Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hello, new forum member here,

I've been looking into 4005s recentley and I would love to get one at some point but as we all know, they are expensive and hard to find and Rickenbacker has no plans to reintroduce them. So, I was wondering, are they worth the money they sell for (when they are up for sale)? or have they just become "legendary" because of how rare they are. Do they have superior tone and playabilty (subjective of course)? Has anyone ever tried one and thought "I'll stick to my 4001/4003 thank you"? And I wonder if anyone bought one after years of saving and tracking one down and then became disappointed with it?

James

Hi James,

I love them. The look, the feel, the sound. But you say, it's subjective.

I've heard a rumor that Jeff Scott has a 4005WB, although I've never seen a picture of it He'd have a pretty good idea.......as the forum's most famous exponent of the 4005.

I've search many times for them.....and never been disappointed......even when one arrived with a cracked neck!

I think they are very cool from a collector standpoint, but the ones I've played (which does not include Jeff's infamous one) are really not so hot. I think it's one of those things you either love or hate.

In this topic you can hear one inbetween various other Rickenbacker basses. I love mine, but I am a Rickenbacker nut. I would only advise a 4005 if you allready have several other Rickenbacker's. 4003's are more allround usable.

JM82 wrote:Has anyone ever tried one and thought "I'll stick to my 4001/4003 thank you"?

Apparently, the general guitar-buying public did, at least up until 1984! It was a dog in its day.

I, like some others, didn't even hear of it until the R. Smith book ('88?), and upon seeing it fell in love with it because it's weird, and because of the way it's a middle ground stylistically between a 360 and a 4001.

Sound-wise? I have mine strung with flats, so it sounds like, well, a hollowbody bass with flats, sorta kinda like a Höfner or a Gretsch bass of the era. It goes thump. Not as thumpey as a Höfner, I guess. Halfway between thump and gonk. (Thonk? Gump?)

Others here can chime in on the tones they get with their 4005s.

berth wrote:I love mine, but I am a Rickenbacker nut. I would only advise a 4005 if you allready have several other Rickenbacker's. 4003's are more allround usable.

+1

Sound-wise? I have mine strung with flats, so it sounds like, well, a hollowbody bass with flats, sorta kinda like a Höfner or a Gretsch bass of the era. It goes thump. Not as thumpey as a Höfner, I guess. Halfway between thump and gonk. (Thonk? Gump?)

Mine strung with TI flats and played through an old SVT is definitely a thonker/gumper

I have a '67, love it. I have Pyramid flats (yikes) but can get a clanky thump, depending how hard I smack the strings. I've had RW Rotosounds, nylon, every string imaginable on it. Great neck, totally unique vibe. If the upper horn were proportioned more like a 360, rather than (I assume) suggesting the 4001 profile, it'd be a prettier guitar, IMO. As it is, it's quite phallic. Not that I notice those kinds of thing.

The best 60's hippie hollow there is, but...still a 60's hippie hollow!

By the mid 80's the hippies were corporate, and RIC had seen enough. No more tuna boats!

Disclaimer:
I did play a quite beautiful 68 a few years back, that was super clean, wonderful neck and it was perfect for that Entwistle/Tommy tone...

Summary~ An expensive anachronism. Now, if you will excuse me, it's time to go play the B side of "Monday, Monday"...

Thanks for the views all. I've always wondered about the hype around the 4005. I love the look of them and the idea of it being semi hollow giving a different twist on the Ric bass sound. I'll have to keep my eyes open for one to try out here in the UK to see what they're like in the flesh. And then I can see whether i'll need to a) save up spare cash every month for years and years or b) take out a loan!!

i am also in general agreement with the opinions given here. i had one for about 6 monthes,thought it sounded "unique",but not what i was looking for at the time (this was 25 years or so ago) . i recently played paul w.'s reproduction and absolutely loved it! It was outfitted with roundwounds,but i think it would sound perfect with flats. i do tend to think for the price point-i would just buy another lakland hollow body bass,even the full american made model would be a good deal less than one of these-of course,they are not as pretty.....!

I got to play John Biscuti's 1974 (IIRC) Burgundy 4005 WB (now Graham's) and it was a joy to play. Awesome neck and overall feel. I echo the tone comments of the others, adding you can add more brightness with the bridge pickup. I also got to play Kenny's and the same applies. Rickenbacker character but a different chapter.

My 4005 does not really sound very hollow at all in my humble opinion. It sounds more like my other Rickenbacker's but with a slightly different character. Am I alone in this view?

berth wrote:My 4005 does not really sound very hollow at all in my humble opinion. It sounds more like my other Rickenbacker's but with a slightly different character. Am I alone in this view?

Nope!

I have never had my 4005WB (remember it doesn't exist), of which no photos exist , since 1973. Lots of different string types have been on it, from Rotos to Reds and Chromes to TI Jazz Flats (currently), all producing great tone respective of the strings on the bass. The .0047 cap had been replaced before I got it (so some people did know what to do way back then), Squire to McCartney tones can be wrought from a 4005, no problem.

Fancy this!

I found a photo of Graham with my bass (remember, photos do not exist of this bass, so, is this really Graham?)

My 4005 sounds like nothing else... well, more precisely, nothing at all... since I don't have one... YET!