Neck differences

mikeylc · Post by **mikeylc** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:57 pm

Just picked my '04 4003 MBrown and have gotten my first chance to play a "newer" RIC. The neck on this bad boy is HUGE compared to my '89. So my questions are:
Are all current necks this thick?
How do the necks compare to the late 70's/early eighties?
I currently have my eye on a couple of players that are 79s but am also thinking about just ordering up a new Jetglo. The monty is just too pretty to subject it to the drives I play at the moment.

marty · Post by **marty** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:24 am

The bigger neck on 4003's is standard now.
I believe it came about to accommodate the newer trussrod system that newer Rics use and to allow any type of string type or gauge to be used.

Some older Rics had problems using roundwound strings, having been designed originally for the use of flatwounds.

I had a bit of a surpise when I got my '03 MB4003....My only other bass is a '74 4001 and the neck on the 4003 felt massive for a few days.

I've got used to it now and I'm sure you will too after a while.

Some people prefer the thicker neck over the thinner ones and visa versa and I have to say that after a couple of months with the 4003, the 4001 neck feels really small.....not neccesarily a bad thing though.

loendmaestro · Post by **loendmaestro** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:14 am

Yeah, my situation is very similar to Marty's. My '03 MB 4003 neck felt like a baseball bat for awhile. Especially compared to my '74 4001 & Gibson T-bird.
It still feels kinda fat, but very comfortable...it did take an adjustment period though.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:58 am

I find most of the 70's 80's and 90's 4001/3 necks similar ... the necks that are significantly different are ... 60's Ric basses, 2000 series basses, 3000 series basses, and 4004 basses

wints · Post by **wints** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:37 am

If they can make a C series with a thin neck 60,s style they could do it for the 4003. The truss rods are the same, just the specs are different obviously. I,m thinking about a new 4003 but have no love for the 'club" feel. I,ll have to try before I buy...

rhampshire · Post by **rhampshire** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:50 am

I went out to Classic Axe in VA with the intent of buying a new MB 4003, but I can't get past the louisville slugger necks on the new basses. Luckily the owner Russ sold me his '81 Autumnglo 4001 instead.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:51 am

Ric will never make a 60's style neck again ... just putting a set of rotosound round wound strings stressed the 60's neck beyond it's design specs ... most of the early rics were fine with round wounds ... but from a quality control point of view RIC won't make basses like that again

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:54 am

Most of the late 70's, early 80's necks are a compromise between the two. they are not flat like the 60's and early 70's necks and are not fat like the late 90's, early 2000's necks. they are my favorite necks. Early nineties necks that I have played are considerably slimmer than the later ones, also are a little thinner like a 4001 neck, side to side I mean.
I think over the years the necks got gradually thicker, and the new truss rod system was instituted in 1980 and those necks are thin for the most part, and the new truss rods themselves started in 1984. I had two 84's and the neck's were kind of thick at least compared to the 4001's I was used to at the time. I have an 81 4003 with a thinner neck than my 78 4001.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:48 pm

How would you compare the neck on a newer 4003 to that of a F****r Am Jazz? I assume the Jazz is thinner. If that Jazz neck can handle high tension strings, why can't a thinner Ric neck? The older Jazz's weren't graphite reinforced.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:13 pm

You can string a 4003 with just about anything except barbed wire ... it's the old 4001 necks that you have to be careful with ...

Some of those old Fender necks developed the dreaded S curve ...

mikeylc · Post by **mikeylc** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:49 pm

All of my other basses, Jazz, P, Kramer, EBMM Stingray have thin necks and I use regular gauge Rotos. Maybe it takes a long time to twist a neck up and probably alot of wrong setups. I have come across quite a few 70's Fender necks that are doing the twist and are beyond usable like Jeff says. They changed in the 80s to a bigger ugly neck on Ps. As I said in my original post compared to all of the other basses I've play the neck is huge. I must say the bass also sounds HUGE so I'll take the trade off.

jps · Post by **jps** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:20 am

No wonder my fingers are always bleeding after I play my '73 4001, I've been using Roto'ddario barbed wire strings, in their heavy gauge, no less!

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:30 am

Many people seem to use light gauge strings on their Rics, even newer ones. I was wondering if it was because of neck concerns or something else. So you feel that a modern Ric neck can tolerate high tension strings as well as any other bass?

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 6:49 am

The modern truss rod system can handle any string you'd care to play. That obviously was the reason for updating the design.

m_cuffa · Post by **m_cuffa** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 7:23 am

I'm not by any means a tech - I've only recently after 20 years of playing started to get even remotely familiar with the tech aspects of basses, so I probably don't know what I'm talkin about ...

but every flatwound set I've ever put on a bass has seemed to put MORE tension on the neck than roundwound, not vice versa. Am I missing something here?