Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I was on the Rick website comparing specs between the 4003 and the 4004cii. The 4003 says Yes to Neck Binding and the 4004cii says No. What exactly is neck binding and what are the pros and cons? Thanks
Jack

Binding is the white plastic-y edging on either side of the neck, as well as the edge of the body on the 4003

Neck binding is the (usually) white binding around the bubinga fretboard.
Pro or con? Looks and preference.

Neck binding = a strip of plastic next to the fingerboard. Many instruments have this feature.

Pros: Looks good.

Cons: Usually is more expensive, may be a bit more uncomfortable due to sharper edges.

I wouldn't be too concerned about binding. If you like the look, that's cool, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor, especially between those two models.



^ Binding on a 4003 neck.

Hahahahaha!!!!! We were all typing at the same time!

Lol, there's 3 different answers for you, Jack!

The purpose of binding (apart from looks) is to cushion/protect the edges. Wood will ding, but plastic will spring back as long as you didn't bash it too hard!

- Scott

neck binding will, except for looking better, also give a slightly smoother feel to the neck.
Rickenbacker doesn't let the frets run over the bindings which makes the fret length a little smaller than on an unbound neck.
It does not matter much on a bass, but on a twelve string you can cut the nut just that bit wider on an unbound neck to get a little more comfortable feel.
On an unbound neck it is also possible (not likely on a high class instrument though) that the frets will stick out when the fretboard wood shrinks a little over time or with season changes.
This could be annoying or even hurt you in a bad case.
Good luck with the learning curve, there's a lot of great people and a lot to learn on this forum!

Neck binding is usually (not always) accompanied by body binding and large inlays in the fret board. Sometimes the headstock is also bound and inlaid. It's a traditional mark of a fancy instrument. This is true of most most makers, not just Rickenbacker.

You guys got it going on with the responses! thanks

I've heard that binding was mainly used back in the day to disguise where wood was joined together. Now with more guitars being made with solid pieces, there's less of a similar need, but the look has stuck. Perfect example: PRS solid bodies that look like they have binding, but it's really just where they've masked off the edge during painting.

Another pro of binding the neck is that frets can't poke out and stab you if the wood shrinks in a dry season.

A con of neck binding is that a re-fret is more expensive. Of course, frets are a bigger con than binding.

jdogric12 wrote:I've heard that binding was mainly used back in the day to disguise where wood was joined together.

That's true also, but for the bodies. To disguise and to protect. On a neck it's mostly aesthetic.

wim wrote:except for looking better

That's a VERY debatable statement.