Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I have a '75 4001 which happens to appear in this ad.
http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_pos ... f75-10.jpg

I checked the specs of a 4003 here...
http://www.rickenbacker.com/model.asp?model=4003

The scale 33 1/2 for a 4001.....33 1/4 for a 4003....are these just estimates that will likely deviate beyond an 1/4th of an inch for any given bass?

More measurement data is revealed on the 4003, than on the 4001 in the '75 ad.

I got curious and compared measuements of my 4001 to the 4003 and found from a 1/2 - 1 inch differences between the 2 models.

I've read where RIC posters have said the 2 basses are identical, other than some kind of 'neck reinforcement' in the 4003.
Anyone else aware of differentials between the 2 models? Or variations between basses of the same model. Could deviations be as much as an inch? (length).

John, what two points are you measuring from?

As the bridge saddles will have to vary from bass to bass depending on string type, gauge, action, relief, etc., the best way to determine the nominal scale length is to measure from the fingerboard side of the nut to the 12th fret and double that measurement.

the best way to determine the nominal scale length is to measure from the fingerboard side of the nut to the 12th fret and double that measurement.

For my 4001, that would then be 16 1/16" X 2 = 32 1/8".......4003 Specs indicate 33 1/4".....4001 = 33 1/2
'

John, what two points are you measuring from?

From the furthest points on oppostite ends of my 4001 = 44 1/8" (not counting the 'strap attachment nut') 4003 RIC specs indicate 44 3/16".....so, that's pretty much equal. I peviously had a greater difference but this time did it more carefully.

1 5/8" across at the nut....1 11/16 according to 4003 specs

Neck width at 12th fret....2 1/16" for my 4001......2 1/8th - 4003 specs

Weight - about 9 lbs is equivalent for both.

Width - Haven't done it since I don't know which points to measure.

So, my largest differential is 1 3/8th's on the 'scale' length (between my 4001 and the 4001 'advertisement' specs,...as long as I'm measuring that correctly,.....along with a few 1/8th differences).

Trivial, I suppose.

My July '73 4001 that happens to be out on a stand at the moment measures 16 19/32". Remember, this is a nominal measurement.

Are you measuring to the middle of the 12th fret? Going by your measurement, on my bass I see that you are measuring to the middle of the space between the 11th and 12th frets, not the 12th fret itself! Please clarify how you took your measurement.

OK, I messed up! Sorry.

Inside of the nut to the edge (facing the nut) of the 12th fret = 16 9/16 X 2 = 33 1/8th scale

33 1/2 in 1975 catalog.

http://www.rickenbacker.com/catalog_pos ... f75-10.jpg

________________________________________________________
Here is a thread that got me thinking about the 4001/4003 thing.

http://www.vintageguitars.org.uk/phpBB/ ... ?f=21&t=31

Well, that looks a whole lot better! I measured to the middle of the fret as that is where the string really hits, but that is so small it is nitting pics!

Yes,...but there remains the difference betwwen the 2 models as reported by RIC. 33 1/4 vs 33 1/2.

Why?

There is no difference in scale between the two models. The fact is, there are two ways to measure the scale length of a stringed instrument. The more accurate of the two is measuring from the face of the nut to the 12th fret and doubling the distance. The other method is to measure to the average position of the bridge saddles. This average varies from bass to bass so it cannot be relied on as a method of measurement.

All Rickenbacker basses except for the 3000 and some one-off short scale examples have 33 1/4" scales despite what the old brochures or spec sheets say.

The 33 1/2" shown for the scale length of the 4001 in the '75 catalog could have been a typo, a mistake on the part of what ever company printed up the catalogs.

A company I used to work for had business cards printed up for me by some printing company. On the business cards, they spelled my first name "Joesph"

No, it was not a typo. They used the average saddle position method back then. JH has since adopted the more precise method.

Some of the early catalogs also have repeated typos indicating 21 fret bass necks.

I have an early 80's catalog that shows the 4002 as having 20 frets.