Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hey does anybody have any inside information on what modles might be replacing the recently discontiued 325's and 4001 basses?

thanks!

I am really hoping it will be 325s with the bigsby (b5)!!

RIC has already done that with the 325v59.

I doubt we'll be seeing a replacement for the 325c58 anytime soon. The 4001, most likely yes.

kieran campbell wrote:Hey does anybody have any inside information on what modles might be replacing the recently discontiued 325's and 4001 basses?

thanks!

Nope.

We probably won't know the answer until they actually release the new bass (did I say bass?) for purchase.

I've been wondering this as well. Something similar to a 'C' 325 with a bigsby? A bass similar to the V63? Given their backlog I think we'll be waiting a while to find out.

The CEO of RIC said that putting the bigsby on the 325c58 was infringing on John Lennon's Personal Creativity, or something like that.

Really but they made almos EXACT replicas with the Casino's

I just remember John Hall saying that when asked why the kaufman instead of the bigsby when the C series was taking shape.
I don't care for either of them.

I very highly doubt a c58 reissue with a Bigsby.

www.rickenbacker.com:

"During much of the 325C58 portion of the project, much attention was given to the various hardware added by John Lennon after his guitar left the factory. An example would be the Bigsby vibrato (actually produced by Selmer under license and which was 7% smaller than the American version). It was anticipated that this guitar would be available in various versions, equipped with these parts which were not originally offered or produced by Rickenbacker. However, after long reflection and discussion, Rickenbacker’s management felt strongly that the creativity or ingenuity of fitting these parts was solely that of John Lennon’s and it was inappropriate to his memory to take advantage of his efforts. Accordingly, the project shifted to creating a guitar that is essentially a perfect twin to that which originally left the factory, into the hands of John Lennon."

The c58 WAS an almost-exact reproduction of Lennon's guitar. They're still available on the used market to purchase and modify, and the 325v59s came from the factory with Bigsbys, as Kris mentioned.

Thanks, Dan, for a well-written encapsulation of the entire rationale behind these historic instruments.

And, I gotta ask (rhetorically) who would do something like this except Rickenbacker?

It makes no sense to me that they "felt strongly that the creativity or ingenuity of fitting these parts was solely that of John Lennon’s and it was inappropriate to his memory to take advantage of his efforts", and yet the 4001C64S is intended to be an exact replication of Paul's bass- upside down headstock, sanded horns and horseshoe pickup. IIRC Ricks were on occasion fitted with a Bigsby, and that is certainly a much more practical arrangement. Not to take exception with their logic, but it seems that there are a number of folks who might buy a 325 with a Bigsby.

Interesting information about the Selmer Bigsbys, from a moldmaker's point of view. That 7% thing leads me to guess that molds were taken from an existing tailpiece (which is a copy of the original wooden patterns), and the resulting sand castings would experience a (+/-) 7 % shrinkage due to metal shrinkage during cooling. If they had used the original patterns in their sand cast process the castings would be identical, more or less, but the Selmer was a copy of a copy of the patterns, apparently.

If lost-wax methods were employed using an existing tailpiece as the model, the final castings would lose up to 15% off the original, due to two-fold shrinkage during the wax model phase of reproduction as well as in the metal cooling phase. (copy of a wax copy of a copy of the pattern)

And now I understand why my B5 never sat on my 320 just the same way John's did. It's substantially bigger, as I had suspected. I traded it out for an accent recently and I'm thrilled with the choice. That said, I'd love to have a v59

kiramdear wrote:
If lost-wax methods were employed using an existing tailpiece as the model, the final castings would lose up to 15% off the original, due to two-fold shrinkage during the wax model phase of reproduction as well as in the metal cooling phase. (copy of a wax copy of a copy of the pattern)

Technically not 100% reliably so, as the mold shrinking actually opens up the cavity. You'll get mostly expansion, dimensionally, but as I said, it's hard to predict.