Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I had planned to e-mail Jeff R. directly on this, but I then thought that others in the Forum might find this Q and A helpful ...

I've been following another recent thread here, and noticed posts that indicate there was a time period in the 1990s where Ric was making 4003 basses with, if I may quote, "dinky" headstocks.

This was new info to me, being a noob and all here.

Just wondering if these basses with "dinky" headstocks are still suitable for a 4-2-5 conversion?

Also wondering if someone can either post comparative pics of headstocks and/or provide the dimensions of the "dinky" vs. "non-dinky" headstocks ...?

As always, thanks in advance for your help!

Mike, from what Jeff told me, the "dinky" headstocks are not ideal for this kind of thing. The bigger ones are much better.

I'm also curious to see exactly what the dinky headstocks look like, and to find out if my 4003 has one or not (8/99)!

here's a 2030 headstock 4 and 5 ...



4003 headstock





4003s5 headstock



and a mid 90s dinky headstock ...



and another 4003s5 headstock ...



I can get a 5th tuner in pretty much any 4003 bass ...

somewhere in the early 70s the headstock got shortened ... this is also the same time as the walnut skunk stripe ... this smaller/dinky headstock was used until about 1997 when they went back to the 60s shape ... the 4004, v63, and cs models got the 60s shape headstock before 97 ...

3 at the top looks better than 3 at the bottom in my opinion!

I agree with you Peter, but that would take a lot more work, plugging 2 holes, drilling 3 new ones, then refinishing.

Thanks all! Sounds like the '93 4003 I may have a shot at buying most certainly has the "dinky" headstock then.

How "dinkier" is it than the later ones?

The modern headstocks aren't *exactly* the size of 60's headstocks, are they? The CS headstock looks HUGE!

By now I'm sure I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but drilling the new hole on the bottom and canting the tuners at an angle looks less than optimum. Plugging holes, re-drilling to mount the tuners on the top and refinishing is the way to go and looks way more professional. You get what you pay for.

I was tempted to plug and redrill the holes in my Laredo before I sent it to Paul for the neck treatment. I was somewhat concerned that the spacing would still be too tight for my liking so I left it a 4 banger.

I realize it is purely aesthetics but I think the 3 over 2 is the only way to go and it looks wrong to me with the 3 on the bottom. I know why Jeff does it and it suits his needs so that is all that matters.

the oversized 4003s5 headstock always looked goofy to me ... and 3 on the top or bottom really doesn't matter to me ... and remember I am not a professional luthier ... I am very skilled at setting up basses and I can make a few modifications ...

The 3 on the treble side looks best on the Goth 4003 4-2-5 that Jeff did, IMHO. Since it's all black, it all blends and still looks cool.

I'm getting some ideas for when I do a 4-2-5.

Jeff does a nice job, but I still think the 4003S/5 & 4004cii5 headstocks look much better.

So do I, Brad, but you can't get 'em like that anymore...so if you want a 5, you have very few options...