I had planned to keep mum, especially because there are valid points on all ten sides of this discussion.
Of course I've got opinions on this project (as I do on most everything that comes into view that's Rick-related), and I've dealt personally with many of the people involved in this thread.
I like the idea of taking something that exists and is in regular supply, and turning it into something much more interesting and rare, and built to to a high standard. I don't think that it needs to be 100% accurate or faithful to the original, if it's done in the right spirit and pushes the right--positive--buttons. Toss in one jarring visual or detail, however, and you lose credit among the faithful for all the good stuff that's been done.
First off, I have nothing but respect but Larry Davis and the work he does. It's conscientious, high-quality and it seems that he hit his stride about three years ago and goes from strength to strength. Because he's in the creative field, his eye for detail is generally very good. He's a gentleman as well. Important in a people-oriented service business.
Jake has been a customer of mine in the past, and he's tops in my book, too--communicative, patient, and clear in his wishes and instructions, besides being pleasant in his manner.
I have watched this thread develop, and of course I check into Larry's website from time to time to stay abreast of his projects. I carefully noted and recorded my initial perceptions of the photos on Larry's website and compared his work to the early basses I've had the pleasure to work on and photograph. I believe that the photo referenced on the RIC website is an accurate representation of an early 4000.
I am having difficulty seeing Larry's modifications as capturing the look and feel of the real item. If it's meant to be a not-too literal "tribute" instrument, then OK, but it doesn't hit the proper notes to trigger a grin and thumbs-up, but instead I find that I feel a bit confused, as things ranging from general shape right down to details make me wonder exactly what the intention was here. It's evocative, sure, but misses the elegant proportions of the original (something that the 4004 conversion captures very well). Additionally, the details seem to miss the mark as well, which only makes me feel frustrated. I'm sure the quality of the work is outstanding, and I want to grin, but can't, because visually it misses the boat and I can't get over that.
The body and headstock both are too squat. I suppose this could be a problem with the photos, but I somehow doubt it. This is a critical cue to the elegant proportions of the original. I don't see this change of proportions as an improvement over the original.
The second thing that troubles me is the left edge of the pickguard, which is a bit too free-flowing around the area of the horseshoe. The major curve of the guard, on the original item, follows the waist of the bass with a detour around the horseshoe bezel, to include an area on which the bezel rests so it sits level. The inside radius of the section that sits under the bezel has, on the original, a minimum radius as a functional consideration--a sharp inside corner, while being less interruptive to the eye, is very weak in acrylic plastic, concentrates stress, and leads to cracking.
On the conversion, the radius is carried so broadly that, insteads of the left edge appearing to follow the curve of the waist of the body, it appears to be two separate crescents, losing the sublety and drawing the eye to the mismatch.
The fat, squat headstock looks like way too much real estate for that tiny TRC to be sitting on. The original is right on the edge of looking awkward, so disturbing its careful balance is a risky proposition, and in this case not successful in its execution.
Stuff like accuracy of the knobs are less important than their placement, and the length of the bridge cover rails wouldn't be important if they weren't such a strong graphic element in the original design. Shortening them only draws more attention to the squatness of the body.
Lastly, and this is going to be a problem with any late-model conversion that uses some original parts, the whole thing is too thin and would be odd in person, though this is admittedly less important than getting the main front view to be convincing. The real items were thick--nominally 2" of solid, heavy hardwood--and looked as heavy as they proved to be.
So, points for the idea and intention. I'm sure quality is superb. But both proportion and detailing fall short of the ideal in my head. This leads to confusion and disappointment, some of which was expressed in this thread. RRFers who tend to be very positive and supportive, rather than critical, express their support. Others point out the sources of their disquiet, both major and minor.
There. I've covered my bases, and can only say that I am my own toughest critic, too. I hope that I've been clear and fair enough to not offend or embarass anyone, and I sure would like to know if I've taken too narrow a view or mis-stated or mis-interpreted anything.
