Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

cheyenne wrote:That may have sounded a bit harsh. Sorry.

Its just that $4 -$5K is a lot of money to drop on something this not quite to your liking.

lol! I didn't even say its not to my liking......Its a short-scale Rick: whats not to like?

They could have called it a 3005, maybe.....I dunno...?

I'm not gonna bleat on about this for ages: the galling thing is that the 480 XC actually LOOKS like a 480...?! haha!


But it is what it is....



Besides, I have a 4005 anyway.....

GregNouveau wrote: They could have called it a 3005, maybe.....I dunno...?

That is actually not a bad idea, imo. But I guess that the 4005 legacy overrule scale length naming consequences (for lack of a better expression), since there never was a hollow body short scale Rickenbacker bass, as far as I know anyway.

GregNouveau wrote:Guys...I have to say this.

(...and for the record: yes, I have ordered one!)


How is this 4005XC ACTUALLY a 4005...!?

It is virtually identical to the Shaftesbury bass from the late 60's: indeed Rose Morris themselves actually sold a replica of the 4005 that actually was the same but with an F-hole cutout..!?

This one has a different body shape, and is short scale: basically not a 4005.

Can anyone shed any light on this: perhaps I'm missing some little-known "historicals"?

Was this the original intended shape / size when the 4005 was conceived, maybe?


Why not just make the 4005 that we all know and love.......?

Rickenbacker's "numbering" system has always been strange. You really need a book to help you figure it out. Hey! I think they should have designated it the 3600 as it is intentionally a bass version of the 360 (old style - with checker binding) guitar, but they don't ask for my help, so . . . .

Just so you don't get the wrong impression, the Rose Morris RM 3261 was not a "replica" but an actual Rickenbacker bass that they distributed.

"Just so you don't get the wrong impression, the Rose Morris RM 3261 was not a "replica" but an actual Rickenbacker bass that they distributed."

Yeh, I know...but they were "parting company" around that time...?

And there WAS still a Rickenbacker 4005 in production...a little confusing..! lol!

I don't think the "export model" thing was working for RIC?


I do like the f-hole version though....

Yeah, naming the bass as 4005XC was certainly going to cause a couple of raised eyebrows, perhaps RIC did it as something of a tongue-in-cheek sort of thing.

More to the point for anoraks and n@@bs, the 4005 was never a semi-hollow bass, although, in today's world of 800-1200 watt bass amps, having that center block is probably a good thing to have (mucho real-world experience speaking, here).

The only reason I have not ordered one is a severe lack of funds, otherwise I certainly would have.

Looks like a very cool bass, and I have been thinking of another short-scale bass to own (previous short-scalers I've had include '07 Höfner 500/1V63, and '97 CIJ 7ender Mustang Bass).

jps wrote: in today's world of 800-1200 watt bass amps, having that center block is probably a good thing to have

I think "today's world" really is more and more DI and fewer and fewer amps. Gigging with SVT 8x10's is disappearing quickly! Most players I know boast about these tiny lightweight amps they're getting. And I show up with nothing but a bass, a pedalboard, and a DI whenever I can.

GregNouveau wrote:"Just so you don't get the wrong impression, the Rose Morris RM 3261 was not a "replica" but an actual Rickenbacker bass that they distributed."

Yeh, I know...but they were "parting company" around that time...?

And there WAS still a Rickenbacker 4005 in production...a little confusing..! lol!

I don't think the "export model" thing was working for RIC?


I do like the f-hole version though....

• 1.) The 3261 was a small batch of legit Rickenbacker 4005 models made for the Export market and made with an F-hole by request of Rose Morris (and all of them shipped to Italy, from what I understand). It's not a replica, and has nothing to do with the end of the Rose Morris distributorship in 1969, which occurred almost two years after the 3261 model was produced around 1967. There were standard domestic versions of all the Rose Morris instruments - both with F-soundhole and cats-eye soundhole.
  
  2.) The "Export Model thing" worked exceedingly well for Rickenbacker from 1964-1966 and Rose Morris orders accounted for a large portion of the factory's output in 1964 alone.
  
  3.) "RIC" didn't exist in the 1960s. It was a company called Radio-Tel, which owned a guitar company called Electro String, which produced a line of instruments called Rickenbacker. "RIC" (Rickenbacker International Corporation) was born in 1984.

The "4005XC" nomenclature is certainly a misnomer, but perhaps it would help you to simply look past the name? It's not trying to be a traditional 4005 model in any measurable way, from scale length to body shape, there are no similarities between these instruments.

If they called it a 4006, perhaps that would put you at ease? It's just a name...

I do not miss my 4005WB for a moment. Aside from its' unbelievable good looks, I had felt like a triangle playing it...let's say stretching for that Ab on the G string and thumping near the bridge P/U...one's arms could almost be at 45 degrees! We're talkin' Thorkelson-ismz!
This shorter scale length is a smart move, and I am so looking forward to seeing them L I V E ! and not on zoom !

NOT a 4005 = NOT XXX5
short scale bass = 3XXX
short scale bass w/2 pups = 3XX1
360 shape = 360X or X360
Added together = 3361

collin wrote:

• 1.) The 3261 was a small batch of legit Rickenbacker 4005 models made for the Export market and made with an F-hole by request of Rose Morris (and all of them shipped to Italy, from what I understand). It's not a replica, and has nothing to do with the end of the Rose Morris distributorship in 1969, which occurred almost two years after the 3261 model was produced around 1967. There were standard domestic versions of all the Rose Morris instruments - both with F-soundhole and cats-eye soundhole.
  
  2.) The "Export Model thing" worked exceedingly well for Rickenbacker from 1964-1966 and Rose Morris orders accounted for a large portion of the factory's output in 1964 alone.
  
  3.) "RIC" didn't exist in the 1960s. It was a company called Radio-Tel, which owned a guitar company called Electro String, which produced a line of instruments called Rickenbacker. "RIC" (Rickenbacker International Corporation) was born in 1984.

The "4005XC" nomenclature is certainly a misnomer, but perhaps it would help you to simply look past the name? It's not trying to be a traditional 4005 model in any measurable way, from scale length to body shape, there are no similarities between these instruments.

If they called it a 4006, perhaps that would put you at ease? It's just a name...

Wow...I'm not that pedantic, tbh....but what I will add is that on point 2 above: it can't have been working THAT well otherwise they would have continued the partnership / dealership / whatever....?

And yes: 4006 would have worked fine for me....as long as they didn't bring out another 4006 in 2023 that looked like a Fender P bas.....!!lol!

I only actually asked a simple question: look what I started!

No one has actually provided an explanation either: SOMEONE made the decision based on SOMETHING....so....what was the thinking? Simple....

I've just seen a pic of the 4005XC in jetglo for the first time and, wow!

It's a bit of a looker, for sure...!

I think the JG 4005XC is a work of photoshop, but I agree it looks sharp.

Yeh...none of the dealers seem to have a "proper" pic yet?

But whets the appetite, nonetheless...

KenOnBass wrote:I think the JG 4005XC is a work of photoshop, but I agree it looks sharp.

A quick look shows a different fretboard grain than the AFG 4005XC, so maybe it's real? (and spectacular)

jdogric12 wrote:

KenOnBass wrote:I think the JG 4005XC is a work of photoshop...

A quick look shows a different fretboard grain than the AFG 4005XC, so maybe it's real? (and spectacular)

Not to mention, pretty much everything else (lighting, reflections, selector switch position, angle of view, etc.).