Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'd like your opinions...this is a just a matter of curiosity for me. I have searched this forum and found bits and pieces of info that almost answers my question. This is not a plea with RIckenbacker to bring back the skunk stripe, as I believe it's already been stated by people who would know, that it's not happening in the foreseeable future.

I learned here (thank you, Peter) that in the early 1970's, improvements were made in the 4001. I only want to ask about two- that relate to the necks. From what understand, and please tell me if I got it wrong, is that the (skunk stripe) three-piece neck, and the smaller inlays were phased in to increase the strength and stability of the necks. Correct so far?

I am fortunate to have a November 1971 and a May 1973 4001. Both great sounding and playing basses, and what brought me to the comparison of neck features. Both are structurally sound and set up with 'almost' zero relief, as my playing style requires.

My experience is very limited, but I think my 1973 4001 with a three-piece neck and smaller inlays, with medium rounds is more stable and solid, and less prone to twists or humps (which I had experienced on a 1986 4003).

The 1971 4001 has full-width sparkle inlays and a one-piece neck, and the neck is straight and true with light-gauge Rickenbacker rounds which are the only strings I'll use on it, to be safe. It somehow "feels" more flexible...not like it could break or anything under normal use, but not as stiff and stable...hard to describe.

I haven't overlooked the possibility that my opinions/feelings are just a load of ****. All I know for sure, is that my May 1973 has the most solid-feeling neck of any bass, of any brand - that I've ever tried.

Anyone who's done a side by side comparison of these neck features, or has an opinion either way, I'd like to hear what you think. Or, if you would tell me it's all in my head, I'd like to hear that as well!
Which of those two improvements do you think had the most effect on making a better neck? Was it the combination of the two that made it happen? Or is it just depending on the individual instrument?

Thanks!

The only other things I could add are:
The 70s 4001 basses have a thicker fretboard which probably adds some strength too.
And that no two basses will feel the same and some necks are just "whippier" than others.
Also... The health of the neck join on Rickenbacker basses will have a great bearing on neck flex. If you have any cracks or sagging in the neck pickup area, the neck will feel soggy and perhaps should be sorted..
Eden.

Lamination provides added strength and stability IMO. It also effects the sound and that is why some people don't like a laminated neck. I am not sure that I could tell the difference as far as the sound goes.

The lamination cannot fail to add stability and torsion stiffness to a neck, provided the woods are of similar density. Shedua is actually softer than hard maple (720 vs. 1450 on the Janka scale) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janka_Wood_Hardness_Rating, with bubinga way up there above both.

The neck of a Rick is essentially a tubular structure, albeit very thick-walled. The lamination of the neck itself adds stiffness, and when the tube is closed by gluing on that very dense bubinga fretboard, you've got a very strong element. Problems arise with too much string tension as well asa improperly-adjusted truss rods, and the occasional soft streak in the maple (which is impossible to predict when building a guitar or bass) will exacerbate the issue.

Mike, I have thought about just this after getting my 4001. Albeit with my limited experience also, I have to agree with your statement.

"My experience is very limited, but I think my 1973 4001 with a three-piece neck and smaller inlays, with medium rounds is more stable and solid, and less prone to twists or humps (which I had experienced on a 1986 4003)."

Here in Michigan, we have wide swings in yearly temps and humidity, and I have to say my 4001 is the much more stable neck of the 5 Ricks I have, followed very closely by the '04 4003 "baseball bat" neck. The 4001 stays put, while the '04 moves a tad, and the other 3 (4004C, 4003C, and V63) move enough that they need to be adjusted. I also believe the rich overtones a "skunk stripped" 4001 has is more due to the neck construction than the 8.4k higain pickups. And that tone structure is unique to the striped 4001 basses.

My opinions only, but there you have them.

weemac wrote:The only other things I could add are:
The 70s 4001 basses have a thicker fretboard which probably adds some strength too.
And that no two basses will feel the same and some necks are just "whippier" than others.
Also... The health of the neck join on Rickenbacker basses will have a great bearing on neck flex. If you have any cracks or sagging in the neck pickup area, the neck will feel soggy and perhaps should be sorted..
Eden.

Thanks for the reply...
Both the 71 and 73 have a solid, tight neck to body join. I hadn't noticed the thicker fingerboard on these, compared with a 4003.
I no longer own a 4003 but didn't check that out when I did.

ken_j wrote:Lamination provides added strength and stability IMO. It also effects the sound and that is why some people don't like a laminated neck. I am not sure that I could tell the difference as far as the sound goes.

Thanks for the thoughts,
I also don't think I could hear a difference in the neck type, if there is one. I would envy those players with superior hearing ability, except that I can save a lot of money on gear by not noticing those subtle differences.

Thanks for your input, Paul...
I am a little confused by something you say here..."The lamination cannot fail to add stability and torsion stiffness to a neck, provided the woods are of similar density. Shedua is actually softer than hard maple"...

