Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Has anyone ever had a zero fret installed on their bass? Just curious.

Paul McCartney has.

Anyone else?

Or, anyone know the reason that Paul had the fret installed? And, does the C64S have a zero fret only because Paul's 4001 did? If this is the case, then the zero fret is really non functional and only there as an accurate representation of Paul's? If the fret is truely functional and makes the bass better in some way, why not install them on all models? Lots of Q's I know. Just trying to understand the value of the extra fret. I know, I know......rookie question.

The purpose of a zero fret is to make the open strings sound more like fretted notes. The nut is usually further back than on a model without a zero fret and the strings sit on top of the zero fret.

Is a zero fret better than just a nut? It's more a matter of opinion than anything else.

dog wrote:...does the C64S have a zero fret only because Paul's 4001 did? If this is the case, then the zero fret is really non functional and only there as an accurate representation of Paul's?.

Paul's zero fret is fully functional, it wouldn't work otherwise.

I have a C64S and like the zero fret. I know that mostly the cheapie instruments had them, but still...The open strings sound more like the fretted ones, and the action down by the nut can't get any better. It's not such a huge difference that I would ever have a fretboard replaced so that I could have a zero fret, but I do like it.

Not sure where I heard this or how accurate it is, but I heard that Paul wanted a zero fret on his Rick because he liked the zero fret on his Hofner.

I have also heard that Paul had the fret installed because of the zero fret on his Hofner. But I had never heard what was improved because of it. It was not logical that it would not have improved, or at least changed something. So, lower action and open strings sounding fretted. Sounds like an improvement to me. Thanks all

...and less chance of someone filing the nut like this!

dog wrote:I have also heard that Paul had the fret installed because of the zero fret on his Hofner. But I had never heard what was improved because of it. It was not logical that it would not have improved, or at least changed something. So, lower action and open strings sounding fretted. Sounds like an improvement to me. Thanks all

I read an article somewhere about the guys who worked on Pauls Rick at the factory, he only sent it in to do som electronics work I believe, but they went the extra mile and did everything they could to make it more playable, and at some point during their restoration, they added the zero fret, Paul had no input on the work on the bass other than "fix the electronics".

RIC would have had to move the nut back at least the width of the "zero fret" for that to work I imagine.

ben_brown wrote:...and less chance of someone filing the nut like this!

So Steve...I'm not seeing the problem with the nut in the photo you posted. All of my Ricks from the 70's and 80's have nuts that look the same. I like the way RIC used to hand-file the triangular grooves because they work well with different string gauges. There must be something I'm not seeing?

ben_brown wrote:RIC would have had to move the nut back at least the width of the "zero fret" for that to work I imagine.

Does a 0 fret actually create a new pressure point (i.e. like nut and bridge) or is it merely to ease tension when fretting the first fret?

jdogric12aolcom wrote: Does a 0 fret actually create a new pressure point (i.e. like nut and bridge) or is it merely to ease tension when fretting the first fret?

I'm slightly confused by your question, Mr. Dog. The string now rests on the zero fret instead of the nut. The nut is only there to channel the string and keep it from moving laterally. The zero fret is placed where the nut would have been, and the nut then gets moved just a couple mm further out toward the end of the headstock.

Perhaps a close-up photo of an excellent example would be helpful:

http://www.rickresource.com/register/us ... llsize.jpg

Hard to tell that the nut is a little farther out than on a regular 4001C64 though.

tennis_nick wrote:
I read an article somewhere about the guys who worked on Pauls Rick at the factory, he only sent it in to do som electronics work I believe, but they went the extra mile and did everything they could to make it more playable, and at some point during their restoration, they added the zero fret, Paul had no input on the work on the bass other than "fix the electronics".

"The P.M. bass came back to the factory prior to the 'Wings over America tour.' It needed some help. The original cast bridge was cracked, and the saddle assembly rattled and was sagging. The horseshoe magnets were dead. The coil was fine, but the cobalt magnets -- stone dead. The frets needed some serious dressing and a new nut. (He has played around with a zero fret extension over the years, and the bass originally had a stock nut) . . . The finish was nothing at all. It had the patina of dirty wood and sweat. It didn't stink of armpits, but it was not sealed, and we actually discussed sealing for him. We decided not to, as we were already doing work that was not asked for."

Cool, I did not know that. I thought 0 frets were just there to ease fretting on the 1st fret. Thanks!