Page 4 of 6
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:03 am
by rickboy88
My March 1982 4001S sat around for about 2 years until I bought in early 1982, which backs up your point Jeff. I bought mine thanks to the Paul McCartney factor.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:30 am
by rickaddict
Uhhh...you might want to check your dates again there, David!
I bought my white March 1980 4001(deluxe) brand-new at my local music shop in May or June of 1982. I don't think Ricks were selling back then as well as they do today. Then again there wasn't much that was selling as well then as it does today!
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:10 pm
by johnallg
"the S models did not become sought after until they were discontinued ... the same is true for the 4002, and 4005 ... "
You don't know what you've got till its gone... (sorry Joni)
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:23 pm
by jwr2
or the collectors don't identify it as collectable until it is no longer in production ...
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:44 pm
by bobcat
Yeah, see, the reason I want one is just because I love how they look. It has nothing to do with its collectable nature (for me). If the C bass had a right-side-up headstock, I would buy that in a heartbeat over an old S bass.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:21 pm
by rickboy88
Ooops! Thanks Jeff! Here is how it should be worded:
"My March 1982 4001S sat around for about 2 years until I bought in early 1984, which backs up your point Jeff. I bought mine thanks to the Paul McCartney factor."
I simply fell in love with the jetglo 4001S in the 1983 (or 1984) catalog, so I bought one after saving up and not making all that much money at the time.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:38 pm
by sloop_john_b
Robert, as a former owner of a c64, I have to say that these basses are so good, you get over the upside-down headstock thing pretty quickly.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:37 pm
by philipharris
I'm curious; the RM1999 was a through-neck, the 4003S was a through-neck, early 4001 Ss were through-necks - why did Skunker Ss get set necks, anyone know?
Jon B, I'm with you on the C64 - fantastic bass.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:41 am
by bassduke49
I hope John Hall can pipe in on this question. It seems it may have been a way to produce them more economically, and it may have been a way to allow stock 4000 and the S-Model 4001 to be made from the same "chassis." The difference between the 4000 and 4001S of that time frame was the number of pickups and the associated electronics. John?
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:48 am
by rickaddict
So John...I agree that the C64's are great basses. Why did you get rid of yours? (Not meaning to rub it in!!)
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:05 am
by jwr2
For me I think the 4001/4003 looks better with binding ... but when I play one I like the feel of the S basses on my arm ...
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:26 am
by david_donlon
I have a c64S, a little over a week now, and I don't even notice the headstock anymore. I did have a bit of trouble with it when I was deciding. But this bass is the sweetest bass I have ever played.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:39 am
by nab
I HAD a 4003S... was a '91 or so. Mr Hall told me on the RIC forum it had to have been a FG, tho it had evolved into the same shadings as on my '84 LP here
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n266/jacknab/100_0128.jpg
(People used to say "You must like that color, your guitars match...)
Sold it at a small music shop in Yuba City CA in '02... wherever it is, hope somebody is happy with it
Oh, the humanity!
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:47 am
by bob_atherton
Nice Les Paul, that must have been a stunning bass...
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:06 pm
by nab
Actually, the 4003S I bought used and slightly abused, ****** chipboard case and all, but it was my first RIC. Sadly, after finding this forum, I now really know what i used to have
