Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Why ‘d they switch to the name “4003”?
Besides the new t-rod design and beefier necks, aren’t they the same?

I cover this same point in my book. It comes down to the company wanting to distinguish the new improved construction from the 4001, for which they still had inventory and were still receiving orders. In the listings in the early '80s, they described the 4001 had flat-wound strings, and the 4003 had round-wound strings. This situation lasted for the first few years of the '80s.

Ha!! And I have the book! I shoulda checked there first!

My 78' Jetglo 4001 came strung with flats. The salesman gave me the little boilerplate lecture about roundwounds voiding the warranty...... and then proceeded to sell me a set of Roto 66, like EVERYBODY else who bought a Ric. I wanted to be Squire, not McCartney! Never had a lick of trouble with that neck tension-wise, but the fretwire was unusually soft. The rounds chewed them up in about 3 years of normal play. I suspect that was the real reason for the warranty restriction, not string tension.

Also perhaps worth considering the 3 neck lamination's on the 4001, and only 2 on the early 4003.
Dirk

Dirk wrote:Also perhaps worth considering the 3 neck lamination's on the 4001, and only 2 on the early 4003.
Dirk

True, but there were also different constructions within the 4001 and the 4003 models over the years, so you can't necessarily use the number of laminations to differentiate one from 'tuther!

Hey Paul,
that's a great point thinking back to my old '69 4001, it was only 2 piece as well.
Sure wish I never got rid of that jewel.

Another thing the bridge difference with the extra back screws to prevent lift was a supposed upgrade on the 4003.
Dirk

Dirk wrote:...thinking back to my old '69 4001, it was only 2 piece as well.

Dirk

Are you including the fingerboard as one of those pieces?

Usually, when discussing neck construction, the number of neck laminates exclude the fingerboard. For example, a 4001 with the center shedua strip would be called a 3 piece neck (not including the fingerboard).

Dirk wrote:Hey Paul,
that's a great point thinking back to my old '69 4001, it was only 2 piece as well.
Sure wish I never got rid of that jewel.

Another thing the bridge difference with the extra back screws to prevent lift was a supposed upgrade on the 4003.
Dirk

Actually, there were several different tailpieces over the 4001 production, and several in the 4003 production. The "seven screw" tailpiece (most modern tailpieces have five screws, three under the bridge, two further "aft" of the bridge) was a fix to counter tail lift found on some late '80s 4003, especially the "black" ones (powder-coated) weakened by the heating necessary for the painting process. Most of the story is in the book.

Hey Jeffrey,
yes indeed not including the fingerboard, or the extra 2 on the head stock.
The '81 4003 neck is two really different pieces of maple. The top half is tiger, the bottom half is actually quilted.

And thanks for that info Paul, yeah the 4003 has 4 screws showing, so assuming 3 under, never needed to pull it apart.
The '69 4001 I had used the sand toothed bridge, and being the trend at the time it was accosted with a BadassII and of course rounds.

Dirk

Dirk wrote:Hey Jeffrey,
yes indeed not including the fingerboard, or the extra 2 on the head stock.
The '81 4003 neck is two really different pieces of maple. The top half is tiger, the bottom half is actually quilted.

Dirk

I could see that on an '81 4003, for sure, but my comment was directed towards you old '69 4001 that you mentioned, specifically.

Oh yeah sorry about the confusion, if I recall correctly the '69 was a 1 piece neck.
With the classic walnut head stock addons and full width crushed inlays.
Dirk