Because the pegheads on these old 4001s pitch forward, causing the strings to slip out of the nut or simply not have enough downward pressure.Grey wrote:I just noticed that hideous string tree someone stuck on the headstock. Why???
1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
- sloop_john_b
- Rick-a-holic
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
- Kopfjaeger
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1908
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
John,sloop_john_b wrote:Because the pegheads on these old 4001s pitch forward, causing the strings to slip out of the nut or simply not have enough downward pressure.Grey wrote:I just noticed that hideous string tree someone stuck on the headstock. Why???
I was looking for that after seeing the before fotos of mark Walker's RM1999 but I noticed no forward pitch to this headstock. What I believe is the nut slot is cut way too wide and the M4 pegs sit much higher than the standard tuner. The G string was cut rather short and did not have enough wraps to put significant downward pressure for a good break angle with the long pegs. Oh there is a break angle but it's not enough. i think this will be a non issue once the new tuners are installed and new strings are on. I'll keep everyone posted via this thread when things start to go back into the bass.
I'm going to have to build up the nut slot and re-cut. The nut is crazy wide!! There is no way I'm going to be able to use a new nut unless it's custom made. It has to be 50% wider than the new RIC nuts.
Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Save the old bakelite nut for sure... put it away somewhere.
This will work for your bass though, as it has the proper thickness at a full 1/4". I used a white one on my 64 MG, which fits perfectly.
http://www.graphtech.com/products/brand ... 4033a484e5
This will work for your bass though, as it has the proper thickness at a full 1/4". I used a white one on my 64 MG, which fits perfectly.
http://www.graphtech.com/products/brand ... 4033a484e5
Rickenbacker '64 & '68 4001 basses ♦ Fender Pre-CBS J & P Basses and 1968 Telecaster Bass ♦ Moog Taurus III Bass Pedals ♦ Hiwatt (Hylight) Amplification
"A good bassist determines the direction of any band."- Ron Carter
"A good bassist determines the direction of any band."- Ron Carter
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
If the holes were enlarged then the C64 bushings will be too small. They mic out at 0.45" IIRC... smaller than the 1/2" used on modern ricks (and the M4).Kopfjaeger wrote:
Was very happy to see the Schaller M4's did require the peg holes to be enlarged!! The C64's will work nicely.
Rickenbacker '64 & '68 4001 basses ♦ Fender Pre-CBS J & P Basses and 1968 Telecaster Bass ♦ Moog Taurus III Bass Pedals ♦ Hiwatt (Hylight) Amplification
"A good bassist determines the direction of any band."- Ron Carter
"A good bassist determines the direction of any band."- Ron Carter
- Kopfjaeger
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1908
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Sean,
Thanks for the tip on the nut! That is a great option! As for the peg holes, mine are at approx .473. The early Schaller M4's barrels are .468. I can see the original small diameter ferrule imprint on the headstock so I think I'm alright. I won't be out of the woods until I try them to make sure.
Sepp
Thanks for the tip on the nut! That is a great option! As for the peg holes, mine are at approx .473. The early Schaller M4's barrels are .468. I can see the original small diameter ferrule imprint on the headstock so I think I'm alright. I won't be out of the woods until I try them to make sure.
Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Agreed - I used the same thing on my 73 - works great.xsubs wrote:Save the old bakelite nut for sure... put it away somewhere.
This will work for your bass though, as it has the proper thickness at a full 1/4". I used a white one on my 64 MG, which fits perfectly.
http://www.graphtech.com/products/brand ... 4033a484e5
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Sepp's harness for the '65 showed up today. The original Switchcraft switch is salvageable, but I'll have to rebuild it. The two lower leaves were pinched and soldered together, and the output jack wired off of that. WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP REWIRING RICKS THIS WAY?! It must be a Gibson thing. Two of the pots are split shaft that have been squeezed together by over tightening the original style knobs. One of the two solid shaft pots appears original, and I'm gonna try and save it and incorporate it into the new harness (if Sepp doesn't mind). The weird thing is that, until I clean all of the solder off of these, it appears like all for pots have the same date codes? Did RIC mix solid and split shaft pots on the same harnesses? I'll post before and after pics when It's finished. Now I gotta talk to Sepp.......
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Dane,
Ric usually used split shafts for volume and solid for tone on basses at this point in time. All with the same date codes. The split shaft often get pinched from being overtightened and that's why you occasionally see a knob sitting crooked on old Ric bass.
Great looking old bass. Don't even think about touching up the finish! Get it set up properly with light gauge strings and enjoy it...
Ric usually used split shafts for volume and solid for tone on basses at this point in time. All with the same date codes. The split shaft often get pinched from being overtightened and that's why you occasionally see a knob sitting crooked on old Ric bass.
