Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Last year, RIC talked about using up the rest of their stock of the thicker 4003 necks. I assumed that 2007 4003s would have a mix of the necks. Now the 2008s are around (one on eBay now). I just wondered when it will be safe to grab a new 4003 if one wants the thinner neck? Has JH spoken about this recently?

Thanks

Ummm...How thin are you looking for, Greg?

The idea was that the 4003 was supposed to get the C64 neck profile. Some people have different ideas of thick and thin. My own C64S (a 2003 model) has a very thin neck (measured front of the fretboard to back of the neck) but when you measure the girth and compare it to a 1992 or earlier Rick neck, its actually pretty big (See Measure Your Girth thread). I also have a late 2006 4003 with the "thin neck profile," and while its a cool bass, its neck is MUCH larger than my pre-1992 Ricks.

So, if you asked me I'd say...If a small neck is a very important thing for you to have on your 4003, then you want to go with a pre-'92 4003.

I agree.
If I was looking for a "modern" Rick with a slim neck, I'd be looking for a '90 - '92. I'm not sure when the cut off for large horns was before that. You might be able to get back to '88'ish.

Unfortunately any 4003 from the late 80's/early 90's is gonna have the fat horns. Some people like 'em some don't. So what's more important to you, a thin neck or thin horns?!

Now if you're talkin' V63 though its a different story! Thin necks and thin horns existed simultaneously!

Here is my 894003S. The neck is extremely thin and comfortable(to me).
I don't think the horn is that thick or large. Here's another 89 with an even thinner neck.
I don't think the horn is that obtrusive. Here' yet another 89 4001S that I no longer own....same thin neck though.

Beautiful basses, Steve. And I don't think the horns are too big.

But compared with a 2008 4003 or a 90's V63, the horns on your examples are bigger. Great neck, great tone, and truss rods that work well though.

You about ready to open up that Azureglo beauty and post some pix, Steve?

My Oct '92 4003 has a lovely thin neck and the fatter top horn, was there a reason for the fatter top horn.

I don't think a reason was ever given. Some speculate that it had to do with the guitar's balance. The theory goes that the horns got smaller around the same time the necks got heavier. I'm not so sure I agree with this theory.

My '92 V63 has thin horns and a thin neck and it balances just fine.

Ballast?

The fat horns disappeared (and fat neck appeared) circa 1997.

I wish they had gone back to the 1/2" neck pickup spacing at the same time...I think it looks better with the thin horns, while the 1" spacing looks better with the fat horns.

Just MHO...

I have put a V63 style scratchplate with the half inch spacing on my bass.Maybe Mr.Hall will chime in and let us know why the upper horn was made fatter for a while.

My '87 4003 has a perfect neck IMHO. It's is very thin and much thinner than the 75th Anniversary 4003 that I owned for a short time. I would like to get a new one that has a neck like my '87.

squirefan01 wrote:My '87 4003 has a perfect neck IMHO. It's is very thin and much thinner than the 75th Anniversary 4003 that I owned for a short time. I would like to get a new one that has a neck like my '87.

I agree. If the new necks were the same as my '87's necks that would be ideal. Walnut head wings, thin horns AND a neck like my '87's?

Drool!

It's good to dream!