Page 1 of 2
4001v63 vs 4001c64
Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:59 pm
by qiktune
Hi guys, I'm new here but have been reading all of your awesome info for a while.I have been using a Hofner 500/1 for a while and am ready for a Ric.I have sourced a new 4001v63 ( mapleglo ) in the States for $1600 ( AU$3200 approx ).To buy this bass locally would cost me about AU$6300.Now I have read in a previous post that a 4001c64 can be purchased for around US$2000, is this true?
If so can you help with my decision.Which bass would be more suited to me? I'm a huge McCartney fan. The amp I use is a Fender Bassman 100.Thanks, Brett
Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2002 3:16 pm
by ric4003
I'll let others speak about the more "technical" merits of these basses. For me, it's an aesthetic thing. One of them looks like a Ric, the other does not. On a Ric, the headstock looks a certain way...in fact, much of the bass' appeal is its classic "cresting wave" style, which is reflected in both the body AND the headstock. The other one isn't so much a cresting wave as it is a spurting mudpot, or some such.
All this is, of course, an extremely personal thing. (Read: Please, don't flame me!) But I must confess that RIC's decision on this headstock style completely baffles me.
Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2002 8:50 pm
by bails
There's a '74 4001 selling for AU$1600 in the Melbourne Trading Post. It may not be 60's era or a reissue, but for the hassle involved it will surely end up cheaper. It is online, or the paper comes out in Melbourne every Thursday.
Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:09 pm
by qiktune
Thanks for the input guys,I'll keep it in mind.Will check out this 4001 in Melbourne.BTW Dan, what is "Please, don't flame me!"?
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:50 am
by ric4003
To "flame" someone is to post a really nasty or contentious response. I'd made a pretty bold (& possibly inflammatory
reponse, so I thought I'd better take cover!
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2002 11:04 am
by basstorius
If you're already playing a Hofner 500/1, then there is no question - get the 4001c64. I think the only difference from the 4001v63 is cosmetic; the flipped headstock and the reshaped horn.
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2002 10:10 pm
by qiktune
Thanks for the advice guys..I've purchased a mapleglo 4001V63 from Chris at pick of the ricks.Its ( the bass )in Oregon right now,and I'm in Sydney
.But will be meeting it in LA when my band does two weeks there in July
...cant wait.Great service from Chris,it cost me AUD$2475 and is still on their site with SOLD next to it...wooohhhooooo.Thanks again guys,appreciate it.
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2002 7:27 am
by mortivan
Congrats!
I never liked the look of the 4001C64. Looks like a horrible mutation of something once beautiful.
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2002 2:29 pm
by ricnvolved
Chiming in agreement with John Cyg's opinion on the look of the 4001C64.
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2002 5:41 pm
by squirebass
Amen, Brother...
I would prefer to see a right-handed c64 with a "traditional" headstock.
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:00 am
by ricnvolved
To be honest, the reverse headstock is no worse than the sandpapered, scooped body to my eye. If it was more comfortable for Paul to play it that way, then okay. But it doesn't look very attractive.
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2002 4:35 pm
by ric4003
Wow, there's a lot of consensus on the v64 headstock... Anyone *like* it? And does anyone have ANY idea what RIC was thinking on this one?? Why the change, especially when it's so odd?
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2002 7:10 am
by gpatt5762
The idea was to "mirror image" Paul's bass for the benefit of right-handed players, I guess for appearance's sake.
Garry
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2002 7:15 pm
by ric4003
Add the psychedelic spray paint job by Paul himself, & I'm in. Otherwise...
Thanks for the info!
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2002 1:04 pm
by qiktune
I agree with Dan...had they rfinished it like Paul's MMT bass I would have bought one no question.