Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

before i got my 1973 4001, i was under the impression that the 4001 had a slimmer neck than a 4003, but my 73's neck is like a slab! with a totally flat fretboard!

Now, are all 4001's like this? or is it specific to basses made at a particular time.

I played a 75 once, i cant really remember , but its neck seemed not too far off from my 4003

My '74 is definately slimmer than the late '90s 4003 I had, or any of my other Rics for that matter.

really? my 73 is a bit wider across the nut ( not much) and goes back into the hand a lot more.

Also the binding is far more "square" and more noticable.

my 4003 is a 1991 and the neck is real small

My early 70's Ric's are flatter not thinner, actually I think they are probably the same width or pretty close, just that the flatness makes them seem wider. I had a 93 4003 and the neck was more narrow than either the old ones or the new ones, the G string used to fall off the side of the neck if I wasn't careful however.
I like the late 70's 4001 necks, and the mid 90's necks best. My 96 has a great neck, almost like a late 70's neck.
What do your necks measure across the nut and body end, or a specific fret high up one the neck Owen? I'll measure my late 70's 4001's and we can compare, except here it will be in centimeters, but I can convert them pretty close. 1 in. = 2.54 Cm.

I guess I need the proper definition of what we are talking about here. My '74 is slimmer from fretboard to back, width seems about the same as the others (haven't measuered it though). It is definitely less chunky at the nut.

I guess I need the proper definition of what we are talking about here. My '74 is slimmer from fretboard to back, width seems about the same as the others (haven't measuered it though). It is definitely less chunky at the nut.

Definitions are in order here; only 2 measurements that concern most players, and the terminology apparently misleads regularly.1]
WIDTH of the neck at the nut."Wide" and 'Width"
Only refer to this, though occasionally a width is specified for, say, measurement at 12th fret, end of neck at body.2]Terms like "Chunky", "Thick","Thin", "Depth""neck contour or radius of curve on Back Of Neck are synonymous.Though it is also part of the neck and the overall impression of the "feel" of the neck, usually the previous info is Not referring to the arch, or radius of the fingerboard, which, along with fret size, contributes to the "feel" of the guitar.Does this help??

thanks Don,

i actually went and measured my necks,,

in fact (and my hand really thinks otherwise) the measurements are identical

The nut width, witdth at very end of neck, and neck depth are (give or take maybe 2mm for neck depth) identical between the 73 4001 and 91 4003.

What IS different between the two are that the fretboard on the 4001 is thicker and makes up for more of the overall neck depth than it does on the 4003. also the 4001's binding is larger and not so rounded off giving a "squarer" feel.

The biggest difference is the fretboard radius (correct term?) the 4001 is just plain FLAT

also the frets are far smaller (yes the bass is 30yrs old and has bad fretwear but even the seldom used top frets are small)

All the early 70's 4001's had flat necks, that I have seen anyway. I had a 75 with the old style flat neck, old style TRC, Grovers, and neck pickup in the old position, 1/2 in. closer to the neck.
I think that it would have been identical to yours Owen, except that it had two high gains and it was a fireglo, I didn't notice if the bridge PU had a metal or plastic plate.
But I think the early 70's Ric necks were pretty much all flat like that from the limited amount of them I've seen and played.

There's another "back of the neck" term; "Flat".
And, good observation on a related subject; the thickness of the fingerboards and height of the binding[where applicable], as well as the radius of the fingerboard surface.There have been subtle and not-so-subtle changes in these parameters over the last 30+years, as some of the more astute
owners have recognized.

Don, I'm pretty hip to your definitions, and was basing my original reply on them. The whole mention of width that followed is what threw me, which again, I would follow you guidelines on.