2nd Edition! Help!

[bassduke49]

I would like to see photos of it for consideration of inclusion in the book!

[w3stoner]

So I got some shots of my 4002FL this afternoon... They are a little rough cause I didn't have a big flat black panel to keep the reflections down...

Frontside:

4002FL Frontside

Back:

4002 Body Back

Back, Down Neck:

Neck Down Back

Edge View Up Neck:

Edge View Up Neck

Nut:

Nut

Front, Up Neck:

Top Up Neck

[w3stoner]

Here's a few more...

Body Front:

Body Front

The blemishes... the first one came was there when I bought it. The other three I have added

Blemish Upper Horn:

Blemish Upper Horn

Blemish Headstock:

Blemish Headstock
Blemish Headstock

Blemish Upper Rear Body:

Blemish Body Upper Rear

Blemish Lower Rear Body:

Blemish Body Lower Rear

[chefothefuture]

Stunning!

[squirebass]

What a rare beast! Love that fretboard especially, although the burst finish with checkerboard binding is not exactly hurting my eyes either!

I wanted one of these when they came out, but never managed to quite gather the coin to get one....ah, my misspent youth!

Nice bass!

[henry5]

Paul, I seem to remember a small issue concerning the change in the headstock from the long (up to late '60s) version to the smaller; it could have been that mention of the smaller-but-still-walnut-winged version - with corresponding lack of skunk stripe in the neck - up until early '72 was missing (my Feb '72 is like this). I can't quite remember the specifics and I'm at work now so I'll have to check when I get home. Apologies in advance if I've remembered incorrectly.

[chefothefuture]

Paul, I seem to remember a small issue concerning the change in the headstock from the long (up to late '60s) version to the smaller; it could have been that mention of the smaller-but-still-walnut-winged version - with corresponding lack of skunk stripe in the neck - up until early '72 was missing (my Feb '72 is like this). I can't quite remember the specifics and I'm at work now so I'll have to check when I get home. Apologies in advance if I've remembered incorrectly.

Ah- the incredible shrinking headstock! Yes, I would have liked to see a photo progression showing this change. There are at least 5 variants of this shape from 1969 to 1972! And several examples where the template must have been damaged as the "crest" looks like (as coined by Sepp) a big toe.
I gather that additions like this would be too great an alteration of the book physically.
I would have liked to see the treble PU changes documented as well.
Be nice to "close the book" on a lot of the technical stuff that continues to spark debate.....

[leftybass]

I got an email today from the publisher, Hal Leonard Books, that they will be needing to reprint the book as stock is getting low. They knew that I wanted to make some minor corrections, but I suggested that we should do a second edition as I had accumulated more photos and that there were two newish models and other information that would keep the book current. So now I need a bit of help locating publishable photos of the limited-run colors and finish combinations that were produced for the foreign distributors (Snowglo, Fire Alarm Red, metallic peach, metallic sky blue, metallic black with mirror PG and TRC, etc.). I've already taken formal portraits of a 4003W but need to get access to an SW for formal portraits. I've also emailed some sources for the sole(?) Fireglo BT, the James Kirkland Blue Boy 4000, and I've been able to obtain great photos of Geddy Lee with his Ricks, something sorely lacking from the first edition.

So, is there anything else I should cover? Something that you found lacking in the first edition? Any corrections needed (I think I found all the missed aches, but . . . ). Have at it!

Paul: Did you ever make any headway with the Rittor Book publishers..? You may remember a chat we had at one of the MARF events where it would have been great to include a pic or two of a couple basses in the book, one bass in particular that would fit in the early 4001 timeline....

[bassduke49]

I do remember, John. However, such decisions belong to the publisher. I had also hoped that they would have developed the book into an electronic version, but they have decided not to do that (as of now). While I had and have control of the content of the book and it's second edition, I have sold the publishing rights to the publisher. In essence, they bought the book from me and are now have the right to make money with the book any way they want. And I'm cool with that. That's how the book business works. I am fairly compensated, and they make a fair amount of money selling the book. And for your money, you get a fairly decent book. It's a win win win!

[henry5]

Paul, I seem to remember a small issue concerning the change in the headstock from the long (up to late '60s) version to the smaller; it could have been that mention of the smaller-but-still-walnut-winged version - with corresponding lack of skunk stripe in the neck - up until early '72 was missing (my Feb '72 is like this). I can't quite remember the specifics and I'm at work now so I'll have to check when I get home. Apologies in advance if I've remembered incorrectly.

