2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Vintage, Modern, V & C series, Fretless, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

User avatar
godber
Advanced Member
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:07 am

2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by godber »

I've noticed on a few sites displaying 2010 4003s (and reviewing the RRF Register) that the neck now joins higher than in 2009. It's now right on the end of the neck - it's similar to a 4001C64, but possibly (even allowing for the binding) even closer to the end of the neck. There also looks like a slight difference in the pickguard curve where it is closer to the body end from near the switch onwards. Anyone else noticed this in real life, or know of a reason for the change?

2009 on top and 2010 below
Image

Image
User avatar
bassduke49
Senior Member
Posts: 6580
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 5:00 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by bassduke49 »

We seem to be talking about a difference of around 1/4" and I think that is well within tolerances for a hand-finished instrument. The important things don't change: length of the neck-through slab upon which is mounted the tuners, fretboard, and tailpiece/bridge. Before the hardware is installed, the body wings are glued onto the center slab, and these body wings are what is really different among the examples in the photos. Since they are cut, bound, and sanded (to some extent) before they are attached to the body, the slight differences in position is tolerable. The pickguards shown are likely the same shape, but if the body wings are slightly different, the position of the pickguard in relation to the edge binding will look different, too.

And I don't think this is anything new. Vintage Rick basses show differences, some much more than seen here.
Author: "The Rickenbacker Electric Bass - 50 Years As Rock's Bottom"
User avatar
cassius987
Senior Member
Posts: 4723
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by cassius987 »

With the 2010 it is probably easier to play high-register notes. Maybe that's a reason for change. I have no idea whether this kind of difference is well within any sort of tolerance, or not.
User avatar
godber
Advanced Member
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:07 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by godber »

Paul, I’m slightly concerned that you appear to be defending something which I am not in any way attacking. I am not implying that this shape is an acceptable tolerance, I’m just displaying a healthy interest in planned Rickenbacker trends, like slimmer horns, longer headstocks etc. etc.
User avatar
bassduke49
Senior Member
Posts: 6580
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 5:00 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by bassduke49 »

Nope, just trying to explain that this may not be a "change" at all, and that instruments made tomorrow may not be exactly like any you've shown. I don't think it is a change in design or direction, but more a random happenstance, and that you're likely to see this kind of variation at any time. Here's an example: Here are Tony Cabibi's '78 Autumnglo 4001 (left) and '81 Walnut 4001. Look at the differences of the position of the body wing joints in relation to the fretboard -- almost a full fret's worth. So, I'm saying, don't count on this being a change; they're just different.
Attachments
WalATMweb.jpg
Author: "The Rickenbacker Electric Bass - 50 Years As Rock's Bottom"
User avatar
johnallg
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 17688
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:13 pm

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by johnallg »

What about camera angle? These are all CNC made instruments so the variations the pictures appear to show should not exist short of a programming change. Which I doubt. Grab your camera, be about 3 ft. above your Rick, then move left/right a tad and see how much a difference a small distance move makes on the appearance of where the wings meet the neck.
User avatar
gellkeller
Intermediate Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:32 pm
Contact:

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by gellkeller »

Image :?:
User avatar
rickenbrother
RRF Moderator
Posts: 13199
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 5:00 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by rickenbrother »

I like seeing all the subtle changes on Ricks. Makes it very interesting.
JETGLO should officially be renamed JETGLO ROCKS! :-)
User avatar
godber
Advanced Member
Posts: 2650
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:07 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by godber »

rickenbrother wrote:I like seeing all the subtle changes on Ricks. Makes it very interesting.
+1
User avatar
stevebasshead
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:34 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by stevebasshead »

I know what people are saying about camera angles and mayb e that's it, but I'm also looking at the way the upper horn curves down towards the neck. What I see on the 2009 is a continuous curve compared to the 2010 which seems to straighten out (but not completely) a nearer the neck, say from around half way. It's quite subtle and rather nice. This is a pattern I notice on early Ric's up to and through the 70s, maybe the factory have reprogrammed the CNC machines and have gone over to that shape now?
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by rickaddict »

I noticed what Mark is talking about back when this bass was being discussed:
CJ's4003.jpg
Actually, I think I noticed a little earlier but this one really made me go back and check other recent 4003's because the checkered binding made the change more apparent to me. I think it's a CNC change.

Not necessarily good or bad, but I think the horns might be a tad slimmer as well.
User avatar
jps
RRF Consultant
Posts: 37497
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:00 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by jps »

rickaddict wrote:I think the horns might be a tad slimmer as well.
They look the same as this '08 4003:
rickaddict
Senior Member
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by rickaddict »

jps wrote:
rickaddict wrote:I think the horns might be a tad slimmer as well.
They look the same as this '08 4003:
I disagree, sir. I think the upper horn on the JG (which is the 2010) in Mark's example looks just a tiny bit slimmer than your '08, and I think where the wings meet the fretboard is a bit further up as well. Compare body wings on your JG vs the 2010 JG pictured above against the 20th fret. That's not a camera angle illusion. And this is not the only bass like it either.
User avatar
jps
RRF Consultant
Posts: 37497
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:00 am

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by jps »

I agree the treble side is cut shorter, but I think the shape of the upper horns are pretty much the same.
User avatar
heinpete
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 10:08 pm

Re: 2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

Post by heinpete »

rickaddict wrote:...I think it's a CNC change...
If it is consitent with at least 2 basses, then I strongly assume a CNC-Change. Otherwise I could think of the first part cut at adaption of CNC installation, a real so called "prototype". :shock: AH, collectors item!!! :shock:
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Basses: by Joey Vasco & Tony Cabibe”