Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hey everybody, how ya doin? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the later model V63s have a smaller headstock than the earlier ones? That's why the TRC on the later models looks a little much, right? Mark

From what I have figured out, the headstock itself it not smaller but the curved areas from the nut up to the points near the E and G tuners is shorter giving the impression that the headstock is smaller. There are some differences in the overall shape but they are more similar than they are different.

I believe the headstocks on the V63 model thru the mid-'90s are a bit longer. Here's a comparison:

To clarify my statement, the overall length is indeed longer on the earlier ones but the bulk of the difference is between the nut and those points.

The headstock log plates on the newer instruments are larger as well, furthering the illusion that the new headstocks are much smaller.

As best as I can compare, the curved area of my 4005WB is around 5/16" - 3/8" longer than that of the later V63/current 4003.

The headstock on your 4005 looks goofy.

....not that I'd mind rocking it, by any means....

s4001 wrote:The headstock on your 4005 looks goofy.

....not that I'd mind rocking it, by any means....

I think that's because of the large diameter tuning posts.

May 1993 V63 headstock, fwiw.

Yea John, look how your TRC looks proper. I refer to semitry when I say that. The TRC doesn't extend all the way out to the edge of the headstock. It does on the later models, which to my eye, looks a little awkward. Still great looking basses. Mark

ricmic wrote:The TRC doesn't extend all the way out to the edge of the headstock. It does on the later models, which to my eye, looks a little awkward.

Some of the very earliest 4000 basses from the late '50s had TRCs that extended almost to the end of the headstock, so it really is "correct" historically speaking. Once I saw some photos of that I had no issue with it any longer.

the pictures posted by Ken show that the long headstock is not (necessarily) vintage correct....?

or maybe that was valid only for the early 60s Model 4000

jps wrote: Some of the very earliest 4000 basses from the late '50s had TRCs that extended almost to the end of the headstock, so it really is "correct" historically speaking. Once I saw some photos of that I had no issue with it any longer.

Yeah, but this isn't a re-issue of a late 50's 4000, it's a re-issue of a 1964 RM1999 and as such it should have been made to resemble a 1964 RM1999.

Why the headstock was changed in 1997 (1998?) to make it less like the bass that it was supposed to be a replica of I will never understand.

Sorry to be a fuddy duddy!

If we're going to compare a 4001V63 headstock with a real vintage Rick to see how accurate a reproduction the V63 is, I think we should be comparing it with a '64 RM 1999 and not a late 50's/early 60's 4000.

Here's a good example of a real RM 1999 headstock, from Mr. Trott in Oz:

http://www.rickresource.com/register/us ... llsize.jpg

And a 1993 4001V63 from somewhere in New York:

http://www.rickresource.com/register/us ... llsize.jpg

Not a perfect replica (could use Kluson-style nickel plated reverse tuners, smaller ferrules, and a black nut among other things), but much closer than the V63's made after 1997 IMO.