Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'm looking into a used Rick 4003 that's a 2005 year model. How thick is the neck compared to a Fender jazz? I'm used to the Fender Jazz being thin, and hoping this 2005 Rick is similar. I've heard they kind of vary year to year, and even in the same year sometimes.

From what I remember, that year was still baseball bat sized necks.

I've got a 4003 from 1990 and it has very similar dimensions at the nut when compared to my Jazz Bass neck, and I generally prefer the RIC because the string spacing and neck width is more consistent all the way up the neck when compared to the Jazz. I think during the late 80's to early 90's necks were of this slimmer profile, with necks getting fatter by maybe 1993.

However, at this point I believe Rickenbacker was still hand-cutting and hand-shaping necks -- this was pre-CNC era Rickenbacker -- so there is definitely a potential for dimensional variance, regardless of year.

I believe also that there was a period during the new millenium -- it might even be recently-produced models -- where the neck profile became slimmer, but I don't have first-hand familiarity with RIC instruments newer than mine. People seem to be pretty happy with newly-produced 4003's, so you might want to play some new instruments.

From 2000-2010 odds were quite good you might get a pretty fat neck. By 2011 I think the necks were pretty consistent in width. As far as profile, they still vary a bit from bass to bass.

loverickbass wrote:From what I remember, that year was still baseball bat sized necks.

Got a msg and a pic back from the seller saying that it's 1 inch thick up and down the neck. Not sure if that's a "baseball bat" kind of thickness..??

I have a 2012 MG4003 and in my opinion the neck is quite chunky on this, (but still a C profile neck). Took some getting used to after the very slinky neck on my 1978 4001.

Batter up!

Get yourself a nice player 4001 from the 70's or mid 80's.