Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 3D1&_rdc=1

http://s304.photobucket.com/albums/nn18 ... 7/008/224/

It looks like a pretty good bass, but it has:

1) a couple of extra holes around the bridge

2) a hole in the pickguard that shouldn't be there


Everything else looks original to my eye......what do you guys think?

What do you think it's worth?

cheers -

Richard

I'm not sure but I think I see a repaired neck crack where it typically happens when the rods are tightened without support.

No pics under the tailpiece but the holes on either side may indicate that a non-original bridge was there at one time. I'm guessing a BadAss and the holes are for a plate to cover the larger Ric tailpiece footprint. I'm pretty sure it's routed for a BA under the Ric tailpiece (which is repositioned too high, it's not dead on the center line).

The wiring is a mess. An extra hole in the pickguard is another evidence.

Non original strap buttons.

No handrest. Slot-head height adjustment screws.

Bridge pickup reversed - usually the wear mark is on top (bobbin used as thumb anchor)

Deteriorating crushed pearl inlays.

Looks like a refret.

I don't like what's under the TRC. Another makeshift spacer and the plate isn't in place.

Reissue neck toaster with longer magnets.

Bridge pickup route was widened, but the surround covers it.

Mute pad looks too new. One thumb screw is also probably new.

It obviously had a refret, the strap pins are not original, the FWCMOP inlays are in bad condition , some even worn of at the edge of fingerboard, the bridge has some non original screw, a.s.o.
I frankly speeking think that this was a try to bring it back to some close to original condition , but it has been heavily modified before (tailpiece and pick guard). Rather an instrument for a refin and restoration by Jingle Jangle.
Taking this into consideration I wouldn't pay more than a grand.

Treble pickup looks newer, with button tops. My '73 plus others I've seen have screw tops. Lotsa pics though, definitely not hiding anything!

too heavily 'un-modded'

I agree with has been said so far. There are better ones out there.

TRC is wrong...perhaps it came off a V63, etc.

I've been scoping '73 4001 basses for a while now, and the primo examples usually command hefty prices. I like this one, and would probably jump on it were it not for the crack near headstock.

http://cgi.ebay.com/1973-RICKENBACKER-R ... 53e5ab144b

I'm guessing that crack would not hurt the function of the bass.

Now it has a $2,500 "Buy it now"

I think you can do better , the seller asking alot for a restored bass and the condition is not that great,keep looking and you'll find exactly what you are looking for.It took me over three years to find the exact bass that I was looking for and for a decent price.Yours is out there just be patient it will be worth the wait.

badeggs wrote:TRC is wrong

Of course it is. How did I miss that?

glking14 wrote:I think you can do better , the seller asking alot for a restored bass and the condition is not that great,keep looking and you'll find exactly what you are looking for.It took me over three years to find the exact bass that I was looking for and for a decent price.Yours is out there just be patient it will be worth the wait.

That's restored?

Sorry a restoration attempt

Can't comment much on quality, but it's a mod job more than a resto. I'm guilty of this misstatement, too. It's shorthand sometimes for "non-original".

ilan wrote:

badeggs wrote:TRC is wrong

Of course it is. How did I miss that?

You caught everything else - good eye!