21 Fret 4001 Owners, Make Yourselves Known

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:28 am

John, you posted a response before I was done typing...!!!

Anyway, thanks again if you happen to add anything.

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:47 am

I be googlin'...Acer macrophyllum = Big leaf maple. I'm assuming Mr. Hall means the wings, since the neck maple is ordinary. As to components, I've got a rotary switch in there for the G&L right now. It's hard to see past it. There's a blue capacitor I took out of the thing eons ago. I still have it somewhere, along with the ROS switching jack.

I sadly must admit that my email address does look like a typical source of spam. At least it's not a hotmail account. Ironically, most of the people I work with, are in Anaheim today. I will send some pics from my work email.

headbanger · Post by **headbanger** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:31 pm

Wouldn't a truss rod count help settle it's bona fides?
Humbly I suggest that a forger wouldn't go to the extent of making a copy Rick that doesn't look like any other. If it has 2 OS rods it's pedigree would be almost irrefutable, wouldn't it?

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:12 pm

Has two trussrods. It's probably pointless to speculate, but why would someone build a copy this well...with checkerboard binding yet?

News, however. The serial number doesn't belong to it. Mr. Hall tells me that it originally belonged to a 4001 FL in Fireglo. The wood shows no sign of ever having been stained.

iamthebassman · Post by **iamthebassman** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:32 pm

"why would someone build a copy this well...with checkerboard binding yet? "

When I was 17 and couldn't afford the real thing, I had an Electra 4001FG copy with checkerboard binding.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:31 am

I can't wait to hear the verdict on James Grove's 21 fret 4001. Yesterday I compared the headstocks on both my 4001 and his: the shape is identical, down to the relative positions of tuning machines. I still say he has got a genuine, albeit unusually appointed and much modified Rickenbacker 4001. But I'm no expert.

banta · Post by **banta** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 6:20 am

I think that if there were the slightest possibility that it was genuine, Mr. Hall would not have made the statement that he made. I am a manufacturer myself and I can tell if something was made by our company from any time period at a glance.

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:02 am

I didn't realize what "FL" meant last night. From what I could google, that means a fretless with dot inlays in between the missing frets? I've never seen one, so dunno. Anyway, that at least is consistent. I've verified the serial number for Mr. Hall.

A fretless would have been a custom order? We'll find out eventually.

wints · Post by **wints** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 8:02 am

If we go back to last years post on James,s bass, our eagle eyed John Williams asks about the larger dot inlays and whether they were associated with the fretless model....The story continues...

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:40 pm

Maybe this particular 4001 started out life as a fretless instrument indeed. Is it my eyes or the upper frets are very slightly slanted (=lame fret job)? James, can you confirm my impression? Maybe someone (definitely not RIC) put frets on your bass at some point in time. Am I laboring under a severe delusion here? About a year ago Mark Arnquist pointed out that the type of fret wire was not original to the bass.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:00 pm

Ok, going out on a limb here but those fretboard markers (lg. dots) do indicate fretless RIC bass. Isn't possible that this bass was indeed originally FG? Double check the routing under the pickguard and truss rod cover for any FG remnants. Yes, the wide center skunk stripe is baffling.

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:14 pm

They look slanted, but on a strobe they check out to be accurately placed. The end of the fretboard is angled and that accentuates the impression. The fret job is a mixed bag. It's hard to explain, but while no factory did it, all the frets are down flush and tight. It looks like some fretboard sanding happened after the fret job.

I've been looking for errors and omisions: There's not enough wood in the truss rod cavity to get both nut-side screws in for the cover. Conversely, there is a hole for a different & shorter truss rod cover. The walnut center stripe isn't perfectly centered. It's within 1/16" though.

There are two ways to look at it - 1) it's the real deal, or 2) it's a copy. Current evidence supports both theories. Mr. Hall is looking into it. He's got a company to run though, so this can't be a high priority. If the paper trail is open ended, I'll try to get it up to Santa Ana in the next month.

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 12:46 am

"Current evidence supports both theories." I'll say, James! If your 4001 is the real deal, though, maybe it wasn't supposed to be Mapleglo or any other see-through finish, but rather a solid finish such as JG, AG or white.

dave_axt · Post by **dave_axt** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 7:00 am

Does this bass have two truss rods? That is a sure sign that it's a Rickenbacker. No other manufacturer puts 2 truss rods in their instruments.

What does the output jack say? What are the numbers/letters? Ibanez basses say "Standard" and Stereo. Yet someone could have put a new jackplate on when they put the new truss rod cover on.

jayfbv · Post by **jayfbv** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 8:37 am

I think Mr.Hall's point/perspective is that someone with a real 4001 as a guide and a source of parts(truss rods), could make templates and build a copy that is very close.

I know a couple people who could do it. Otoh, they wouldn't. They'd buy a used one.