Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

lordblackmore wrote:A lot of material would have to be removed to fit a pickup at the 1/2" spacing. Sometime over the summer, I'm going to take it to someone like Mouradian and have them do the work of putting in a new block of wood and routing a 1/2" spaced cavity.

That's not going to help in this case. The new route is already as good as what is left after doing this to the older style routing. I wouldn't do it, but it's your bass.

Remember, more material than what you see through the guard has to be removed. The neck pick up has the base plate that extends further toward the neck. That means more material will have to be removed closer to the pivotal neck joint.

Sepp

So how did they do it in the v63 and C64? And this 2010 one-off Ric Outlet bass (with 1/2" spacing)?

Here is a comparison of a March '73 4001 and a Sept '13 4004 Laredo. I lined up the necks as to frets being aligned to each other and let the rest fall where they may (the ends of the two necks did align). Keep in mind that the neck pickup location on a current 4003 will not be the same as that of the 4004, and it should be a bit further back from the end of the neck to match the 1/2" position.

BTW, I am just guessing that the new 4003S and 4004 body shapes (body perimeter, anyway) are pretty similar.

Yeah, where the neck joins on my 4003s is like the laredo in your picture. The fingerboard is almost flush with the edge of the body.

I tell ya what. Contact Mark Arnquist via FaceBook, and ask him if he'd do it. He's had to do a LOT of repairs to Rick basses that have developed negative neck angles due to the factory route being to close to the neck and too large. John Hall has said these problems only occur in a small percentage of basses he sees UNDER WARRANTY. The problem with that rationale is that negative neck angles almost always happen AFTER the warranty has expired, and even then JH will often blame the problem on non stock strings that exceed 138lbs of tension. Also, your 5 year warranty is null and void once you start routing wood out of your bass.

aceonbass wrote:I tell ya what. Contact Mark Arnquist via FaceBook, and ask him if he'd do it. He's had to do a LOT of repairs to Rick basses that have developed negative neck angles due to the factory route being to close to the neck and too large. John Hall has said these problems only occur in a small percentage of basses he sees UNDER WARRANTY. The problem with that rationale is that negative neck angles almost always happen AFTER the warranty has expired, and even then JH will often blame the problem on non stock strings that exceed 138lbs of tension. Also, your 5 year warranty is null and void once you start routing wood out of your bass.

Dane, dial it back a bit. There's no need to get snippy.

I fully understand the the issue and fully understand the risks incurred if I decided to go forward with it.

Honestly, I'd have been better off not posting anything instead of now having agita.

+ my 2 cents: if anyone would know whether this can be done or not, it's Dr. Jim Mouradian, so you are definitely in the right hands Tom.

IMO, IME.

The 1st string on my 4003s seemed anemic. I was concerned that I wasn't going to get a balanced sound. I adjusted the pick ups, pole pieces and still weak. Now I still had the stock strings on. I finally swapped them out for a set of Super Slinkys I had sitting around and problem solved. It was the stock Ricky strings (thought I'd give them a fair shot).

rickyfricky wrote:+ my 2 cents: if anyone would know whether this can be done or not, it's Dr. Jim Mouradian, so you are definitely in the right hands Tom.
IMO, IME.

Of course it can be done. People do it all the time, but if anyone knows the risks involved, it's Mark Arnquist. He used to actually work at RIC, and has done many a repair on one for problems stemming from even the stock routing in Rick basses, let alone modified routing. As previous pics show, the cutaways on these basses has been made significantly deeper, leaving less wood than there was on much earlier 4001/3's.

lordblackmore wrote:

IMG_2107 (Custom).JPG

I ordered a 1/2 inch spaced pickguard from our man Tony and I took some pictures of my 4003s with the guard in place (no pickup installed).

A lot of material would have to be removed to fit a pickup at the 1/2" spacing. Sometime over the summer, I'm going to take it to someone like Mouradian and have them do the work of putting in a new block of wood and routing a 1/2" spaced cavity.

You're a braver man than I my friend. I can't wait to see your finished product.

aceonbass wrote:

rickyfricky wrote:+ my 2 cents: if anyone would know whether this can be done or not, it's Dr. Jim Mouradian, so you are definitely in the right hands Tom.
IMO, IME.

Of course it can be done. People do it all the time, but if anyone knows the risks involved, it's Mark Arnquist. He used to actually work at RIC, and has done many a repair on one for problems stemming from even the stock routing in Rick basses, let alone modified routing. As previous pics show, the cutaways on these basses has been made significantly deeper, leaving less wood than there was on much earlier 4001/3's.

Mark has one of mine in-route to his shop for this exact reason. Remember that late 1984 v63 that a forum member was selling here. The Mapleglo with the magnetized shoes and special made pan head slotted pole piece pup made just for the handful of v63's that got real horseshoe magnets?? Well, I purchased it and when it arrived, something was not right. A prior owner ground the **** out of the bridge in order for it to sink lower into the tailpiece to cover for a negative neck angle. The instrument is in super pristine condition, except for the negative neck angle. No separation of the neck joint at the body wings and no finish cracking either.

I'm hoping "Dr Arnquist" can save this rare beast. For this type of repair, I trust Arnquist's knowledge and experience.

Sepp

Yikes!

Good luck Sepp, hope all goes well.

lordblackmore wrote: Dane, dial it back a bit. There's no need to get snippy.

I fully understand the the issue and fully understand the risks incurred if I decided to go forward with it.

Honestly, I'd have been better off not posting anything instead of now having agita.

Thomas,

I'm really not seeing or reading and "snippy" in Dane's comment. There is a reason RIC does not offer the .5 inch pup spacing any more. It's the same reason that RIC just started adding more "meat" in the neck pup area on their 1 inch spaced neck pup route. It's a weak area when material is removed.

It's your bass so do whatever you want with it. We are just telling you the pitfalls that .5 spaced instrument face. Negative neck angle sucks and far too many vintage Rickenbackers have some form of it!! As long as you don't mind light gauge low tension strings, you may not have a problem. Anything around a .105 E and you are in the danger zone.

Best of luck in your endeavor

Sepp

ilan wrote:So how did they do it in the C64?

Poorly... VERY poorly...