Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

kssound wrote: Can anyone provide pictures of the electronics/pickup cutouts in the body?
thanks,
Scooter

Unfortunately, I have no photos of my 87 4003S's with the pick guard off, but I promise...they look just like yours! Mine don't have the extra deep route for the toaster pickup poles, but that's because regular 4003S's didn't come with a toaster.

We've seen so many "one-offs" from Rickenbacker, I'm really hoping its real.

Maybe they were kicking around the idea of a maple board option and produced this example to see how it would look.

The registry shows that the earliest 5-string 4003's were produced in 1986 (except for an '82 but I have a feeling that's a mistake), which would lend some credence to the theory of this being an early factory experiment.

Wouldn't there be a spot in the control cavity where a piece of masking tape was before it was painted JetGlo if the JetGlo were indeed factory?
And under that piece of masking tape there would have been something written there. The Control cavity is totally painted inside.
What's the possibility of it once being all Maple?....a MapleGlo bass with a maple neck...maybe a prototype...and at some point it being refinished JetGlo...
That would explain the jagged masking tape results. Also that Tailpiece is surely an 8 string tailpiece with the teeth removed and being polished where they were.
It is possible that they would grab one having enough holes for the 5 strings. And about the radius change on the neck close to the binding...My 84 4003 that CJ now has had that same feel to me. The neck radius was smooth until you got to the binding...it then felt like it changed abruptly and flattened out. It had the two-piece guard and was adjusted at the body end as well.
Here are a few pics of my 89 4003S gutted... Nice avatar by the way Scott!

ben_brown wrote:Wouldn't there be a spot in the control cavity where a piece of masking tape was before it was painted JetGlo if the JetGlo were indeed factory?
And under that piece of masking tape there would have been something written there. The Control cavity is totally painted inside.
What's the possibility of it once being all Maple?....a MapleGlo bass with a maple neck...maybe a prototype...and at some point it being refinished JetGlo...
That would explain the jagged masking tape results. Also that Tailpiece is surely an 8 string tailpiece with the teeth removed and being polished where they were.

I've considered trying to strip the paint in the bottom of the control cavity but with my skills for that I would likely remove any felt pen type markings. It would leave any pencil marks but I'm not willing to do that at the moment. I'm also curious about the funky diamond with a tail mark in the pocket, it looks deliberate to me but thats just my opinion, I've been wrong before At the moment I'm planning to try and scrape a small amount of the paint from the control pocket when I get home. If my memory is correct there is paint on top of some of the polishing compound there, it might reveal something that helps. My suspicion is that the instrument was all maple and refinished in jetglo. Going by the poor workmanship (like someone was in a hurry) the clearance cut for the neck pickup magnets happened after it got its black paint. It raises the question to me anyway if it was a prototype that they tried to prep for the 86 namm show. (that is assuming that it really was made by RIC)

ben_brown wrote:It is possible that they would grab one having enough holes for the 5 strings. And about the radius change on the neck close to the binding...My 84 4003 that CJ now has had that same feel to me. The neck radius was smooth until you got to the binding...it then felt like it changed abruptly and flattened out. It had the two-piece guard and was adjusted at the body end as well.
Here are a few pics of my 89 4003S gutted...

Thanks for the pics, frankly they show what I was hoping to see. I got an e-mail from Richard Cannatta at RIC where he says he thinks mine is a fake. He based his opinion on looking at the same pictures that I posted and how the control and the pickup pockets were machined and he says the truss rods are wrong as well. Your pictures show almost identical pocketing and except for the truss rod nuts not being counter bored on yours they are quite similar, frankly a difference that doesn't surprise me if its a prototype. I would quote Richard but I don't want to without his permission. I probably shouldn't have done it earlier.

Do you have a picture of under the truss rod cover? I'm very curious to see what that end looks like.

ben_brown wrote: Nice avatar by the way Scott!

thanks, I'm rather fond of it myself

Here ya go Scott.... God don't I hate when people use the wrong file to file a nut!

Definitely an interesting bass. Interesting that Richard now thinks it's fake. It doesn't have the hallmarks of most of the fakes out there, but I doubt we've seen examples of all that exist.

Anyway, in case you haven't seen this, here's an excellent guide on how to spot fake Ricks:
http://joeysbassnotes.com/Fakericks.htm

If I get some time today, I'll try to take a couple of pictures of the truss rod ends on my '84 4003 (split pickguard, adjusts from the pickup end) for comparison.

ben_brown wrote:Here ya go Scott....

4003Sproject09.jpg

God don't I hate when people use the wrong file to file a nut!

Well that picture confuses me. It looks like you can adjust the truss rods from either end if you want to. Thats just how my 4001 looks.

kssound wrote:

ben_brown wrote:Here ya go Scott....

The attachment 4003Sproject09.jpg is no longer available

God don't I hate when people use the wrong file to file a nut!

Well that picture confuses me. It looks like you can adjust the truss rods from either end if you want to. Thats just how my 4001 looks.

OK, you want some more confusion? I opened up my '84 4003. It's REALLY different from anything I've seen before...

First, the headstock end, under the TRC: Now, the body end: Here's the cavity routing: And the control cavity:

And, since I can't put more than 4 attachments on, here's the control wiring:

Fingerboard something under the neck pup

ben_brown wrote:Fingerboard something under the neck pup

Kinda looks like "fingerboard fingerboard", both crossed out. Weird. Lots of the stuff in the control cavity is crossed out too.

So, Steve, I take it you never took the covers off? I hadn't 'til now...

No I never did take the covers off either. Interesting...

Okay, I'm really determined that your 5-string is not a fake, Scooter. NFW! If it were a fake, then there would most likely be others like it, and none of us here has ever seen one like it. To make a one-off fake Rick that well using all RIC parts (except those knobs!) would end up costing 3 times more than just buying a real Rick!

Here are my possible explanations for your bass: 1) Maybe the fret board was replaced, and at that time it was refinished, and a new truss rod system was installed, or 2) The bass was made right around the time that RIC was changing over from the reverse-installed flat rods to the modern truss system. Maybe they used one of the new-rod body blanks before the new truss rods were available and then had to rush the bass together so it would be ready for NAMM (by installing the old, folded rods in a body blank that wasn't meant to have them).

Where is Phlemmy? He's had a bunch of 4003's from this era!

rickaddict wrote: Maybe they used one of the new-rod body blanks before the new truss rods were available and then had to rush the bass together so it would be ready for NAMM (by installing the old, folded rods in a body blank that wasn't meant to have them).

Okay...I must have been tired when I wrote this last night. The old, folded rods wouldn't require a nut to secure them down by the...er...nut. So now I'm confused. Maybe someone installed the new style rods backwards for some unknown reason either as a prototype or after it left the factory when the fret board was replaced. Or maybe they're just short dummy bolts down by the nut to plug the holes that were there.