Cracks in the finish...

ric4003 · Post by **ric4003** » Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:47 am

HELP!! My '84 Ric 4003 has developed cracks in the finish in two places. (1) On the back of the body at the neck heel, two cracks (about 1" each) on either side of the neck have started running from the heel joint along the body/neck seam. (2) One crack (about .5") has started on the front of the headstock from the D-string tuner towards the G-string tuner.

So my questions are: Are these common problems? How likely is it that they're only finish-deep (I'm assuming that the solid finish is more brittle now, & less able to flex with the wood)? How likely is it that the wood underneath is also cracking? Good lord, could the neck be separating from the wings? What if anything can/should I do? How does this affect the monetary value of the bass? Should I be panicking?

Thanks for any & all help!!

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Thu Jan 10, 2002 9:16 pm

Cracks in finish can run any direction ...in wood ,not really .

The cracks that you have along the neck may be standard stress lines .Other companies have this .

Nearly every ES-335 and SG have them at the neck body glue joint .This does not mean the neck is going to come out .It is a relationship between to pieces of wood expanding and contracting at different rates.

Rick instruments do have a reputation of the fretboard seperating at the edge of the maple and the fretboard .This is an oil /stress related problem .With the 4003 (new version -read that single guard version ) this seems to have solved the problem of this for the most part .

Tuners get tightened and pulled from the strings and there is stress on the bushing .This causes cracking .

Most likely it is the clear and not the wood .
To really find out ,a visual test is needed by someone that has experience .This is NOT the guitar player in your band or a salesman at K-Mart nor just any old staff member in a music store .......believe me , some of the nicest guys in a music store have NO IDEA !!!

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun May 26, 2002 2:30 pm

I've always believed that the first few years of the 4003 were not very good. I had 2 of them, and didn't think either was good at all. Didn't come close to my 4001. I tried others and wasn't pleased with them. i don't think RIC got the 4003 right until the truss rods adjustment was at the head like the 4001. That happened about 1986. Then I liked the 4003 about as much as the 4001. I had a 1987 4003 that was nice. The 4003 basses of the past few years have been very nice.

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Mon May 27, 2002 5:35 am

The Two piece guard 4003's were really just a 4001 with the adjustment for the rods under the pickup guard.

I agree with you ... not a real improvement .That was indeed part of a learning curve for the company.

I have taken several of these and routed the adjustment area on the headstock and turned the rod adjustment back to the headstock , then made a new pickguard so it looks like a 'stock' 4001 .

I change the aluminum bar to brass with #8 steel washers when I do this and use thicker stock for the bar .This gives a little more support to end the curling of the rods when you tighten them .

After the two piece guard basses and the rod system was changed to the Gibson patented rod method , this was no longer a problem .

My only issue with thses basses is this ....

The public had seen the bass with an ever changing look for 20 plus years ... the guard , pickups , bridge , lamination of neck and headstock , tuners , inlays , knob layout ....then it gets NEW trussrods ..... and only for something that was NOT a visible item ...this causes a name change?????

I do not understand the logic in it .

Give us the 4001 moniker back please .

And if there is a need for another bass ...then come up with one and give 'IT' the 4003 moniker.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon May 27, 2002 6:41 am

I have a 1988 4003 in Silver and it looks great, sounds terrific and plays exceedingly well. It may have a few battle scars and is slightly yellowed, however, there isn't a hint of cracks in the finish.

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Mon May 27, 2002 7:43 am

I do not believe that the current clear is the same as what was used in the 1980's .Nor is that materail the same as was used in the 1970's .

Rick and everyone else in southern California has had to jump through hoops with the EPA and deal with the ever changing VOC limits .

Paint makers are constantly on the move to upgrade and develope new material/formulas to fill the needs of manufacturing .

It may well be that Rick still uses a Conversion Varnish ... but it is NOT the same stuff that I sprayed in the early 1970's.

These formulas and clear with more solids change the way a finish ages and expands and contracts .

This is not Ricks fault .

And it is something that this kind of input will actually HELP Rick to let the OEM supplier know and understand and perhaps consider in the chemistry of that material.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon May 27, 2002 8:39 am

Mark: I suspect it will be a good long time before the "toxicity issue" is sorted out. You raise a very interesting topic though. Thanks for the reminder that it is really not cricket to consider that the finishes in the 1980s are the same as those in the 1970s and 1960s. Does these mean that instrument finishes in general will deteriorate more readily as time goes on, or are there other solutions on the horizon?

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Mon May 27, 2002 11:28 am

Mark Arquist said: "Rick and everyone else in southern California has had to jump through hoops with the EPA and deal with the ever changing VOC limits .

Paint makers are constantly on the move to upgrade and develope new material/formulas to fill the needs of manufacturing" .

Mark, maybe that is the answer to one of my gripes with the early 80's 4003. The first one I got, an '81, looked horrible new out of the box from the factory. The second one I had, another '81 new from the factory, the finish started peeling off after a year, and no one takes care of their instruments better than me.
The other issues I had with them was the tone, they didn't sound like my 4001. Was that because of their "new 4003" lamination technique that C.F. Hall told me about at the time? I also thought putting the truss rod adjustment at the body was not a good move. The only plus I saw to the early 4003 basses was with the 2 piece pickguard, you didn't have to loosen the strings to do some work in the control cavity. Even after putting Seymour Duncan replacement pickups in one of the 4003's, it still sounded lousy to me. I've had two 4001 basses, a '79 and '81 both sounded great as did my '87 4003.

jpwinters · Post by **jpwinters** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 7:08 am

Hi,
I'm new to the forum. I have a 83 4003 fireglo. I love it. Sounds just like my 74 4001 fireglo. The 83 does have finish checking in it, but it doesn't detur from the sound, and I think it gives the bass some character, like an old gibson.