Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Buddy at work just got a 4003 FG with an early 09 serial. It has a pretty thin neck. It's not 1973 thin or anything, but a far cry from the baseball bats we've seen early this decade. I'll try to get measurements and post 'em.

Oh, the fireglo is real nice too. Looks like mapleglo in the center, not pink. The back is a little clownglo-ish, but not too bad.

See how it matches up to mine and to Mike Chandler's, I know both of us have posted '09 measurements.

Frankly I really like mine! According to the measurements it's definitely on the chunky side but I don't notice that when I'm playing it. In fact, my hand cramps less, so maybe chunky is the ideal for me anyways.

I'm J-Dogg's co-worker - The neck feels real comfy on my new Jan 09 4003. It's no baseball bat. Some of the other Rick basses I've played (like my mid 70s that I bought new and paid for with a newspaper route) were almost too thin; and for some reason they felt wider than this new one. This feels good in my hands. Wish it was a three piece neck, but it's been super stable so far. Color's not bad - woulda loved Amber Fireglo, but this isn't pink at all. I had been having problems in the studio getting a great bass tone - 51 P Bass reissue (soon to try the Fralin split), PJ Mex Fender with Duncans, and a nice German Hofner 500/2. I tried J-Dogg's beloved 79 Mapleglo 4001 in my studio and was floored. Sorta wish I bought that bass - it is lovingly worn and has serious mojo, but I had to have the Fireglo. And I love mine; it's my first Rick since I pawned my mid-70s bass when I was a starving college kid in the early eighties. Now, can someone please sell me an f-hole 330?

Hey Andy...you know, the new fireglo sold me, too, and I was not much of a fan of the earlier versions unless they had faded or ambered, or in whatever way looked like amber fireglo. This one has just a small hint of pink in the center, but not nearly like before.

Apparently the '09's necks are generally a little larger than '08's, but mine feels very comfortable anyway. It's rounder and bigger around than any of my 4001 basses - but I agree; the term baseball bat doesn't really apply here.

kidbazooka wrote:I tried J-Dogg's beloved 79 Mapleglo 4001 in my studio and was floored.

Awesome! I loved taking my Ric to the studio. Glad you were floored!

Any official (or "semi-official") word of the factory on this "2009 thick necks" issue?

ivan wrote:Any official (or "semi-official") word of the factory on this "2009 thick necks" issue?

They make no neck before its time.

At this point we've collated so many similar accounts so you might as well consider it official. I think the new ones kick serious a**.

I see what you mean, Joshua... but what I'd like to know is the official "why", since everybody (well, at least the majority of the RIC crowd) cheered when the 2006/2008 thin-neck thing was at full steam.

Why?

This is only my reasoning: As the new full width inlay material requires routing away less wood from the 3/8" thick rosewood fingerboard which is roughly 1/3 of the neck's thickness but makes up at least 1/2 of the necks stiffness. Stronger fingerboard permits thinner maple.

By the way, the neck thickness of my late Jan./early Feb. 2009 4003 MG is:
1st fret=22mm
7th fret=23mm
12th fret=23mm

It's overall .03~0.5mm thinner than my '98 4003. Not as slim as '70s and '80s necks but very comfortable and playable.

But the 2008 basses had both the FWIs and the thin neck. And I haven't heard anybody complain about any structural flaw about them. I'm still wondering why did RIC did this.

ivan wrote:But the 2008 basses had both the FWIs and the thin neck. And I haven't heard anybody complain about any structural flaw about them. I'm still wondering why did RIC did this.

I understand what you mean. You're asking, "If the thinner '08 necks were strong enough and people liked them, why did they get thicker in '09?"
Good question, and we still haven't had an official response.
Here's how I see it, FWIW: in reality the difference is only a fraction of a centimeter.
For example, my own '71 4001 has first fret girth of 11.3 centimeters, compared with my '09 4003 at 11.6.
Third fret measurements are: 11.5 vs 12.1
Twelfth fret: 13.0 vs 13.5
Enough to be felt, but - in my opinion - the difference in feel is mostly in the shape of the neck.
This still doesn't answer the question and I am curious, too, but for me - there's not that big a difference.

My 2008 4003FL is awesome but it did have some problems with getting it to stay straight and some dead spots.

My 2007 and 2009 4003s both have thicker necks, fewer (actually no) dead spots, and require fewer adjustments.

Not sure if they went with the thicker necks for stability, but it's an added bonus to me, and it is no more difficult to play for me (in fact as I have said my hand cramps less on it).

I'm with Mike - I think the girth may have gone up slightly, but the profile is different. The way to tell is to use one of these on the different necks and positions and make tracings and compare:

johnallg wrote:I'm with Mike - I think the girth may have gone up slightly, but the profile is different. The way to tell is to use one of these on the different necks and positions and make tracings and compare:

Oh oh, I see a whole new Excel file being generated here!

Who's going to pass around the Pr-O-filer® ?