Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:50 pm**

songdog wrote:Mmm, well-aged Fireglo! I have a '72 that looks much the same (but with RIHS instead of the SD, and original tailpiece).

Is it an artifact of a low-res photo, or does your bass not have checker binding?

It's an artifact of the lo-res; it is checker binding.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:53 pm**

henry5 wrote:
prowla wrote:
The thing is the whole bass cost me less than that '72 bridge was up for on ebay!

You do realise that if your bass was all original it would likely be worth in excess of 3000 dollars, right? (I'm in the UK so forgive me if that figure is a little out; in the UK it would be something like £3000, or going on $4000, and bear in mind the exchange rate has recently taken a hammering or it would be a lot more $-wise). I was asking £350 UK for the bridge & tailpiece, which at current conversion rate is what, 450 dollars? 2 years ago I bought an original aluminium tailpiece in an eBay auction - the one now residing on my '72 Azure - and it cost me approx 350 dollars, just for the tailpiece. It needed completely re-chroming, so I got Dane to route it for the later bridge unit prior to having the work done - and it had no bridge unit. I forget the exact figure but in the end the total for the tailpiece, a new bridge unit and the routing and rechroming was something like 600 dollars, and that's prior to the $150 or so I paid in duty, so I don't think my bridge was excessively priced. If you're not prepared to pay it, that's your call.

FWIW, the cost of a current, new 4003 tailpiece and bridge (no damper unit) in the UK is approx £260.

Sure - I'm in the UK.
What something is worth is really what someone will pay for it; I've no intention of selling (I've owned the bass since '82), but I just want to have the part sitting in a box for if I ever want to revert it.
Actually, all I need is the tailpiece, as I've still got the original bridge (and the damper assembly).

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:56 pm**

As for value - how's about this one (it might be the earliest RM1999 in the UK)?

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:29 pm**

prowla wrote:
henry5 wrote:
prowla wrote:
The thing is the whole bass cost me less than that '72 bridge was up for on ebay!

You do realise that if your bass was all original it would likely be worth in excess of 3000 dollars, right? (I'm in the UK so forgive me if that figure is a little out; in the UK it would be something like £3000, or going on $4000, and bear in mind the exchange rate has recently taken a hammering or it would be a lot more $-wise). I was asking £350 UK for the bridge & tailpiece, which at current conversion rate is what, 450 dollars? 2 years ago I bought an original aluminium tailpiece in an eBay auction - the one now residing on my '72 Azure - and it cost me approx 350 dollars, just for the tailpiece. It needed completely re-chroming, so I got Dane to route it for the later bridge unit prior to having the work done - and it had no bridge unit. I forget the exact figure but in the end the total for the tailpiece, a new bridge unit and the routing and rechroming was something like 600 dollars, and that's prior to the $150 or so I paid in duty, so I don't think my bridge was excessively priced. If you're not prepared to pay it, that's your call.

FWIW, the cost of a current, new 4003 tailpiece and bridge (no damper unit) in the UK is approx £260.
Sure - I'm in the UK.
What something is worth is really what someone will pay for it.

But if you're only willing to pay a price well below what others will pay you may never get the piece you're after.

Still, as I say, your call, no probs.

Posted: **Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:24 pm**

prowla wrote:...I've no intention of selling (I've owned the bass since '82),..

I heard that before...........

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:21 am**

jps wrote:
prowla wrote:...I've no intention of selling (I've owned the bass since '82),..
I heard that before...........

Well, I've had one for 40 years and one for 35, so not in any rush...

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:53 am**

My first Rick bass was a February 1967 4005WB in Jetglo that I bought in 1973. I told myself I'd never sell it. I did in the summer of 2011, as the purchase offer was way too great to ignore. Beyond that bass, I have had a few others that were lifers, too. Most are gone, now. No regrets; life goes on and what I still have are my lifers................

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:12 pm**

It seems as though the aluminum bridge is far superior to the current version. Two questions for the benefit of the culturally deprived: 1) Why did Rickenbacker choose to quit using aluminum for it's bridges? 2) If Rickenbacker are so back logged on orders, why don't they start using it again?

I've learned about the unpopularity of the tailpiece with the two added screws. Is the cost of the aluminum bridge so high that it moves the instrument out of price point? Absolutely no disrespect intended to the company and it's decision making process.

BTW, my experience favors the current stock bridge over the aftermarket replacements. In fact, it would be cool if Rickenbacker would offer the aluminim version as an accessory, if only to test the market.

Posted: **Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:15 pm**

Thanks for all the info! I havent decided what to do yet. My bass still has the original bridge and it works perfect with the current low tension 40-100 strings. It does have a bit tail lift but not too much. I bet there would be no problem using it with strings with more tension. I might go with a replacement bridge and save the original. 4003 or Allparts. The bass does have 3 + 2 screws so no need for modification. And it wouldnt be the end of the world if the new one lift a bit due to heavier tension strings. Well, I wouldnt get anything crazy, just medium gauge. This bass is for playing and no matter how ugly the hipshot is, it is an option since I do like to mute with the hand when playing with pick.

Posted: **Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:56 pm**

I hate to open this particular can of worms, but the Hipshot bridge is not only fugly, it has other issues (wobbly saddles, poor break angle). Easier hand muting is its only benefit. IMO, YMMV.

Posted: **Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:17 pm**

daveman wrote:I hate to open this particular can of worms, but the Hipshot bridge is not only fugly, it has other issues (wobbly saddles, poor break angle). Easier hand muting is its only benefit. IMO, YMMV.

Yeah I heard that but I also heard people who like it too. Dunno, should perhaps not prioritize muting. I seem to play more and more with fingers anyways

Posted: **Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:23 pm**

daveman wrote:I hate to open this particular can of worms, but the Hipshot bridge is not only fugly, it has other issues (wobbly saddles, poor break angle).

I think it looks good, but agree with all of the other points. Glad someone else said it. I like their d-extender.

Posted: **Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:54 am**

daveman wrote:I hate to open this particular can of worms, but the Hipshot bridge is not only fugly, it has other issues (wobbly saddles, poor break angle). Easier hand muting is its only benefit. IMO, YMMV.

Fugly is in the eye of the beholder. No wobbly saddles on the one on my 4000, and the break angle seems no worse than the standard 4001/3 tailpiece with the usual touch of lift. Ease of intonation adjustment is so much better, though that's only useful if you change string brands and/or gauges regularly.

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?

Re: 1972 bridge fits later 4001?