Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hello guys! It's me again.

I once read on CHRIS SQUIRE's site that his original 4001 bass has been shaved and shaved and shaved and its weight got almost 1/3 less than the original. That sounds obscene!

What would happen to the sound of the bass if this actually happens to my bass (like, if the back of the bass is shaved until it gets like CS's one)?

And can you tell me if is there any problem on shaving the NECK of the bass? I feel that the neck is too fat AND round to me. Any possible technical problems?

PS: of course that if I do that, I'd look for a great professional. I would never do it by myself.

These are just curiosities (but I'm actually thinking about doing something)... but I think that some of you also wondered about 'em once.

See 'ya!

Without actually seeing Squire's old 4001, I have to think his story on having the thing "shaved"
to reduce the weight by that much is kinda weird.
If you Were to take noticeable amounts of wood off to accomplish this, it'd likely be off the back of the bass, but theres only so much you'd be able to remove before you'd risk thinning the areas that are deeply routed in the top for control cavities like the area under the pots and
the big hole for the horseshoe PU. The 4001 is
normally 1-1/4" thick,with the two deep routs
being an inch deep or more,leaving less than 1/4"
for the thickness of wood underneath.Maybe John Hall knows just how thick Sqires old bass is now.
The CS 4001 basses I've seen appear to be 1-1/4"
thick like the V 63s.

Squire's bass was rather thin compared to the basses we were making in the early 1970's ...but due to sanding by someone??????

I don't know about that .The jackplate is the original (at least it was when I worked on it ) and it has a non factory creme finish (again...at least when I worked on it)

I have seen plenty of 1960's basses that were thinner than the standard basses of the 1970's,1980's and 1990's ...even this century!But I don't think that someone took a sander to the bass to make it thinner just to remove weight.
I mean come on....Chris is not a small man !!!

and he is certainly no wimp.
Plus even a thick 4001 weights less than your average Les Paul Standard.

According to Chris's website:

"The cream color and unique tone of Chris' Rickenbacker has an interesting history. Chris explained in a 1987 interview with Guitar World: "It went through so many phases being in certain bands—the flower-power thing. I had wallpaper stuck on it with big colored flowers and stuff like that and then when that year was finished it was like "take it off." There was this little Chinese guy in Soho [Sam Lee] that used to do guitar repair and he would go, "Oh terrible! I better shave it off."


So by the time anyone ever heard my Rickenbacker bass on the Yes record it had actually been shaved down to about two-thirds of the weight of the regular factory model; she sounded completely different."

Source: chrissquire.com/equipment

I don't think Chris's statements are to be taken literally. We had his bass back for repairs about 2 years ago and about 10% lighter would be a closer number.

We refretted the bass and also undid some of the work done by a very well known luthier who repaired the head break. Unfortunately, the luthier did not understand our older truss rod system and had filled the entire rod slot with glue, making the rods essentially useless.

We were also rather surprised to see that at some point the wiring had been changed so that the treble position pickup and the so-called "third" .0047 mFd capacitor was not in use. Apparently these are not necessary, perhaps in light of modern EQ, to achieve the Squire sound.

Finally, no one ever applied a creme finish to Chris's bass. Originally maple, many years ago he had a British luthier refinish it brilliant WHITE but the poor quality of the clear overcoat was such that it yellowed very quickly, giving the creme appearance.

Given the tremendous amount of use over the years, this bass is today in remarkably good condition.