Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

These questions have undoubtedly been asked before, but I'm new here... so thanks in advance to the regulars for your indulgence -

What is the story behind the zero fret on McCartney's Ric? Did it have the zero fret added years later? Early photos seem to show the bass without a zero fret.

Is this why the C64S has a zero fret, but the C64 does not? Are they "late" and "early" versions of McCartney's bass?

Did any of the other Ric "McCartney" basses have a zero fret (4001S, V63, etc.)?

It was added when his bass was worked on at the RIC factory in the early 70's. The C64 is pre, the C64S is post. Also notice the sanded horn difference. Try the "C Series" section of the forum.

There is a good deal of info on PMC's basses, the zero fret and the C64 and C64S on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=386028&start=0&st=0 ... lit=hofner

I seem to recall JH saying he was surprised to see the zero fret so I don't think the work was done by the factory. Anyway, here is a picture of it.
It is supposed to be removable.

Damn, the neck looks really thin there, almost like a Jazz width. Cool pic.

it wasn't added at the factory and it is removable iirc

It seems as though a zero fret is simply an aesthetic thing. It can't possibly serve any musical/technical purpose, can it?

What's the point, other than mental satisfaction? (And I totally understand about mental satisfaction when holding an axe; just wonderin'.)

No, they are not merely aesthetic. Zero frets are totally functional parts. It is just another way of building a string path. They sit right where the nut would normally go. Höfner uses them so I suspect McCartney wanted the same feature on his Rick.

rickfan60 wrote:No, they are not merely aesthetic. Zero frets are totally functional parts. It is just another way of building a string path. They sit right where the nut would normally go. Höfner uses them so I suspect McCartney wanted the same feature on his Rick.

+1. I think that is exactly why Paul had one installed on the 4001.

So wouldn't you need to replace the nut at a "further" position from the bridge as a result of adding a zero fret? I suppose the zero fret's purpose is to ease the fingering of the notes in the first couple of frets.

Sorry; What I though was that the zero fret was added IN FRONT of the nut. Instead, it's added where the nut used to be, and the nut is moved back toward the headstock(?)

Yup. That is precisely how it was done. In this case the zero fret was glued to one end of a small piece of wood and the nut to the other. The entire assembly was placed at the end of the fingerboard were the nut used to be.

FretlessOnly wrote:It seems as though a zero fret is simply an aesthetic thing. It can't possibly serve any musical/technical purpose, can it?

What's the point, other than mental satisfaction? (And I totally understand about mental satisfaction when holding an axe; just wonderin'.)

The zero fret is there for feel. Nobody's said exactly this, yet. The string feel is quite different with a zero-fretted bass. To me, a nut is a dual-purpose component, and because of its economy, it can cause grief in string changes and repeated setups. A zero-fretted instrument is correct in action, first time and every time, and the only thing that will affect the action on a zero-fretted instrument, is fret wear on the other frets.

FretlessOnly wrote:Sorry; What I though was that the zero fret was added IN FRONT of the nut. Instead, it's added where the nut used to be, and the nut is moved back toward the headstock(?)

Which, I would think, means that the TRC has to be moved and therefore new holes were drilled in the headstock. Would this be correct?

Here is a comparison of a 4001C64 to a 4001C64S as respects distance between nut-to-first fret v. zero fret-to-first fret:
The distance between the edge of the nut to the beginning of the first fret on the C64 is 1.805" and the same measurement on the C64S is 1.950" for a difference of 0.145". The distance between the "crown" of the zero fret (string contact made) and the beginning of the first fret on the C64S is 1.825".

I used a non-digital micrometer so these measurements are not as absolutely precise as they could be. Also, things get a bit fuzzy on the C64S when trying to go from the beginning of the first fret to the beginning of the zero fret [1.795"] and then to its crown [1.825"]. It is perhaps best to take the midpoint of these -- 1.810" -- which is pretty darn close to the 1.805" for the C64 nut-to-first fret measurement.

PS -- The zero fret and its accompanying nut on the C64S do not appear to be a modular insert to replace the C64 nut. As Brian implies, the C64S neck/headstock appears to be constructed specifically to accommodate the zero fret. It is not a "reversible" mod, unless you take some drastic measures, such as: remove the zero fret, cut off a small piece of the fretboard, reinstall the nut and move the TRC down with redrilled holes.

Which, I would think, means that the TRC has to be moved and therefore new holes were drilled in the headstock. Would this be correct?

From the picture it looks like the TRC was trimmed or the nut sits on top of it.