Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hello all

Ive just picked up a lovely early 1980 4001 from a reputable dealer here in the UK. I asked the luthier to open it up before I bought it and sure enough, everything checks out ('79 pots, Ric wiring, 2x rods etc etc). The odd thing is ive just noticed the side of the fretboard doesnt have the usual dot markers. Theres none... and there never appears to have been any as there arent any tell tale holes there where the paint would have worn off. Is it possible this one just got its markers "missed" on the production line, or did these side markers only get added on later 4001's? My '82 4001 DOES have the side dots.

Cheers!
Steve

Just for kicks, check to see if the binding on the other side of the neck has dots.

It doesnt...

Can you post some pics of the whole instrument?

Hi! The link from the dealer still works... here it is :

http://www.wehavesoundguitars.com/product/809

That's weird!

Odd isnt it? Only theory I have is that the previous owner removed them for some reason, or Ric simply missed them off when it got built. Like i said - internally everything checks out... correct serial plate etc etc... just no dots... (!?!)

Well it’s been re-fretted, so I guess it’s always possible the binding was replaced at some point earlier. Short of John Hall chiming in, we may never know.

I've noticed that a lot of 1974 model 4001's have red dots, but I've never seen one that had no dots.... Maybe when it was refretted, the binding was replaced?

Think youre probably on to something in regards to the re-fret...

Forgive my ignorance, how obvious is it that the bass has had a refret without playing it? There's obviously a marked difference between this and my '82 4001 which has not had a refret (and REALLY needs it!) but im wondering what you led you guys to suggest the refret thing... does it just look "too good" for the age?

Unless the binding was damaged perhaps?

Refret procedure is clip the ends of the frets and you don't have to remove the binding under usual circumstances.
Same goes for most bound fingerboards.

I will say that's a puzzler for sure, I've seen red dots, but no NO dots!
Other than the ding here and there, that looks to be in great shape.
The neck binding looks a little more orange than the body edges so just well aged binding?
To me both fingerboard edges look similar and what I would expect an 80's to have.

Dirk

Forgive me if this is a completely off-the-wall notion - I'm no kind of expert! - but the lack of visible fret dots PLUS the neck binding being more yellowed than the body binding leads me to wonder whether a previous luthier/restorer has applied a "white" lacquer/paint to the neck binding on both sides in order to cover up some kind of finish damage ...and this lacquer has now yellowed much faster in relation to the body binding?

Just speculating, like. Not trying to ruin anyone's day. It's a lovely bass!

EXTRA THOUGHT: That when it was re-fretted, a luthier re-lacquered the fingerboard with clear lacquer, which they overlapped onto the binding. Said lacquer has now yellowed. Doesn't explain the missing dot markers, though!

Its quite the mystery isnt it? lol

Definitely not sending it back as its an excellent axe, and I know its legit becuase of all the other things ive mentioned... just weird that the dots arent there.

CatHead wrote:Think youre probably on to something in regards to the re-fret...

Forgive my ignorance, how obvious is it that the bass has had a refret without playing it? There's obviously a marked difference between this and my '82 4001 which has not had a refret (and REALLY needs it!) but im wondering what you led you guys to suggest the refret thing... does it just look "too good" for the age?

Very obvious. Most luthiers refret over the binding, as here. Factory frets would be under the binding. First thing you look for on any bound board.

henry5 wrote:Well it’s been re-fretted, so I guess it’s always possible the binding was replaced at some point earlier. Short of John Hall chiming in, we may never know.

Congratulations on a really nice looking 4001, lovely Burgundy finish.

+1 for sure it has been refretted, the fret wire runs over the top of the binding and almost the way to the outside edge

Typically the frets should run under the binding, the binding itself is well done, but it does appear to be thicker than normal
The binding at the very bottom of the fretboard is thinner than that on the neck, the thickness on the bottom is about the thickness I'd expect to see

Here's a pic of the bottom of the fretboard on my 73-4001 which shows the frets going under the binding and the similar sized binding used everywhere.
The outer white binding on the body of mine looks to be close in size to whats been used on the neck of yours. Looking at the closeup view the body on the dealer's website (triple pic) you can see where the neck binding top left has been tapered down to meet the binding on the bottom of the neck.
IMHO I highly doubt that was done at the factory