Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I know that early 4001 basses have wonderful slim necks and some (all?) 4003 basses have tree trunks, but which (if any) later basses have slim necks? I want something to gig that has a slim neck but isn't worth twice as much as my house!

4003 necks are said to be thicker but I wouldn't go so far as to say tree-trunk. I found both of mine ('81 and '94) to be incredibly comfortable. I've played much bigger... i.e. my best friend's 74 Pee Bass which reminded me of fretting a telephone pole!

Of course, I've never played a 4001, but that will all change when I get the '77 I found in the old for sale ads. I might be singing a different tune then... I'm anticipating "Hallelujah" being among the first!

4001CS

I think the differences are exaggerated somewhat around here, the newer ones from 97 are a little thicker but they offset that thickness by sounding better and being much more stable.
The early 70's with the small headstocks and Grovers and even earlier are the thinnest ones, they are almost flat, the later 70's 4001's are a little thicker. I have never played a Ric with a neck that even remotely resembled a tree trunk or even a branch. In fact all the bark was off every one and most were even painted and smooth!

I had a 1997 4003 that had a great RIC neck!

Once a year, I get a pint of maple syrup out of mine!

My problem is that because I am a lefty I never get to try things "head to head" as I never find lefties in shops and very rarely at shows. So I tend to buy "blind" if I find one anywhere. I have a '71 4001 which is superb but too nice to gig (it was in storage for 30 years before I got it). I have never actually seen/played a lefty 4003 so I don't know what the necks are like, I am only going on threads that I have read here which have said that 4003 are fatter than the 4001 series.

Tried to discuss this issue here:

../5/50406.html"#EECD9C">

My '79 4001 LH has a small neck...it feels smaller than the neck on my '72. Both are easy to play, though. The '79 feels fabulous....

My 4003 Shadow, feels thinner than my CS, 68 4001 or my 72 4001.

Dave

The basses before 97 seem to be a little slimmer than later ones, I have a 96 4003 and it is thinner than my 2000 4003. Going from a 71 both would probably seem thick to you at first, i get used to them fairly quickly, I have a 72 4001FL with a flat neck and had a 75 with old small headstock and flat neck.

My '75 4001 is very narrow at the nut, say 1 7/16" and is very "U" shaped in profile; that is to say, slightly thick for its width. Very nice.

My '97 4003 ser# V05106 (9-1997) is "C" width (1 3/4" but is relatively thin front to back

Best of both worlds. Now, if the 4001 had the 4003's pickups.....

My ex-Chris Pappas '98 4001V63 has a neck on par with my '73 4001, very nice and thin. If you really want thin though, you have to get a '60s 4005.

my 83 4003 has a very fast very slim neck on it. I like the feel of it more than the neck of my friend's 04 4003FGVP. However I find that my hand is most comfortable around the neck of my 4003s. The neck is similar in my opinion to the vintage re-ish basses, but that's just me.

I got to compare my 96' 4003 with a local 80' 4001. The 96' neck was a hint less wide, and not as thick (the 80'was still quite slim though).

Oddly, when I held the 80', the slightly thicker neck made the neck feel more narrow in width.... when I measured the width I was surprised to find mine slightly more narrow.

In the end... I am thinking that the differences are only minor for the most part... and the more I play bass the less different neck sizes matter to me.