'72 4001 ... how's it look?

[rikk]

Jake, sometimes it's just unbelievable what delivery companies say when they are too lazy to actually deliver something.

[jakeox]

Thanks for commiserating, it helps. It got here today, and I think it looks pretty good! Here are pictures of some key parts; some things I know are not original, others I'm not sure about.

[jakeox]

A couple more pics:

[jakeox]

I have a split tailpiece coming, supposedly with a matching bridge, but no saddles. I'm hoping these saddles will fit. I also have a line on some wavy Grovers; we'll see if that works out. It'd be a shame if it needs a new surround; I saw a couple on eBay yesterday at a good price, but didn't get them. I'm pretty sure the cover attached to the surround is a modern replacement, though.

The wear on the back doesn't bother me because the front is actually in great shape for its age. The exposed wood on the back is very dark, however. It looks like the wear was done long ago and the exposed wood has kind of ambered. There is one small (less than 1 inch) strip of replaced binding on the top side of the neck, which bothers me.

I'm going to pop the pickguard in a moment. It is cracked, but looks original.

[brycycle]

if that surround is scooped (can't quite tell) then it is likely original. (my '72 JG referenced):

[jakeox]

The surround is scooped, so that's something. I couldn't get the pickguard off without a struggle (one stripped screw), but I got enough that I could at least see that there's no extra routing under there.

I also found two filled screw holes on either side of the tailpiece, and I noticed that the jackplate is on upside down.

It sounds fine plugged in, but is desperately in need of a setup and some new strings. I'm trying to figure out if it's worth the $60 to bring it to my setup guy, but I'll have to do that to give it a proper tryout.

[markbass99]

Great looking bass Jake. I have a Feb 73 jetglo that's two months away from your LL and it has a similar rash on the back. Like you, I realize finding a perfect 4001 from this period close to impossible and the rash on mine has been accepted by me as part of the history of the bass. Mine looks really good on the front too that's all that matters when you're wearing/playing it. When you think about it, the Nov 72- Mar 73 4001's were very similar, skunk stripe, sparkle inlays, no handrest, split tailpiece. None of my 73's have the scooped surround and on some of them the strings get very close but don't touch.

[ajish4]

Congratulations Jake,

Looks like you landed a sweet one!

I am trying to get a complete set of duplicate chrome for my 71 and have them re-chromed. This way, I can keep all my originals, well original....

Ebay has been pretty good for early 4001 parts recently. I'm about 1/2 way there.

[jakeox]

Thanks for the help guys. I'm also pretty sure it's a refin, based on the filled screw holes near the tailpiece and the wear on the back (which looks like two distinct layers of black). It's definitely a fixer-upper, and I'm trying to determine if it's worth spending the money to do so, including an eventual re-refin. I think to get to that point, I'll have over 5k into it; I'm sure it'll be more if I want to fix the small piece of poorly replaced neck binding. I'm not sure if a refurbished '72 is worth sinking 5k+ into.

As soon as I get it set up nicely I'm going to do a thunderdome with it and my June '73 (two basses enter ... one bass leaves). It's going come down to tone and feel, I think, for me to decide whether or not to sink the time and effort into this bass.

[wints]

This bass is only two away from my old Dec 72, LL1586 that was also originally JG finished to MG, and that too had the oversized Schallers fitted!

[rickcrazy]

"Does the surround look right?" Well, I can't say it looks wrong, but it's not a Rickenbacker part.

[jakeox]

That's cool, Wints! Speaking of bass history, the case (actually a later 70s case I believe) has a bunch of stickers on it that say "Pangea". I tried to dig around for bands named Pangea and found like 20 of them. Plus a bunch named Pangaea. As I expected, at least a couple are proggy. No clue whose bass player it might have belonged to.

[jakeox]

"Does the surround look right?" Well, I can't say it looks wrong, but it's not a Rickenbacker part.

OK, I'll add the surround to the list of parts I would need to get this thing back to original. I have no idea how you guys spot these things, but I appreciate it.

[ben_brown]

"Does the surround look right?" Well, I can't say it looks wrong, but it's not a Rickenbacker part.

What exactly is incorrect about it Sérgio? Please educate us(me).

[rickcrazy]

Well, take a good look at the screws on both the rear and front flange on the surround. On any legit Rick surround, the screws on the rear flange are slightly further apart than on the front one. Right or wrong?