I know almost nothing about wood and that, but Is softness the same as density? Are you saying that since shedua is softer than maple, that the use of it in this lamination is not the best choice for strength? Or am I misunderstanding...?

And an excellent point you make here: "and the occasional soft streak in the maple (which is impossible to predict when building a guitar or bass) will exacerbate the issue."

I somehow instinctively thought that could be the case, which would make for variances of stiffness from bass to bass.
Thanks again!

johnallg wrote: ...Here in Michigan, we have wide swings in yearly temps and humidity, and I have to say my 4001 is the much more stable neck...

I believe that some of this also has to do with the truss rod design. The early rods react against themselves and are not prone to chaning their tension due to temp and humidity. The later rods react against the wood which changes its dimension with temp and humidity swings. I have a friend here in Michigan that owns a '72 4001 that has never needed a truss rod adjustment.

My comment on the sonic differences in a laminated neck vs. a one piece neck were made due to the "purists" that didn't like the three piece Les Paul necks of the '70s and "80. Gibson did go back to one piece necks to satisfy these folks sometime in the late '80s or early '90s. It may have been more about sustaian than tone.

johnallg wrote:Mike, I have thought about just this after getting my 4001. Albeit with my limited experience also, I have to agree with your statement.

"My experience is very limited, but I think my 1973 4001 with a three-piece neck and smaller inlays, with medium rounds is more stable and solid, and less prone to twists or humps (which I had experienced on a 1986 4003)."

Here in Michigan, we have wide swings in yearly temps and humidity, and I have to say my 4001 is the much more stable neck of the 5 Ricks I have, followed very closely by the '04 4003 "baseball bat" neck. The 4001 stays put, while the '04 moves a tad, and the other 3 (4004C, 4003C, and V63) move enough that they need to be adjusted. I also believe the rich overtones a "skunk stripped" 4001 has is more due to the neck construction than the 8.4k higain pickups. And that tone structure is unique to the striped 4001 basses.

My opinions only, but there you have them.

Thanks to you, John.

Hey, I lived my first 17 years in Illinois, with the winter blowing in off the Great Lakes...I remember the wild temperatures well!!!
Now here, it's much more limited, but most of my instruments will require a minor truss rod tweak a couple times a year at most...except the May 1973 4001, which never budges. Since I bought it a few years ago, I am afraid to even take the cover off to check it out, it's just so dead-on that I don't want to risk anything. Where on the 1986,1992 and 1995 4003 I owned the necks always seemed to be much more fickle...but that could very well be just the individual instruments.

As for the overtones a "skunk stripped" 4001 has, I have no opinion because I can't hear subtle things that many can. My 71 and 73 both have a toaster, if that makes any difference...all I know is it sounds like I want it to sound... but I believe what you say is true for you, and if I could only hear it, probably true for me as well.

ken_j wrote:

johnallg wrote: ...Here in Michigan, we have wide swings in yearly temps and humidity, and I have to say my 4001 is the much more stable neck...

I believe that some of this also has to do with the truss rod design. The early rods react against themselves and are not prone to chaning their tension due to temp and humidity. The later rods react against the wood which changes its dimension with temp and humidity swings. I have a friend here in Michigan that owns a '72 4001 that has never needed a truss rod adjustment.

Ken, I agree. But I also think the two maple pieces being at right angles grain-wise and the shedua in between adds to the stability. It is a combo of both systems that makes for one neck that stays put.

jingle_jangle wrote: and the occasional soft streak in the maple (which is impossible to predict when building a guitar or bass) will exacerbate the issue.

When you get a dodgy bit of timber the newer compression rods can really create havoc and you can get some funny "S" curves in necks. I'm not saying that it can't happen with older necks (they have their own problems) but I have seen more 4003s with bad necks than 4001s.
I guess all the 4001 basses that had bad necks have by now been trashed so this may not be a true representation either.

Like John and others have said. If you get a good 4001 neck it seems to stay good while many 4003 necks seem to go with the weather a bit..

I think the stripy necks do sound a bit different to the earlier and later ones.

Eden.

weemac wrote:

jingle_jangle wrote: and the occasional soft streak in the maple (which is impossible to predict when building a guitar or bass) will exacerbate the issue.

When you get a dodgy bit of timber the newer compression rods can really create havoc and you can get some funny "S" curves in necks. I'm not saying that it can't happen with older necks (they have their own problems) but I have seen more 4003s with bad necks than 4001s.
I guess all the 4001 basses that had bad necks have by now been trashed so this may not be a true representation either.

Like John and others have said. If you get a good 4001 neck it seems to stay good while many 4003 necks seem to go with the weather a bit..

I think the stripy necks do sound a bit different to the earlier and later ones.

Eden.

Well said; there's lots to consider. It's true that many of the most troublesome 4001 may be gone now.
I'd sure like to say I could hear a difference in the necks, but I've damaged my high-end by years of loud jets and too-loud drummers and guitarists.
Now, hearing protection is standard.

What?

jps wrote:What?

Beat me to it!