Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Ted Going back to your first photo and comment about the figuring of this wood.
I am curious;

considering most Guitars have a solid finish and we never see what the wood looks like I would suspect there are a lot of nice looking wood grain under our finishes, we'll just never know? Now that is if Rickenbacker uses Maple on all their basses. If this is so then there will be some with uninteresting wood and some with the birdseye or quilting effect. You have certainly gotten lucky finding one of the ones that has some interesting looking maple.

Do you happen to have another project bass that has damage to the headstock only?

Randy,
I think the general consensus is that the factory uses the highly figured maple for the MapleGlo finishes and the "plain Janes" for painted basses. I believe if you search the archives here under John Hall's name he has made statements to that effect. The exception to this rule seems to be on the signature series guitars like the "Tom Petty" edition 660/12 in FG. I was very lucky to find a regular edition 660/12 that is highly figured on body and neck but that is usually not the case as there are many plain 660/12s. If you check the archives on this thread I uploaded a pic of my 660/12. We are going for that look on the 4003 project bass so as not to cover it's unbelievable figuring.

Marty

I had a 70's skunk-striped 4001 project that had a painted finish. When I stripped it there were spots that had worm or some sort of insect holes in the wood that were filled with putty. If you buy one to re-do and it is painted, be ready for anything.

Hey Marty,
I received your e-mail, just haven't had the time to reply to it, but I will. The bass pickup is ready for shipping. You'll have to find yourself a chrome cover & securing plate therefor, though. Stay in tune.

Fantastic Sergio! You are indeed THE MAN!
Thank you VERY much.
I'll send you an e-mail with the info.
...and a "trade"? perhaps...

I had a busy weekend and could not participate here at all. I see that there are lots of questions.

Taking it apart: I used the PVC heating blanket to soften the joints. Since the PVC blanket gets quite hot, I had to moderate the heat with an insulatiing layer. If I did not do this, the blanket could have burned the wood and left permanent marks. I used luan rectangles about the size of the blanket to protect maple. Heat was only applied for a few minutes, one side at a time. Once the gap started to open, I gentily tapped in razorblades to open it further. I alternated sides (front and back) until it popped apart.

What I found inside: The metal pins could be orginal to the assembly as they are consistent with the pins I found in other Ricks. The faces of the wood are fairly clean but will have to be squared to make clean joints on the finished bass. I will remove as litlle wood as necessary to do this. The shape of the bass will not change. The epoxy flakes off with little effort and is present inside as well as out. It was not used to hold the pieces together. It appears to have been used only as filler. WTF!

One interesting detail: The neck slabs of the 4003 (and 4004C) are not rectangular. They are wider at the end of the body than they are at the end of the fingerboard. The 4001 slab is rectangular. This is just another trivial difference between the 4001 and 4003.

Wood grain: I suspect that RIC grades the wood and probably does not often use nicely figured wood under opaque finishes. There are no ablsolutes with RIC though.

Headstock wings: The wings could be any wood really. Bubinga would very interesting because it would tend to match the fingerboard. The 4001CS model used vermillion (which is apparently a type of padauk) wings and fingerboard to good effect. I have both walnut and bubinga on hand and could do wings in either. The wings would not have to be sawn off. The PVC blanket would have them off in just a few minutes. After that, duplication is a trivial matter.

I might want walnut wings or maybe bubinga on my 4003FL along with the checker binding. If you're up to it. Cool!

Headstock variables. hmm? Now you've got me thinking Jeff.

OK, I think I'd still go with the walnut to match my 660/12 Ric, but if Ted has to remove a substantial amount of wood in the body to make a perfect glue line for reassembly then maybe it may become neccessary to "make up" some area in the body wings and/or neck. I don't know, but if this becomes the case then it would be a very good idea to use the bubinga headstock and small strips of bubinga in the body wings to make up for any lost wood in that area. Does this make sense?

The wood loss would be negligble to the eye and the Bubinga stripes would actually detract from the value of it as a Rick. Think of this forums skeptisim if it ever came up on e-bay like that! Vermillion is just another name for African Padauk which is the most common variety in the US. Go with that for the wings and it will better match the fretboard. This is what's used on the CS model to good effect.

I agree with Wes. Subtle changes are better. Radical departures from the original could make the bass appear to be a faker and greatly reduce it's appeal. Staying within the realm of what RIC would have done is much safer from a resale point of view. I have some beautiful bubinga on hand that looks just like a typical Rick fingerboard. Vermillion is available from my local hardwood supplier. I also have some very nice walnut on the wood rack.

Ted, that sounds good to me too, and makes more sense in the long run. Walnut is what is on the 660/12 headstock, looks fantastic, and keeps more in line with my original goal anyway. Since wood loss on the body wings glue line will be minimal, let's stick with your original idea of doing the walnut headstock wings.
That will definitely look cool.

"...Staying within the realm of what RIC would have done..."

Like this?




Which looks very nice, indeed!

Ahhhh.....

The(in)famous dumpster bass.....

Truly one of a kind!!

Hmm... I quite like it, really.