1968 4001 MG?

lowendbob · Post by **lowendbob** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:10 am

If this is the real deal, someone should grab this.
It's hard to tell from the picture, but the bridge pickup sure doesn't look like a horseshoe, and no holes in the pickguard for the finger rest.
http://www.gbase.com/Stores/Gear/GearDetails.aspx?Item=856853

basshawk · Post by **basshawk** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:09 pm

"Ex, McCartney early reissue body" - that sure doesn't sound like an original '68 to me. You're right about the pickguard too. If that's a '68 then the guard has been changed and the horns sanded down. The horseshoes were phased out somewhere around mid 1968,,,right?

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:17 pm

It's been discussed here. That bass is at Voltage in Hollywood and it may be the bass that was on Ebay a few weeks ago. A heavily modded v63 being passed as the real deal. The auction was from Thousand Oaks, Ca. A few miles up the street from Hollywood. Sounds like they're advertising it accurately, a RI body with '68 parts.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:49 pm

It is the bass that was on ebay with serial # HB400 which is for a guitar everything else is v63 except for the high gain which is eighty's.

nbvbn · Post by **nbvbn** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:16 pm

I went to Voltage to see the bass. There is nothing vintage about this bass except a set of pots dated 68. The bass is a real Hodge Podge. It is clear by the fake serial # that the person who put this pile together had intensions of creating a fake. To make a bass appear like an older model because your idol played one like that is one thing. When you install old pots and change the serial # that’s when the nasty odor of fraud sets in. Lloyd at Voltage should have known better than to buy the thing. Problem with Lloyd is, now that he has been tipped off that he made an over sight, he will simply stand behind the bass as original anyway simply to make a profit. He has done it with much more valuable guitars and he will continue here. Still, in LA no one is worse than John Nelson at Vintage Gear. He had a put together from parts 60’s tele with a clearly re-finished body in sparkle. While looking at the guitar with him, I pointed out why is was clear it was a re-fin and what parts were not a perfect fit for that year. What he did was take it down of the wall for three days. He then swapped out the parts that gave it away with better matches. Then he placed it on eBay for giant money and sold it as “probably original un-touched”. He wasn’t sure. Lloyd at Voltage and John at Vintage Gear have been doing business like this for years. They have even represented the same guitar in partner deals 100’s of times. LA is tuff enough but these guys are real pieces of work.

lowendbob · Post by **lowendbob** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:22 pm

Great investigative work, and thanks for the heads-up Seth!
********.

bugman · Post by **bugman** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:48 pm

I was looking at their website at a Hofner Senator that they have for sale but this gives me a little to think about. Seth, did you happen to see the Hofner and if so what was your take on its condition,action, etc. Thanks!

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:08 pm

When this bass was on ebay a few months back we spotted it as a fake then. I don't even think the pots are 68 the serial # on this one is HB400 its from a guitar ,it has a modern high gain,and a reissue toaster its a v63,68s don't have a square heal this one does...

nbvbn · Post by **nbvbn** » Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:58 pm

Hey Ken, you're right on. The # was checked with the factory and confirmed to belong to a guitar. It was this fact that I found so offensive. A clear effort to mislead. For the record the guard material was off by a lot, the neck contour was not of the 60's in anyway. The woods used were not similar to basses dating 1960's. Tailpiece was not 60's nor was truss rod cover or tuners. The case was circa 1960's but had not lived long with this bass. (The imprints did not match. as I said before, soon after he thought he made a great score Lloyd must have realized he'd been had. ( he has sold more than anyone ). He will never come clean though and instead someone will buy that bass as a 1960's bass and Lloyd will look em right in the eye when he takes the money.

green_us90 · Post by **green_us90** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:41 am

Seth nails it with the Telecaster story. That's why I won't ever buy a vintage FENDER sight unseen on Ebay, because they are just to darn easy to fake a vintage model- the Rickenbackers at least are harder to do this to.

Ken, you've piqued my interest- how can you tell that the ser# HB 400 is for a guitar? I've always wondered if they used a specific # range for different models.

Thanks!

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:09 pm

Wait, wait, wait. I thought 1968 Rickenbacker 4001 basses were all deluxe, with binding and full-width inlays and all . . . if that's true, then the most obvious reason this bass isn't a '68 is because it has no binding and no inlays.

So were there any 4001 basses in 1968 that were not deluxe?

nbvbn · Post by **nbvbn** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:23 pm

Last ones seen were 67's and those are very rare. Fewer than in 64. What this 68 could have been was a 4000 with an added pickup but that it isn't. Still if everything else checked out it may have been a custom ordered bass made without binding.

chefothefuture · Post by **chefothefuture** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:47 pm

Remember that 4000s from 68 had a rout for a neck PU.
However- this one really smells bad.....
Too many other issues to even warrant the time.
FAKE!

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:02 pm

I know of one 68 thats a 4001s owned by Daryl at lowdbass its not for sale though.

John,JH looked through his invoices because it could have been a matter of counterfeiting a jack plate that# came back as a guitar.