Ah- the incredible shrinking headstock! Yes, I would have liked to see a photo progression showing this change. There are at least 5 variants of this shape from 1969 to 1972! And several examples where the template must have been damaged as the "crest" looks like (as coined by Sepp) a big toe.
I gather that additions like this would be too great an alteration of the book physically.

Yes John, that's it in a nutshell. Page 19 states "In early 1972.........The headstock morphed into a shorter, chunkier shape with smaller "head wings made of maple". As you state, this actually happened first in 1969 IIRC, although the wings remained walnut (and there was no skunk stripe) until early-ish 1972. Without giving all the variations and photos (although photos would be cool), I wondered if the general headstock change from long with walnut wings to short with walnut wings to short with maple wings and stripe and the approximate change dates could feasibly be covered in the text.

FWIW if we're talking about minor shape variations (rather than the more obvious variations as stated) I've found minor differences on pretty much every Ric I've owned; my Feb '72 is different to my Aug '72 which was slightly different to my '76 etc etc.

[bassduke49]

Yeah, the different shapes, while seeming to follow a trend, were hard to pin down to anything definitive. I'm sure if I had made some sort of timeline on shape/feature changes, there would be something pop up to shatter the stats. In the long run, I went with the obvious trends instead of the finer details. That way, the text wouldn't necessarily be "wrong," just generally "correct."

[chefothefuture]

Yeah, the different shapes, while seeming to follow a trend, were hard to pin down to anything definitive. I'm sure if I had made some sort of timeline on shape/feature changes, there would be something pop up to shatter the stats. In the long run, I went with the obvious trends instead of the finer details. That way, the text wouldn't necessarily be "wrong," just generally "correct."

That's understandable. There were so many aspects of the 4000/4001 that changed (sometimes within 2 months) that to attempt to document each thing would be a frustrating task. Though it would certainly satisfy us geeks! (Yes there are some who want to know the varying notch depths of the cast aluminum tail piece!)

[henry5]

Yeah, the different shapes, while seeming to follow a trend, were hard to pin down to anything definitive. I'm sure if I had made some sort of timeline on shape/feature changes, there would be something pop up to shatter the stats. In the long run, I went with the obvious trends instead of the finer details. That way, the text wouldn't necessarily be "wrong," just generally "correct."

As John says, perfectly understandable. I just thought the apparent omission of the '69-'72 short headstock w/walnut wings and no stripe could cause confusion to those not as familiar with the changes as many of us on here.

[jps]

Paul, I seem to remember a small issue concerning the change in the headstock from the long (up to late '60s) version to the smaller; it could have been that mention of the smaller-but-still-walnut-winged version - with corresponding lack of skunk stripe in the neck - up until early '72 was missing (my Feb '72 is like this). I can't quite remember the specifics and I'm at work now so I'll have to check when I get home. Apologies in advance if I've remembered incorrectly.

Ah- the incredible shrinking headstock! Yes, I would have liked to see a photo progression showing this change. There are at least 5 variants of this shape from 1969 to 1972! And several examples where the template must have been damaged as the "crest" looks like (as coined by Sepp) a big toe.
I gather that additions like this would be too great an alteration of the book physically.
I would have liked to see the treble PU changes documented as well.
Be nice to "close the book" on a lot of the technical stuff that continues to spark debate.....

This is the kind of stuff Ferrari aficionados/collectors/enthusiasts, etc. love, and one of the reasons I mention, on occasion, that I compare Rickenbacker to Ferrari (particularly, the 1950s-mid 1960s cars).

[squirebass]

Paul, I seem to remember a small issue concerning the change in the headstock from the long (up to late '60s) version to the smaller; it could have been that mention of the smaller-but-still-walnut-winged version - with corresponding lack of skunk stripe in the neck - up until early '72 was missing (my Feb '72 is like this). I can't quite remember the specifics and I'm at work now so I'll have to check when I get home. Apologies in advance if I've remembered incorrectly.

Ah- the incredible shrinking headstock! Yes, I would have liked to see a photo progression showing this change. There are at least 5 variants of this shape from 1969 to 1972! And several examples where the template must have been damaged as the "crest" looks like (as coined by Sepp) a big toe.
I gather that additions like this would be too great an alteration of the book physically.
I would have liked to see the treble PU changes documented as well.
Be nice to "close the book" on a lot of the technical stuff that continues to spark debate.....

This is the kind of stuff Ferrari aficionados/collectors/enthusiasts, etc. love, and one of the reasons I mention, on occasion, that I compare Rickenbacker to Ferrari (particularly, the 1950s-mid 1960s cars).

Was it you, Jeff, who outbid me for this car???

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/1963- ... 2-million/