4001C64 – Heavenly Seven
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:53 pm
I appreciate much of what’s been posted on this forum. Many threads are informative, entertaining, and revealing. I’ve learned much and would like to return the favor. 
This thread has some eye-candy I think you’ll enjoy, as well as some observations that might be enlightening. My goal is to contribute something of value. This is, after all, one of the forums many enthusiasts visit to learn about Rickenbacker products, and view pictures that never cease to tantalize the senses. I would also welcome your personal observations and input regarding my favorite bass, the 4001C64 & 4001C64S.
Where to begin? Well, let’s take a look at my C64 family portrait.
Like the boys from across the pond sang, “One, two, three, four, five, six, seven; all good children go to heaven.”
Hence, my Heavenly Seven (click on pic to enlarge)…
There are some pretty nice difference between the gals and fellows.
The Fireglo, for example, has changed over the years. Here’s my 2005 and 2010. Their difference is stunning.
Next, I’d like to share something that not everyone might be aware of; headstock thickness. Not all C64 sweethearts are identical. That’s just one of the many aspects that differentiate and distinguish them. Let’s take a look.
You’ll notice that the thickness varies. I measured (using a micrometer) the thickness of all seven. Here are their measurements:
0.740”
0.733”
0.722”
0.645”
0.640”
0.619”
0.619”
The ones with the heavier girt are males I suspect.
Another contrasting difference is how far the walnut wings extend down the neck.
There is also some variation with respect to the distance between where the walnut wings mate with the maple neck and the inner curve of the headstock crest. Also, there is a difference regarding how much of the maple neck shows between the upper and lower curves of the truss rod cover and the walnut wings.
Did you notice the stellar grain on the one headstock? Let’s look at the rear, shall we.
Stunning, isn’t it!
And of course, there’s always the visual delight of the fingerboard. Sorry, these pics don’t do the grain justice.
Neck thickness (back of neck to the top of the fingerboard) seems to be the same. At least by general feel.
They all sound and play…, well…, they’re magnificent. Better make that spectacular.
And my favorite part of their collective distinction, you guessed it, their reversed headstock.
Hope you enjoyed viewing this as much as I had putting it together.
Oh, just one more thing. I read something in another thread that captured the essence of what we do. I hope ajish4 doesn’t mind me quoting him.
“Here in forumland, we tend to analyze every minute curve, horn, pickup placement etc. By in large I think the average player doesn't care for all the minute things we forumites obsess about. They just want to own & play the darn thing.” - Ajisk4; Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:50 am.
Cheers!
This thread has some eye-candy I think you’ll enjoy, as well as some observations that might be enlightening. My goal is to contribute something of value. This is, after all, one of the forums many enthusiasts visit to learn about Rickenbacker products, and view pictures that never cease to tantalize the senses. I would also welcome your personal observations and input regarding my favorite bass, the 4001C64 & 4001C64S.
Where to begin? Well, let’s take a look at my C64 family portrait.
Like the boys from across the pond sang, “One, two, three, four, five, six, seven; all good children go to heaven.”
Hence, my Heavenly Seven (click on pic to enlarge)…
There are some pretty nice difference between the gals and fellows.
The Fireglo, for example, has changed over the years. Here’s my 2005 and 2010. Their difference is stunning.
Next, I’d like to share something that not everyone might be aware of; headstock thickness. Not all C64 sweethearts are identical. That’s just one of the many aspects that differentiate and distinguish them. Let’s take a look.
You’ll notice that the thickness varies. I measured (using a micrometer) the thickness of all seven. Here are their measurements:
0.740”
0.733”
0.722”
0.645”
0.640”
0.619”
0.619”
The ones with the heavier girt are males I suspect.
Another contrasting difference is how far the walnut wings extend down the neck.
There is also some variation with respect to the distance between where the walnut wings mate with the maple neck and the inner curve of the headstock crest. Also, there is a difference regarding how much of the maple neck shows between the upper and lower curves of the truss rod cover and the walnut wings.
Did you notice the stellar grain on the one headstock? Let’s look at the rear, shall we.
Stunning, isn’t it!
And of course, there’s always the visual delight of the fingerboard. Sorry, these pics don’t do the grain justice.
Neck thickness (back of neck to the top of the fingerboard) seems to be the same. At least by general feel.
They all sound and play…, well…, they’re magnificent. Better make that spectacular.
And my favorite part of their collective distinction, you guessed it, their reversed headstock.
Hope you enjoyed viewing this as much as I had putting it together.
Oh, just one more thing. I read something in another thread that captured the essence of what we do. I hope ajish4 doesn’t mind me quoting him.
“Here in forumland, we tend to analyze every minute curve, horn, pickup placement etc. By in large I think the average player doesn't care for all the minute things we forumites obsess about. They just want to own & play the darn thing.” - Ajisk4; Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:50 am.
Cheers!
