Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Does anyone know if the necks on the 4001C64 series are true to the much vaunted slim 60's necks, or are they similar to a 4003? My V63 has the thicker neck and if the C series basses do as well, would this be due to the modern truss rod system?

the necks on ricks vary a little ... but all of the 4001/4003 made since 1986 a pretty similar ...

the 2000 series is slimmer at the nut and tapered and 4004 series is wider at the nut and tapered ...

This is from the Northcoast Music website if it helps....

"The 4001C64 features neck through solid body construction for markedly superior sustain and tone. The neck actually runs the full length of the body.

The necks on the 4001C64 are fast, narrow, and superbly playable."

I was wondering about the necks because the C64's are supposed to be a very accurate reproduction of a 60's 4001S. If this is the case you would expect the necks to be slimmer than the 4003. Anyone out there with a C64 care to clear this up?

the v63's and the v64's basically have a 4003 neck ... with slight differences ... there may be 1/64" difference in wood thickness ... but no major changes ...

A real 1960's 4001 neck is a different animal ... just stringing it with modern strings stresses it beyond its design specs ... my '68 handles this stress quite well ... but some don't ... also the old truss rod system was cumbersome and dangerous ... some 60's necks have neck damage from improperly adjusted truss rods ...

Steve,no..... I have a '64 4001S and a 1998 4003. I recently got to play a C64 and a 2000 V63 side by side and yes the C64 has a slimmer neck than a 4003 or V63 but none of them comes close to the feel of the '64. I didn't have my 4003 to compare to the V and C but they all felt similar to each other except for the slightly slimmer neck on the C64. In all other ways it felt closer to my 4003 than the '64. The '64 is ultra thin in the neck and headstock.

Garry,
Have you posted pics of your '64 here on the site? I know I would love to see it!

For what its worth, I think the modern Rick basses, be it reissues or whatever, have considerably more mass in the neck and headpiece, do to stability factors implemented at Rickenbacker to offset modern playing styles and the various string guages we use. I think its the only way they can go unless they get into graphite reinforcement. Here's an example of my '01 fireglow compared to my '76 mapleglow.

Forgive the pic quality, I was holding the tape measure with my right hand and trying to take pictures backhanded with my left. Whew!!!

Scott, what were the exact numbers you got from the above measurements.... I'll check mine and see what I come up with...
I have noticed a change in headstocks that happened between my '93 v63 and a '97 model. The '97 was much wider and I noticed the same phenomenon on the Chris Squire basses. Early ones seemed to have a slimmer profile later ones fatter.

from just above the A-tuner to the deepest point in the cresting wave, the '76 measures 1 1/8th and the '01 measures 1 5/8ths. The early ones are definatly sleeker.

These are the dimensions on mine:

'67 4005WB - 1 5/16"
'73 4001 - 1 5/32"
'03 4004Cii - 1 5/16"

My '85 V63 has a much slimmer neck than my 4003 and any C64 that I've played. Keep in mind that my V is one of the early production runs. The neck is nothing like a 4003. The C64 neck is pretty much like a 4003.

cheers