Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I tried to read through the "girth" thread, and I did a search, but didn't really come up with an answer to this question. Which model(s) and year(s) of Ric had the widest nut?

Fingerboard width dimensions have been pretty constant over the years. Early 60's examples are slightly wider but not by much and for long. By '65 they settled in to where they are today.

Hmmm... Over in that "girth" thread I saw measurements from 4.2 cm to 4.4 cm, and one person said their '73 was "almost a centimeter narrower at the nut" than their '99.

There should be very little if any variation in nut width over the last 40 years. Certainly not as much as a CM. The neck shapes might be different causing variations in girth - that is for certain but the width and taper of the 4001/3 necks are pretty constant from about '65 to present.

bongomania wrote:Hmmm... Over in that "girth" thread I saw measurements from 4.2 cm to 4.4 cm, and one person said their '73 was "almost a centimeter narrower at the nut" than their '99.

A centimeter???

Are you sure, Ted? I know it's not a centimeter, but I'm pretty sure that my late 80's 4003S and 4003 basses are a little narrower (a couple mm) at the nut than my 2006 and 2007 4003's and my 2003 4001C64S and former 1998 4001v63.

The string spacing is also a bit closer together at the nut on my late 80's basses. I think that's a big part of why I prefer them!

Yes. There may be some variation due to the hand shaping process but there was not an appreciable spec change. My '63 is slightly wider than may later basses but that is just the way things were back then.

Hmmm...okay. Maybe it's just the closer string spacing that I'm noticing.

I measured the neck widths on my '69 and V63 last week because I was replacing the shimmed one on the '69. The '69 was 1 11/16 and the V63 was 1 5/8, or 4.29cm & 4.13cm. The string spacing was narrower on the '69, also.

I once test fitted a late 70's 4001 fingerboard on a mid 60's 4005 and it fit perfectly. There will always be some variation but it will be in the order of millimeters and unintentional.

rickfan60 wrote:There will always be some variation but it will be in the order of millimeters and unintentional.

4.19 cm to 4.41 cm (the range I have seen measured so far) is 2.2 mm difference. Granted that is a very small amount, but it's enough to consider "worth noticing" if one is interested in 5-string and 8-string conversions as I am. So if we can grant that there is in fact a variation in nut widths, has anyone at all noticed a pattern other than "before/after '65"? Are any models/years statistically more likely to have the wider width, or is it really just a random factor caused by hand shaping?

My guess is the latter given the amount of handwork Ricks get.

(Having seen the process in person. )

bongomania wrote:

rickfan60 wrote:There will always be some variation but it will be in the order of millimeters and unintentional.

4.19 cm to 4.41 cm (the range I have seen measured so far) is 2.2 mm difference. Granted that is a very small amount, but it's enough to consider "worth noticing" if one is interested in 5-string and 8-string conversions as I am. So if we can grant that there is in fact a variation in nut widths, has anyone at all noticed a pattern other than "before/after '65"? Are any models/years statistically more likely to have the wider width, or is it really just a random factor caused by hand shaping?

Those are girth measurements not nut widths.

Current 4004's \m/ \m/

You are right - they are nut widths.