Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

It's the same for every set-neck 4000 I've seen. The neck joins the body at a different angle compared to neck-thru 4001/4003's.

Look at this one on eBay for example.
The bridge is off-center.

The pickup is twice the distance from the lower body edge than to the upper body edge.

The pickguard (standard period-correct shape and size) is way too far from the lower body edge.

The upper horn does not align with the upper body "hip" and looks too tall.

It's like the body has been rotated counter-clockwise (the white "shadow" is the real 4000).
Why did they make them like that? Anyone? John Hall? Rickenbacker historians? Anyone?

You are correct, set neck 4000s are skewed in comparison to their neck through brothers and sisters.
Simple reason? The neck route jig was a bit off axis....
However this error does not stop the 4000 from being totally awesome!

Eden.

weemac wrote:Simple reason? The neck route jig was a bit off axis....

You'd think someone would have noticed after a day or two and fixed it. But the whole production run?

ilan wrote:

weemac wrote:Simple reason? The neck route jig was a bit off axis....

You'd think someone would have noticed after a day or two and fixed it. But the whole production run?

A slanted neck is easier to produce than slanted frets...

I'm looking at the back of the body now, the center joint goes straight from the neck skunk stripe to the rear strap button. So it doesn't look like just an off-axis neck-pocket. The neck is in perfect straight line with the body's center joint. This was done on purpose. But what purpose?

BTW the bass in the pic sold for $810... someone (not me!) got a good deal even for a skewed bass

...for me it seems just the PU displaced ("slanted", maybe even the routing is that way?) and the bridge displaced accordingly so the pole pieces have a slight chance again to align with the strings. Poor manufacturing I guess .

heinpete wrote:...for me it seems just the PU displaced ("slanted", maybe even the routing is that way?) and the bridge displaced accordingly so the pole pieces have a slight chance again to align with the strings. Poor manufacturing I guess .

The strings line up on the neck however.
It must be that the jigs to make the body halls are more different than the 4001 jigs than we would have expected..

I wonder if the 480s used the same body jig?

Eden.

ilan wrote:BTW the bass in the pic sold for $810... someone (not me!) got a good deal even for a skewed bass

Darn! That is a good deal indeed!

I always wondered that myself, and that always turned me off to set neck 4000's.
would LOVE to find an early neck thru one though!

The neck on my 4001S might go into the body at a different angle than a 4001/4003/4004 but who ever picks it up to play it, in falls in love with it's playability and sound. Next to my 4004s, it's my second favorite bass guitar to play. Seen in my avatar ----->

Great....now ya'll have ruined another one for me! More wonky facts than I can stand!

rickenbrother wrote:The neck on my 4001S might go into the body at a different angle than a 4001/4003/4004 but who ever picks it up to play it, in falls in love with it's playability and sound. Next to my 4004s, it's my second favorite bass guitar to play. Seen in my avatar ----->

Same thing goes for my 4001S and 4000 from 1972. Yet, my 4001S is my number 1 bass.

heinpete wrote:...for me it seems just the PU displaced ("slanted", maybe even the routing is that way?) and the bridge displaced accordingly so the pole pieces have a slight chance again to align with the strings. Poor manufacturing I guess .

Yeah but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. These play just fine apparently. I suspect the factory didn't detect any issues in final setup/playability QC so the basses got shipped out the door and the jigs never changed or "fixed".