Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hello everyone!
I'm new here, and owner of a Jetglo 4001 from Oct. 1982. going by the serial number.
This machine is so badass I had to buy it on first play, putting down a deposit and saving up for some months as a student about 8 years ago.

It is a lovely guitar with great playability and sound and medium weight, but reading the official history of RIC basses I'm surprised by inconsistencies in details with my bass.

First it has the box-back Grovers, it has a center strip in the neck (only visible on the headstock, the back of the neck is smooth) and visible body wings, so I'd say a neck through construction. Is this a strange combination, or are Rics documentations more guidelines than carved-into-stone facts?

Also, on a different matter: the white pickguard is yellowing in spots, it looks like nicotine discolouration, but I think it's been getting worse since I bought it. Should I be concerned, or is this normal?
Plus it seems that it might have some tail-lift issues, but I thought the bridge was supposed to look like that, and it has not worsened visibly in the years I had it. Is that a point of concern?

It's been living ungigged in a non-smoking environment, mostly in a gigbag, with humidity around 40-45% most of the year, with lower percentages in the winter (in the 30s), and short periods (3-7 days) of high humidity (60-70%) in the spring and during summer.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for any useful information you share!

Satdog

... don't know about the impact of your local climate, we have another over here. But the boxend Grovers are correct for this early 4003 / late 4001 period. It could also have the 7-screw tailpeice, so the taillift should be overcome easily. Just do the "washer method" and after that fix the more downward screws a bit more. That should do the job. BTW Pics help a lot!

I haven't read up on the washer-method yet, but the lift is not something that seems to affect the instrument currently. It was there when I bought it, and hasn't changed visibly in the last 8 years, so I'd only do work on it if it's absolutely necessary.

I don't know how the body would take drilling new holes for a different tailpiece, and I don't want to risk seperation of the wings if it's indeed a real risk...
The current tailpiece has two visible crosshead screws between the bridge and the string.

I'll take and post photos later.

Thanks!

Satdog

P.S.: Ist mir garnicht aufgefallen dass Sie/Du aus Deutschland schreiben/st! Beste grüsse, und ein Frohes Neues Jahr!

Hi Satdog, Happy New Year to you and yours.

The washers go on the two screws visible. Between the tail piece and the body there is a small gap at that point. You have to play with the number of washers (no two gaps are alike). There is a little debate as to if this changes the sound of the instrument (if you feel it does you can always remove them). when you have the tail piece off look at the underneath - there are a couple of casting points where the 6th and 7th holes would be drilled (under the bell part of the tail piece). This type of mod shouldn't hurt anything as many have been done on the forum. you just might want to do it with a replacement tailpiece rather than the stock one as it cannot be undone easily if at all. I'm not sure about the wings stuff. Pictures would be helpful. I have a feeling that different cuts of wood expand and contract at different rates and amounts - wings being made from a different piece than the neck. Thus the difference. But brains with greater ability than mine would need to weigh in here.

ram wrote:The washers go on the two screws visible. Between the tail piece and the body there is a small gap at that point.

Hmm, I thought the washers/spacer block (if made instead of using washers) went under the three screws below the bridge, between the body and tailpiece as the cavity there is deeper than needed. The string pressure on the bridge and the space below it creates a fulcrum there that could potentially bend the tailpiece at that point.

Jeff,

+ 1. the three screws under the bridge is where there is normally a gap between the base of the tail piece and the well floor. Although slight, it exists to some degree on most of the basses I own. I constructed a maple shim on my Blackstar. The rest, I just make sure I don't crank these three screws, especially on the post aluminum and pre reenforced tail pieces.

Did the shim make a difference in sustain or playability? Not sure but for piece of mind, it did the trick.

Sepp

jps wrote:

ram wrote:The washers go on the two screws visible. Between the tail piece and the body there is a small gap at that point.

Hmm, I thought the washers/spacer block (if made instead of using washers) went under the three screws below the bridge, between the body and tailpiece as the cavity there is deeper than needed. The string pressure on the bridge and the space below it creates a fulcrum there that could potentially bend the tailpiece at that point.

Yes, that's the impression I've always had on the spacers.

And as for adding the 6th & 7th screws, this was actually something done by the factory for a while. Here's my '84 4003, which came with the "7-screw" tailpiece. No chance of tail lift here: Oh, and welcome to the forum!

I know it's been mentioned here that there was a huge out cry when the 7 screw tail pieces arrived from the factory. it's never been an issue fr me. It's not like you can't see the other two screws behind the bridge. I'd definitely opt to add the two screws if I was experiencing problematic tail lift.

Sepp

cjj wrote:

jps wrote:

ram wrote:The washers go on the two screws visible. Between the tail piece and the body there is a small gap at that point.

Hmm, I thought the washers/spacer block (if made instead of using washers) went under the three screws below the bridge, between the body and tailpiece as the cavity there is deeper than needed. The string pressure on the bridge and the space below it creates a fulcrum there that could potentially bend the tailpiece at that point.

Yes, that's the impression I've always had on the spacers.

My bad! Typing before thinking... that IS correct!

ram wrote:Typing before thinking...

I usually do that while talking! Typing gives me time to edit before posting.

CJ, my friend, Nice figuring on the MG!! Is that yours??

Sepp

Kopfjaeger wrote:CJ, my friend, Nice figuring on the MG!! Is that yours??

Sepp

Yep, looks like this with a bit better lighting to show the grain:

Yep that is a real corker. Happy New Year 2013!

cjj wrote:

jps wrote:

ram wrote:The washers go on the two screws visible. Between the tail piece and the body there is a small gap at that point.

Hmm, I thought the washers/spacer block (if made instead of using washers) went under the three screws below the bridge, between the body and tailpiece as the cavity there is deeper than needed. The string pressure on the bridge and the space below it creates a fulcrum there that could potentially bend the tailpiece at that point.

Yes, that's the impression I've always had on the spacers.

Thanks, this cleared up the matter

Thank you everyone, I'll post some pics soon, and ask you to check the lift, and if it's anything to worry about.

Happy New Year!

cjj wrote:

Kopfjaeger wrote:CJ, my friend, Nice figuring on the MG!! Is that yours??

Sepp

Yep, looks like this with a bit better lighting to show the grain:

4003_body.jpg

4003_body_back.jpg

And while I'm usually not a fan of natural finishes, this is a seriously good looking bass.