Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I've seen a few of these pictured on the forum. As a newcomer to Rickenbacker I was wondering when these were made, why they were discontinued (beyond that they weren't selling well enough to keep in the catalog), and how many were made. They look like rather nice instruments. Was there something in the design that just didn't have the appeal of say the 4003 for example?

JimK

They were started in '65. They discontinued them in the 80's if I recall right. Basically because of lackluster sales.

I had a '65 which another forumite now has - and did a wonderful resto on. It just didn't appeal to me like the solid body Rics. My opinion may not be echoed here. Hollowbody basses in general don't appeal as well as their solid counterparts, all makers included.

So far, my research shows 1965 as the start of the standard 4005, with '67 to '70 for the WB (white bound), the six-string, and the eight string, very few of each of the latter two were made. Production of the standard probably went to 1982, so if anyone knows of a later production date, please let me know!

Paul, i've got a '74 WB and I know of two others with WB's from the same year.

'67 seems to be the most plentiful year for the 4005. I think the model remained in the catalog until about '84. I don't know if that means they were actually still being made then or if the factory just had some lingering inventory.

The 4005 sounds like a Hofner but with sustain. The pickup placement is somewhat limiting. As with the Hofner, the treble pickup is right at the saddles and the bass pickup sits right at the end of the fingerboard. One hears mud and the other hears twang. There is little in between. I have played a '67 with flats and was not impressed with the sound. To my ear the 4005 sounds better with rounds. Jeff Scott's WB sounds great with whatever strings he uses.

Just like the Pepsi challenge Chromes win again! Chromes are what Jeffrey uses, but he changes one string in the set.

"so if anyone knows of a later production date, please let me know!"

I don't know if it counts, but there's the one that was made in '93ish...

John, I believe there is at least one more recent than '93 in existence.

I've seen a couple of these after they had carried standard gauge rounds for awhile, and they were not a pretty sight. Considering that the neck including fretboard is only 11/16" deep from the nut to the heel, it is quite whippy. Standard gauge rounds will torque this neck over time beyond the capability of the truss rods to cope. I've seen more than one with more than 10mm of relief at the 12th fret!

I have written this article (thanks to Peter McCormack and Jeffrey Scott for the cooperation)for an italian bassists forum/site... if you understand italian it might be helpful
http://www.megabass.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=36

Francesco, would you have an English translation of the text? Looks like a great article, and I may ask for your permission to use some of that information in my book (properly credited, of course).

John and Paul, what's this about '90s 4005s?

I was just winding John up, but I'd like also to hear the story on this '93 instrument!

"John and Paul, what's this about '90s 4005s?"

I think Paul and I are talking about different basses, but I'm referring to the 4005 that was made for Hudson in 93 (or there abouts, I'm pretty sure it was '93).

Now that I think about it, that 4005/8 in the museum was made in the 90's too, if I recall. So there's at least two...

Mark Hudson's purple 4005??

ah John you beat me to it.

The first Rickenbacker I ever saw in person was a 4005/6 FG ))

"Now that I think about it, that 4005/8 in the museum was made in the 90's too, if I recall. So there's at least two..."