Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Was rehearsing and writing with my band at a local jam space and while leaving I saw a guy with a ric case. He said it was a fireglo 02' 4003 and let me take a look (I had my 72' on hand to let him know who was in charge).

Anyway... this was the first time I had played any ric newer than my 96' fireglo 4003. Compared to my 96' the neck was huge (not uncomfortable by any means but far far thicker and wider too I think) compared to my 72, and especially compared to my 96.' (which is the thinnest ric neck I have played).

My biggest issue on the 02' was the finish though... there was no fading transition between the red and maple in the burst... and the back and sides looked especially bad (prob why the first owner sold it). Plus the red on my bass is far more deep.

In the end I think they guy had a bit of a lemon... at least as far as rickenbacker's high standards go.

Yeah, I feel that Rickenbacker screwed up the neck profile on the 4003.

My first Rickenbacker was a '97 4003 and I still have this bass and will never sell it because the neck profile is outstanding. The rest of the build quality is likewise exceptional.

I had an '05 4003 with a very thick and rounded neck and never got comfortable with it, so I sold it--problem solved. The color and quality of components was outstanding, so no fault there. I really tried with this one, but the neck just didn't sit well with me.

I now have a '05 4004Cii and it has nearly the same neck profile as the '97 4003. Sure, the neck is a little wider on the 4004Cii, but when playing, the feel is the nearly same. What also might appeal to some is that the fretboard on the 4004Cii--while finished--is not sealed under a thick clear coat, as it is on the 4003. The fretboard surface wood grain is plainly visible on the 4004. I also know that some 4004's do/did have the fretboard finished, but the latest ones do not.

I strongly urge those who hate the newer 4003 necks to pick up a 4004 and give it a shot. I know I was pleasantly surprised.

Having never played a 4003 from any other years than 2003 and 2004, I don't know how the thin necks feel, but I really like my 4003 neck . . . it feels a hell of a lot better than a p-bass, and it doesn't fan out like crazy . . . however, I'm sure I'd like the thin necks even more . . . if they ever change the neck profile in the future, I may just buy another one.

the 60s necks felt the best ... but they were too weak ... the 70s necks are a little thicker and stronger ... the 4003 neck is stronger yet ... since I play only 5 string basses for me any 4003 has a slim neck ... try playing a fender 5 sting jazz bass ... argghh!!! I really like p-bass necks ... the Ric with the narrowest fretboard is the 2030 ... I like pretty much every Ric neck ... my problem with the old 4001 necks is that the simple act of putting on round wound strings stresses them beyond their design specs ... and the truss rods ... improper truss rod adjustment will pop off a fretboard ... but the modern 4003 bass can take any strings and pretty much anybody can adjust the rods without damaging the neck ...

If Ric. wants to make the ultimate bass they need to bring down the neck profile a lot.

The 4003 has tons of potential the 4004 even more.When the neck profile comes down you will have the ultimate players basses.

The 4004 is a beautifully designed bass all but the neck,which gives it neck dive the body is lite and comfy the neck kills such a wonderful bass.

The 4004 and the 4003 share the same neck so when you change one you change both.

the 4004 and 4003 necks are different inside and out ... I like the current neck the way it is ... the 4004 neck flares out when it approaches the body ... the 4003 neck is straighter ...

to get the neck slimmer and still keep its strength probably means a redesign ... it would probably include stiffening rods of some sort ... that would be a long term project ... and given the current backlog of orders exceeding production I would say be content with the current neck or go buy a 40 year old bass ...

Didn't Mr. Hall say that he had a new truss rod design in the works? If so, that might allow them to make the necks thinner . . . which he has also said is a future possibility.

man... whatever they were doing in 96' for the 4003 necks they should do again. I get insane low action, and the neck is soooo thin.

"try playing a fender 5 sting jazz bass ... argghh!!!"

- my dad has one (96') and I must say it is very comfortable (wide but not terribly thick). I played it for 5 hours straight one night with two different bands with no issues. I don't mind wide necks as I have long fingers, it is the thickness (depth) I tend to notice more... not that it really bothers me, I just notice it

I like the current "thicker" necks.

If you guys dont like them, you can all send them to me. Preferably rare colors, black trim, ect.....

Its six of one, half a dozen of the other.

If they keep things the way they are, I'll be happy, if they go back to a thinner profile, you guys will be happy.

John said that they're trending back to the "thinner" profile. I have to agree. The 4003 Blueburst I just got feels quite a bit slimmer than my '04 4003 Blueboy.

in the end I find thickness to not be an issue... just depends on what you are used to.

thin necks are nice though.

in the end I find thickness to not be an issue... just depends on what you are used to.

That's what my wife said. I think that she was talking about my geetars!

so it is not how fat your neck is but rather how well you play it that matters ...

I also like the newer thicker necks, they sound better and feel more substantial in your hands. I also like the mid-90's profile. The old flat necks are a little too thin for me, nice for the studio or for jazzy runs but for good bottom and solid sound I like the newer ones.

It's always subjective, but the new necks just don't get it done for me. A 2000 I picked up recently is baseball like, as was the 99 CS I looked at the other week.

My 72 and 73 basses are fairly thick too, though not in the same league as the recent basses.

Personally they can't compare to the 60's necks in playability and that is still my defining critera.

By a longshot, I prefer the slimmer profile and depth of my '77 over both of my 4003's ('81 and '94). I've never had a problem with insufficient resonance or bottom, especially after bypassing the cap.

I don't think I'd want to live with the quirks of a '60's neck, but what I'd give to play one!