Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

For sure John, everywhere I turned there was something new to drool over, the proverbial "kid in a candy store", sadly there were no free samples.

I did miss seeing the Dumpster though.

If they made a 4004/8, I'd be on that like white on rice, as they say. What I wonder is, would a 4004/8 have a set neck or be neck through? I only wonder because so many of the basses RIC has made that had more than 4 strings had set necks.

As for the 4005, I've wanted a 4005 since I first started playing the bass. I saw one in a magazine and fell in love with it instantly. I didn't know until after I bought my 4003 how much they cost, so the rare/collectible issue never factored in for me as a reason for wanting one. I just like 'em. I just hope to swing one whenever I can afford it, before they're all in collections.

I don't know of any set necks that weren't four bangers. I've certainly never seen a 4008 or 4003s8 that wasn't a neck through. I'd see no reason for a 4004/8 to be any different.

Jim this one or the actual dumpster (many took pics of the RIC dumpster but none were posted).

I had seen the Dumpster bass before, but seeing that flame maple behind the bubinga(?) was awesome.

I think that the number of people who could afford a new-build 4005 at around $4,000 to $6,000 is equal to the number of vintage 4005 basses that turn up for sale for about that figure, anyway. In other words, the realistic demand for these basses is small and pretty well supplied by the secondary market. No need for new ones.

In my case the 4005WB found me!

"I do have one complaint about them though. The pickups are way too far apart from each other. When resting the thumb on the pup, you're either playing right beside the neck or the bridge."

Try altering your playing style so that you are not dependent on anchoring your thumb anywhere. This provides freedom of expression without any of the limitaions imposed by having to stay near a pickup.

I do not find the widely spaced pickups on the 4005 to be a liability; in reality, it offers a very wide range of tonal possibilities.

"I had seen the Dumpster bass before, but seeing that flame maple behind the bubinga(?) was awesome."

Yeah, John, I hadn't noticed that before on that pic either but when I resized and rotated it, I saw that. Makes me wish I got a pic of the other side. And yes, bubinga.

Okay, I have to know. What is a dumpster bass? I'm picturing people pulling parts out of the RIC dumpster and putting a bass together with it all. Is it a bass made from leftover wood and parts or what?

I'll tell you why we keep asking about new 4005's and 4002's. I'm older now, and more affluent. I would have bought every Ric made in the 70's if I hadn't been a starving session player. I always wanted to buy them. Now I've got the money, you can't get them. Go figure....

Gareth, I partially agree. Especially with the 4002 which was just a bass ahead of it's time. Costly but worth it.

I do remember wanting a 4002 but, not being able to afford it. Not sure of the price though.

It is possible that the 4005 may be the impossible dream in that its creation may be a tremendous amount of effort for RIC. After re-tooling, it would surely be one of the most expensive to purchase if not the most expensive.

Now for the big questions, at least for me. What is it about these basses that has a tug for some that is greater than iron filings to magnet? Is it the rarity, the hollow bass lure, the "cool" shape, the toaster or the role these basses played in more famous groups in the 1960s?

For me, it was the tone. Especially with that 5th knob. Of course this was just for a few minutes at a Confluence, but, it just felt right!

Good point Charly. How would you characterize the tone in comparison to the 4001 or 4003?