Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Anyone that have played the 2010s and 2009s see any significant differences in the necks?
Jack

The early 2009's were kinda beefy, but by mid year or so, they got thinner. My 2010 is nice and thin, but then, it's not exactly a "standard" 4003 neck...

Played a 2010 Mapleglo 4003 just earlier today and the neck was very comfortable, nice and thin. Especially compared to my '03. Can't say about the 09's

cjj wrote:The early 2009's were kinda beefy, but by mid year or so, they got thinner.

Ditto--after April 2009 it should be pretty consistently thin. My 2010 body/neck does seem to be equal or thinner than my 2008 neck, which is already quite thin to start out with. However it's a lot more stable than the 2008 neck... being two-piece and all, the truss rods barely need any tightening to straighten it.

my buddy's jetglo 2009 is pretty thick. will find out the month.

cassius987 wrote:Ditto--after April 2009 it should be pretty consistently thin. My 2010 body/neck does seem to be equal or thinner than my 2008 neck, which is already quite thin to start out with. However it's a lot more stable than the 2008 neck... being two-piece and all, the truss rods barely need any tightening to straighten it.

The 2-piece neck is actually a great progress in mamging the stability of the senitive RIC bass necks. In the past the skunk stripe of the skinny 4001 necks did some of this enhancement, but not to the extent that was necessary when round wound strings were applied. With the beefier 4003 one piece necks the stability was improved but I still found some issue (e.g. side bending). Now the latest structural change with the new 2-piece neck (it seems like the two parts are glued in diametrical orientation of the wood structure/grain) allowed to go back to a thinner neck and at the same time further improving the strength of it.

heinpete wrote:

cassius987 wrote:Ditto--after April 2009 it should be pretty consistently thin. My 2010 body/neck does seem to be equal or thinner than my 2008 neck, which is already quite thin to start out with. However it's a lot more stable than the 2008 neck... being two-piece and all, the truss rods barely need any tightening to straighten it.

The 2-piece neck is actually a great progress in mamging the stability of the senitive RIC bass necks. In the past the skunk stripe of the skinny 4001 necks did some of this enhancement, but not to the extent that was necessary when round wound strings were applied. With the beefier 4003 one piece necks the stability was improved but I still found some issue (e.g. side bending). Now the latest structural change with the new 2-piece neck (it seems like the two parts are glued in diametrical orientation of the wood structure/grain) allowed to go back to a thinner neck and at the same time further improving the strength of it.

But it's really a step backwards, to the original 4003 neck design.

Here's my '84 4003:

I have an early 2009 (jan), and its ticker than my 1984 and 1974 models. Trying hard to get used to it.

cjj wrote:But it's really a step backwards, to the original 4003 neck design.

Those weren't true quarter-sawn. The new ones are (and now including the 4004).

johnhall wrote:

cjj wrote:But it's really a step backwards, to the original 4003 neck design.

Those weren't true quarter-sawn. The new ones are (and now including the 4004).

Ah, thanks for the correction! I wasn't aware that they were different cuts...

I guess technically quartersawn wood should make the two-piece thing more effective.

I actually think the three-piece construction of the 4001 must have been very tough indeed, or at least it is in the case of my 4001FL. That bass is the epitome of "straight as an arrow Rickenbacker"--yes, my others can do that too but the 4001FL will pretty much ONLY do that! Doesn't matter whether I take the strings off, put big strings on, etc... that neck stays put. I know the truss rods are a factor as well.

My take is that the neck stability improvements were done to also address dead spot issues and it looks like Ric has accomplished that goal. People liked the "thin" necks, but they would also be inherently less stable and more prone to sympathetic resonant vibration.

my buddy's 2009 is made in april. thicker neck.

cassius987 wrote:I guess technically quartersawn wood should make the two-piece thing more effective.

I actually think the three-piece construction of the 4001 must have been very tough indeed, or at least it is in the case of my 4001FL. That bass is the epitome of "straight as an arrow Rickenbacker"--yes, my others can do that too but the 4001FL will pretty much ONLY do that! Doesn't matter whether I take the strings off, put big strings on, etc... that neck stays put. I know the truss rods are a factor as well.

I had a 74 4001 with all old features, very flat thin neck, 1/2" spacing, Grovers etc and that neck was so stable I had to put on heavy gauge Fender flatwounds to move it all all, it was a little too flat for me when I first got it, it had absolutely no relief in it at all at took several weeks with the flatwounds on it to move at all. Why? Have no idea.

rictified wrote: I had a 74 4001 with all old features, very flat thin neck, 1/2" spacing, Grovers etc and that neck was so stable I had to put on heavy gauge Fender flatwounds to move it all all, it was a little too flat for me when I first got it, it had absolutely no relief in it at all at took several weeks with the flatwounds on it to move at all. Why? Have no idea.

The same with my '74 4001 FG (currently with Paul W. for refin and overhaul). The head had some cracks (probably due to a stage-(neck-)dive) when I got it, however the fingerboard and neck were extremely (for RIC terms) stable. This was my first 4001 ( I had 5 of them) which could bear roundwounds without fingerboard separation when adjusting the truss rods (and there was still a lot of tolerance in them).