Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I remember someone on this forum suggesting a long time ago that a solution for avoiding tail lift on a 4001c64 vintage style 3-screw tailpiece would be to secure a brass string-retaining block to the body of the bass under rear end of the tailpiece so that string tension be applied to the block rather than to the tail piece itself. It seems that Rickenbacker has done something like this with the new 4003v2 tailpiece. Is there any reason to think that the string retainer supplied with the v2 tailpiece could not be installed under a c64 tailpiece to achieve the same effect? I have not seen any pictures of the underside of the v2 tailpiece, but I assume that anything that would fit under the rear cavity would likely fit under the same cavity on the old tailpieces.

ibal wrote:I remember someone on this forum suggesting a long time ago that a solution for avoiding tail lift on a 4001c64 vintage style 3-screw tailpiece would be to secure a brass string-retaining block to the body of the bass under rear end of the tailpiece so that string tension be applied to the block rather than to the tail piece itself. It seems that Rickenbacker has done something like this with the new 4003v2 tailpiece. Is there any reason to think that the string retainer supplied with the v2 tailpiece could not be installed under a c64 tailpiece to achieve the same effect? I have not seen any pictures of the underside of the v2 tailpiece, but I assume that anything that would fit under the rear cavity would likely fit under the same cavity on the old tailpieces.

The rear cavity area of the new tailpiece may be deeper so as to hide the retaining block, perhaps.

jps wrote:

ibal wrote:I remember someone on this forum suggesting a long time ago that a solution for avoiding tail lift on a 4001c64 vintage style 3-screw tailpiece would be to secure a brass string-retaining block to the body of the bass under rear end of the tailpiece so that string tension be applied to the block rather than to the tail piece itself. It seems that Rickenbacker has done something like this with the new 4003v2 tailpiece. Is there any reason to think that the string retainer supplied with the v2 tailpiece could not be installed under a c64 tailpiece to achieve the same effect? I have not seen any pictures of the underside of the v2 tailpiece, but I assume that anything that would fit under the rear cavity would likely fit under the same cavity on the old tailpieces.

The rear cavity area of the new tailpiece may be deeper so as to hide the retaining block, perhaps.

Sadly the answer is .. No (I think) .... I bought two of the new tailpieces for projects I have in the works, and, on reading this thread dug through my "Hoard"; lo and behold (oh happy day) not only did I find a "new" v63 / c64 type split bridge piece, but, a pre-73 original aluminium cast one ... I also found a complete set of Wavy Grover's I forgot I had ... whoo hoo, that said, my apologies in advance for the focus and size.

The new arrangement looks fantastic, and as stated it would seem to take the string tension completely off the tailpiece and move it to the block, the new mounting template will be a great help in retro-fitting the new bridge. Sorry, it's hard to see in my pic, the underside of the new v2 tailpiece is completely flat.

New one the left - v63 Split in the middle - Original Cast Aluminium on the right
The new Anchor is fitted to dovetail nicely under the tailpiece, and a retro-fit template is supplied to accomplish lining up the new anchor with the existing tailpiece holes.
I moved the "anchor" from the new bridge to the cavity on the v63, and, it looks like with some rework you could remove material from the bar (where the lower edge of the anchor touches the tailpiece, and the stings pass through and are retained ), that's risky, but it may indeed work, the issue/s being you're going to need to source the template, and the anchor, and perform major surgery on the tailpiece, which will not be reversible As you can easily see, in the original cast Aluminium tail there's no way this anchor will work without destroying the tailpiece Hope this quick and dirty comparison helps, the new anchor might fit a v63 type split tailpiece, but, it's going to need irreversible machining to do so.

Wow, thanks for all the pics and for that analysis. Bummer that the string-retainer won't fit the old tailpieces (without major modification at least).

ibal wrote:Wow, thanks for all the pics and for that analysis. Bummer that the string-retainer won't fit the old tailpieces (without major modification at least).

Happy to help.

On the v63, it may indeed fit, by replacing the whole rear end and removing the string holes in the current piece, the new anchor would then be where strings would feed through and on over to the saddles, not 100% guaranteed on this, but I'm not about to carve up one to experiment.

On the early cast versions, there's no way to accommodate the new anchor.

The next things will be: How does this new firmer anchor influence the tone.
In the case of other substitute bridges, e.g. the Hipshot, it was designed to utilise the existing hole pattern without the need to drill additional holes. The v2 requires an additional 4 holes to fix the anchor directly to the body

4 new holes would be a deal breaker for me.
Looks like they didnt update the mute to real time on/off, which would have been fantastic.

lumgimfong wrote:4 new holes would be a deal breaker for me.

I drill new holes into far more expensive and potentially valuable instruments to install new bridges and other parts. All the holes, new and existing ones are hidden under the bridge so no big deal (to those of us who mod our instruments to our liking and/or to make improvements. YMMV, of course. If I had a bass that could be improved with the V2 bridge, I'd do so in a hearbeat, but alas, I do not, any longer (only some 4004 series basses, these days).