Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

opticnerve wrote:

libratune wrote:

opticnerve wrote:
Ron, It looks like January 1963 is when the modern style 4000/4001's were first introduced.

Agreed. My observation was that it seems that the "4001 Deluxe" was introduced later in 1963, after the 4000 and 4001S -- again, based on what's in the Register.

Ah, I see Ron. You're probably correct!

I don't recall ever seeing an early/mid '63 Deluxe.

I know someone with a '63 Deluxe (not a member here). I believe it's also a late '63.

Chef, can you find out what month Peter's bass is?

I'll see what I can find out.

Tony-
It's this one-
http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... lebrity%3D

Evidently November 1963.

Thanks John!

There's also the 63 that Mike Lull had. Before he had it, Steve Fossen owned it. I went to look at it when Steve was selling it along with the Tommy Paige double neck.

You all are filling in the blanks that have been questions in my mind for years, since I first got the Smith book and read its admittedly incomplete production totals. This is great stuff, please keep it coming!

Hi Gene,

I don't have access to the Smith book at the moment.

I know the numbers are incomplete, but just curious, how many '63 4001's are listed?

opticnerve wrote:Hi Gene,

I don't have access to the Smith book at the moment.

I know the numbers are incomplete, but just curious, how many '63 4001's are listed?

I know the correct answer is supposed to be 42, but 43 it is!

jps wrote:

opticnerve wrote:Hi Gene,

I don't have access to the Smith book at the moment.

I know the numbers are incomplete, but just curious, how many '63 4001's are listed?

I know the correct answer is supposed to be 42, but 43 it is!

Thanks Jeff!

I know no one knows for sure, but as a wild guess...actual numbers may be 4 times this?

Maybe in the 150 - 200 range?

So, where they all? That's a lot unaccounted for, even with the few that may have been modified into P Basses!

Necks probably puked and they ended up in the dumpster. perhaps?

teeder wrote:Necks probably puked and they ended up in the dumpster. perhaps?

Oh, the humanity!!!

no, no, NO!!!

I don't have access to the Smith book anymore, either... But I seem to recall production numbers being very generalized, not even broken out by model, strictly speaking... I'll have to get that book back from my son...

squirebass wrote:

teeder wrote:Necks probably puked and they ended up in the dumpster. perhaps?

Oh, the humanity!!!

no, no, NO!!!

I don't have access to the Smith book anymore, either... But I seem to recall production numbers being very generalized, not even broken out by model, strictly speaking... I'll have to get that book back from my son...

The figures are broken down by model, and even by color within each model listing.

jps wrote: The figures are broken down by model, and even by color within each model listing.

And I never thought of them as any more than an incomplete list. Don't know how Smith got a hold of that info, but always assumed you couldn't "count" on it. That's why I said in my book that aside from the "certified" limited editions, there is no good way to ascertain production numbers. I think even the heads of the company would have to dig pretty deep to find even recent numbers. The upshot is that it ain't none of our business and they ain't tellin'.

I always took the Smith book to be a rough "first guess" based upon the incomplete records that John Hall could find. Like maybe there was a corporate initiative from that time to record what was produced that was only incompletely or haphazardly followed. In any case I didn't give them much credence