Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Thanks to Glenn Tranter for pointing me in this direction.

I've owned my 1964 4001s/RM1999 since 1979. I do occasionally cheat on it with a Spector NS-4 or Musicman Sterling though. The Ricky only gets posh gigs.

Here's a picture:

Welcome Dai!

A bit worse for wear but it looks like it is all there (minus the finger rest - do you have that?).

I love the wear. Mojo!

I think I took the thumb rest off and chucked it years ago when there was no such thing as a vintage Rick. Ditto the dampers. Useless things for me anyway. It got it cheaper than the going rate for used Ricks at the time because it was a bit battered. Times have changed. Got some issues. Had a neck break which was well repaired. Truss rods still work. Pickup was a later replacement non-horseshoe type. Got a reissue in there but would like to stretch to a Lollar which is nearer to the original as far as I can tell. Plays, sounds and looks great though. Except it desparately needs a sympathetic refret. It's almost a fretless right now.

Looks pretty perfect to me!
Welcome to RRF!
If the Lollar's pickup price throws you off,i can recommend Classic Amplification's "60's flattop" as a possible replacement. It will be a lot more classic sounding than the RIHS. (At less than 1/3 the price of the Lollar).

Thanks for the tip Woody. I must admit though that I've just fired off a missive to Jason asking about availability of the Lollar. The old girl just deserves the best. I'm amazed at how sloppy the RIHS is. Fake magnets not even bent into a parallel horseshoe. Is my pre-1979 button PU worth anything?

slipperyjim wrote:...Fake magnets not even bent into a parallel horseshoe.

The RI HS PU originally has parallel tangs. In more recent years the tangs were set angled to allow for more range of adjustment downward before hitting the tops of the strings. And, there is historical precedent for that, too.

Welcome Dai! Love those '60's "S" basses!

Welcome Dai!

Man, what a thing of beauty. I LOVE well-played original guitars. The amount of wear on this one is just perfect - please don't ever refinish it!

Hate to sound picky, but I'd like to see MORE pics of this gem!

slipperyjim wrote:Thanks for the tip Woody. I must admit though that I've just fired off a missive to Jason asking about availability of the Lollar. The old girl just deserves the best.

Is my pre-1979 button PU worth anything?

I would tend to agree,if you want the best for your bass,might as well pay the price!
I'm fairly frugal,and have to weigh the pros and cons of such purchases.

As for your higain,I'm not a collector,so my take on that is there are people who are willing to pay (usually too much) for authentic vintage parts. (I'm not one of them,for the most part.) The old higains do sound good,though.

Thanks for the info Jeffrey. I'll consider myself educated

IMHO the RIHS pups look great but don't reproduce the vintage tone one might expect. The Lollar HS pups are much better in this regard.

Also, like the original HS, the Lollars are wound to a low dc resistance, so the output should be a better match to your neck toaster than the RIHS.

antipodean wrote:IMHO the RIHS pups look great but don't reproduce the vintage tone one might expect. The Lollar HS pups are much better in this regard.

Also, like the original HS, the Lollars are wound to a low dc resistance, so the output should be a better match to your neck toaster than the RIHS.

Agreed,and the CA pickups are made to have more of the classic tone and output,as well. They just don't have the shoes....

jps wrote:

slipperyjim wrote:...Fake magnets not even bent into a parallel horseshoe.

The RI HS PU originally has parallel tangs. In more recent years the tangs were set angled to allow for more range of adjustment downward before hitting the tops of the strings. And, there is historical precedent for that, too.

Interesting statement. I was under the impression that the angle of the shoes, the upper 'tangs' were where the magnetic field was strongest and were thus angled slightly upwards.