had a body shape of a 4001 and was bound like one too, and had the large 4000 gold 'guard. The fretboard was bound with deluxe inlays. It is the most elaborate 4000 bass I have ever seen....I think it's a reach, but maybe the basses are the same, with some changes. Again I doubt it, but maybe...

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:12 am

Here's a link to a pic of the bass I'm taking about:

http://www.rickenbacker.com/gallery_image.asp?archive_id=567&gallery_year=1960

wints · Post by **wints** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:41 am

I don't know if it's my eyes, but the hook of the headstock looks very similar in the two basses. With the TRC looking the same too, I would think this could possibly be the same bass with hardware changed out...

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:12 pm

Well, those two screw holes are a definite mystery. I'm beginning to doubt my theory that the two basses are one and the same; In it's 4001 configuration there would be more screw holes visible in the Rittor book pics, such as the two clear guides that hold the bridge cover onto the body of a 4000, these would be quite visible on a bass converted to a 4001. I still consider it to be a significant bass as far as 4001 history is concerned, I think there is a story here.

readyeddy · Post by **readyeddy** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:06 am

well:
Patrick: thanks for posting the pic on my '59 4000 bass. Nice to know you kept pics all this time! I also file pics on stuff I´d like to have

)
Ted: It was me who bought it from Mike. But what you say afterwards is totally wrong.
I did not resell it simply because it is the best Rick I have ever played.
Where did you get the idea that "those old 4000s don't play worth a damn. I have never had the pleasure but those who have say that gen 1 4000s have rather high action and are otherwise not very comfortible to play." ????
That is absurd.(and Mike should know). My 4000 plays like butter and sounds like the God of Thunder !!!! It is the ONE to have. PERIOD.