Great looking old bass. Don't even think about touching up the finish! Get it set up properly with light gauge strings and enjoy it...
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
My old 4005WB was/is that way. I do not know if Paul modified that when he did the restoration on it.aceonbass wrote:Did RIC mix solid and split shaft pots on the same harnesses?.
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Thanks for info Andrew! I'd seen this before, but was never sure it was original. Now it's the other way around. I can get solid shaft vintage style CTS 250K pots, but I can't get solid shaft CTS 500K vintage style pots. Well, if the pots are still within spec after I get done cleaning them up, then I'll "un-pinch the shafts", and put a brass bushing on them so the knob fits squarely, and re-use them. If they're shot, then I'll take them apart and put modern CTS guts inside them to keep the original date coded pot cases.The whole thing turned out to be wired like a Les Paul. The main difference functionality-wise, is that the tone pots interact with each other, which I DON'T like.
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Yeah, that would suck on a bass.aceonbass wrote:....... The whole thing turned out to be wired like a Les Paul. The main difference functionality-wise, is that the tone pots interact with each other, which I DON'T like.
- Kopfjaeger
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1908
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Dane,aceonbass wrote:Thanks for info Andrew! I'd seen this before, but was never sure it was original. Now it's the other way around. I can get solid shaft vintage style CTS 250K pots, but I can't get solid shaft CTS 500K vintage style pots. Well, if the pots are still within spec after I get done cleaning them up, then I'll "un-pinch the shafts", and put a brass bushing on them so the knob fits squarely, and re-use them. If they're shot, then I'll take them apart and put modern CTS guts inside them to keep the original date coded pot cases.The whole thing turned out to be wired like a Les Paul. The main difference functionality-wise, is that the tone pots interact with each other, which I DON'T like.
This is exactly why I sent you the harness! I knew you would have the drive and ability to make it right and keep it vintage!! So glad the original switch can be saved!! It would be nice to keep the pots or at a minimum keep the parts that make them appear to be original. Not that anyone will be looking under the hood, but based on the scarcity of the instrument, it should be as right as possible.
The harness took a bit of a vacation, courtesy of the USPS!! I mailed it out of northern NJ on July 8 along with the original pickguard, which went to Pickguardian. The guard arrived safe on July 10 while the harness went to Los Angeles and sat for two days before being re-routed to Kansas, to Dane. It arrived there today. So much for sending it Priority!! I hope the harness got a tan and some autographs while it was in LA!!
Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
- Kopfjaeger
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1908
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:49 am
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
Here is another question for all you pre 73 bass owners. What is the major difference between the post 73 saddles and the pre 73 saddles/ I mean the look similar. I have not held them side by side yet so can the second pattern (new style) saddles be modified to fit in the cast bridge?? Is it worth doing??
Sepp
Sepp
Vintage/Classic Rickenbacker Enthusiast!
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
1972 4001 Jetglo
1973 4001 Burgundyglo
2011 4003 Jetglo
1986 4003 Shadow
-
Colonel Sanders
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 842
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:39 am
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
The old saddles are casted aluminium. They are slightly less angular than the newer ones (made from a zinc alloy I think).Kopfjaeger wrote:Here is another question for all you pre 73 bass owners. What is the major difference between the post 73 saddles and the pre 73 saddles/ I mean the look similar. I have not held them side by side yet so can the second pattern (new style) saddles be modified to fit in the cast bridge?? Is it worth doing??
Sepp
I know that Dane modified new saddles so they could fit in an old aluminium cast bridge. So it can be done.
Cheers
1973 4001 Jetglo
2017 4003S Jetglo
2023 4003 Mapleglo
2022 4005XC Jetglo
1979 MusicMan Stingray
2021 Epiphone Thunderbird
2017 4003S Jetglo
2023 4003 Mapleglo
2022 4005XC Jetglo
1979 MusicMan Stingray
2021 Epiphone Thunderbird
- chefothefuture
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:00 am
Re: 1965 4001 needs a bit of TLC
It can be done, but the trick is with the intonation screws; the modern saddles will sit up too high unless the bottoms of the saddles are milled down and a newColonel Sanders wrote:The old saddles are casted aluminium. They are slightly less angular than the newer ones (made from a zinc alloy I think).Kopfjaeger wrote:Here is another question for all you pre 73 bass owners. What is the major difference between the post 73 saddles and the pre 73 saddles/ I mean the look similar. I have not held them side by side yet so can the second pattern (new style) saddles be modified to fit in the cast bridge?? Is it worth doing??
Sepp
I know that Dane modified new saddles so they could fit in an old aluminium cast bridge. So it can be done.
Cheers
hole is drilled and tapped.
If you know any machinists, or some one with a mill and machining skills, you might have aluminum ones made to your specs.
