Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:54 pm
Vince, maybe someday we can have the opportunity to compare Chris' RM1999 to my 4005WB!
I think I am gonna be pleasantly surprised, if it is anything like yours, Jeff....
Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum
Rickenbacker Forum, Amplifier, Bass and Guitar Register
https://www.rickresource.com/forum/
Squire's other basses
Page 5 of 16
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:22 pm
I can't wait to get my 1966 4005 WB back from Dale, to see how thin the neck is compared to my 63 and 68!
I think I am gonna be pleasantly surprised, if it is anything like yours, Jeff....
I think I am gonna be pleasantly surprised, if it is anything like yours, Jeff....
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:52 pm
JPS, nah, I look like that all the time!
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:10 pm
I nominate Jerry Juden's 4005 for the slim neck "competition". Very thin and flat on the back.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:27 pm
Jeff, that is a very good looking 4005. i have two mapleglow 63 4001's that have necks so thin they should not hold strings. they both play great and have no neck problems. picked one up in Japan and purchased a seat for it as i was so worried it would snap
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:27 am
Man,
You guys are KILLING me with all this THIN NECK stuff!
One of these days, I'll get a chance to play a 60's or a pre 73 Ric.....one of these days......
You guys are KILLING me with all this THIN NECK stuff!
One of these days, I'll get a chance to play a 60's or a pre 73 Ric.....one of these days......
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:48 am
RMs are really slim.
Even a two year old can play one!
Even a two year old can play one!
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:05 am
That was Jan 91 the day I picked up my CS.
I wish I hadnt sold DA24 but hey we all make mistakes.
Heres a younger me with the RM.
I wish I hadnt sold DA24 but hey we all make mistakes.
Heres a younger me with the RM.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:17 am
Please note that there have been two posts removed in which Forum members were trying to sort out a personal issue. The RickResource Forum is not the place for this. Please handle such matters privately.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:34 am
Too late! I saw the caps-lock-stuck-on post!
PS: you can edit your own posts...
PS: you can edit your own posts...
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:38 am
That was just a way of delineating the speaker, one with caps, one without.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:48 am
Gee - I never even saw the second post. Nor did I have a disagreement with anyone, nor did I intend for anyone to take umbrage and shout at everyone else. So please, I apologize to all the longtime Forum members who got shouted at as a result of a post I made to solicit advice on whether to take a Rick body back to MG.
I basically just wanted to echo that Forumite Darryl Jones' original 63 bass that I now own has a really slim and thin, fast neck, and I have measured it as thinner. I didn't seek any reply except whether I should refin it back to mapleglo (as it was when Daryl first bought it) or leave it refinned to fireglo (as Daryl had done to it prior to selling it).
The point is that Chris Squire did not leave his RM its original color. He has not only had it refinned too, he has had a local favorite luthier in London shave his neck at least once or more times, and it is now quite thinner than it was originally shipped. If I refinned this October 1963 body once more back to its original MG, I would have the opportunity to do some further neck-shaping to make it even thinner.
Since this is to be a "player" bass anyway, I would not want to miss the opportunity to further shape the back, since it has already had the heel sanded off and thus is not original anymore anyway.
So, would anyone like to calmly comment STRICTLY on whether I should take it back to mapleglo or leave it fireglo? The neck needs a refin anyway, so should I shave the neck further to get it more like Chris' RM in its current state?
I basically just wanted to echo that Forumite Darryl Jones' original 63 bass that I now own has a really slim and thin, fast neck, and I have measured it as thinner. I didn't seek any reply except whether I should refin it back to mapleglo (as it was when Daryl first bought it) or leave it refinned to fireglo (as Daryl had done to it prior to selling it).
The point is that Chris Squire did not leave his RM its original color. He has not only had it refinned too, he has had a local favorite luthier in London shave his neck at least once or more times, and it is now quite thinner than it was originally shipped. If I refinned this October 1963 body once more back to its original MG, I would have the opportunity to do some further neck-shaping to make it even thinner.
Since this is to be a "player" bass anyway, I would not want to miss the opportunity to further shape the back, since it has already had the heel sanded off and thus is not original anymore anyway.
So, would anyone like to calmly comment STRICTLY on whether I should take it back to mapleglo or leave it fireglo? The neck needs a refin anyway, so should I shave the neck further to get it more like Chris' RM in its current state?
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:58 am
Why not take it back to Mapleglo so that the features, about which you make comment, can be plainly seen?
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:02 am
No one shouted, it was a very civilized post. Even friendly and accommodating with an olive branch extended. But like the one it answered, it referenced several details of a thorny personal dispute, thereby publicizing a truly private matter--which makes many of us uncomfortable.
...especially because we can't help but to read every line of it!
...especially because we can't help but to read every line of it!
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:35 am
If you go back to Mapleglo I'd go with an "ambered" Mapleglo for sure....