Page 7 of 8
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:41 pm
by basse
VRICKY63 wrote:I would leave it as original as possible. No rout. I learned a hard lesson messin with my 64 P bass back in the 70s. I can still get more than the $175.00 I paid for it but no where near what an original one is worth these days.
I understand exactly what you're saying but I think it might be a different case here... Adding the route to the 4000 to turn it into a 4001 wouldn't be doing anything different than if you were to have bought the 4001. It's not like you're creating a different configuration, say like by adding a second pickup to a single pickup bass that someone would immediately recognize as "that's not original"...
I think that because a lot of basses sold as a 4000 actually had the routing of the 4001 under the pickguard that perhaps for some reason, there might be more leeway or acceptance with this particular change. But don't get me wrong, the reason I'm asking for input is for exactly what you outlined, you hit the nail on the head with your response.
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:09 pm
by BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS
if it does not have a cavity for the neck p/u, i would leave it be. as some basses had the rout and were covered over, they can be modified without changing the structure of the original lumber. yours, on the other hand, has no cavity and may or may not be rare. your bass, your choice. we can only give you the personal opinions you ask of us. good luck on your choice. before and after pics, pretty please with sugar on top !
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:08 am
by thx1955
jingle_jangle wrote:Doesn't look too bad...it just might be possible to resurrect it back to FG.
Would that be a treat???
Now you're talking !!!!
That's an amazing instrument, as for your question about what to do with it once Paul gets it.
Restore to Fireglo, and leave as original as Paul can render.
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:18 am
by walker
(One more vote for: Keep it as true to the original as possible.) I believe a '63 4000 is particularly rare. Keep your eyes open for a real vintage 4001S, RM 1999, what have you. It would be a shame to do the extreme routing just to regret it later.
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:38 pm
by woodyng
another vote for no cavity carving! Also, you may find that a one pickup bass can be a thing of beauty.....my one pickup 4000 has quite a variety of tones available just adjusting the single vol and tone controls....
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:43 pm
by sloop_john_b
basse wrote:
1) Keep it simple - have it refinished back to the original FG and install the original bridge.
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:13 pm
by jps
I vote restore to original unless the FG can not be done once underway; in that case i sat finish it in Harngelg!
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:34 am
by s4001
If it's a bass you're going to keep 'forever' I say do as you wish. My old 4000 has quite a bit of routing - some at my hand. It'll always be my bass and I like it the way it is. It's not like you're putting Pbass pickups in it. THAT would be just mean.
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:10 am
by jingle_jangle
All I can conclude from the discussion so far is that everybody places the line in a different point in the sand.
My own take on this is to get it as close to original as possible. These are few and far between and IMO should be preserved as much as possible.
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:23 am
by jingle_jangle
jps wrote:I vote restore to original unless the FG can not be done once underway; in that case i sat finish it in Harngelg!
Gelg?
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:17 am
by wints
I'd keep it as a 4000 as well. With a aged FG or amber type aged MG it will look spectacular, and still be essentially a very rare bass.
The old 4000's are so cool in their own special way.
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:57 am
by jingle_jangle
wints wrote:I'd keep it as a 4000 as well. With a aged FG or amber type aged MG it will look spectacular, and still be essentially a very rare bass.
The old 4000's are so cool in their own special way.
Not to mention
crazy heavy!!!
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:47 pm
by jps
jingle_jangle wrote:jps wrote:I vote restore to original unless the FG can not be done once underway; in that case i sat finish it in Harngelg!
Gelg?
You will note that's not the only typo in that sentence!
Let's fix that mess:
I vote restore to original unless the FG can not be done once underway; in that case I say finish it in Harngelb!
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:12 pm
by rickenbrother
jps wrote:jingle_jangle wrote:jps wrote:I vote restore to original unless the FG can not be done once underway; in that case i sat finish it in Harngelg!
Gelg?
You will note that's not the only typo in that sentence!
Let's fix that mess:
I vote restore to original unless the FG can not be done once underway; in that case I say finish it in Harngelb!
I was going to try to edit that, Jeffrey, but I could make out exactly what you meant to type!
Re: New Acquisition: '63 4000
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:56 pm
by BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS
the german term harngelb translated is urine yellow ! i was thinking more of goldenschauerglo !