Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'm 'sorta confused. What are the differences between the old '60s Horseshoe pickup and the re-issue pickup? I read the posts about magnetized shoes and slugs vs. pole pieces... how do these things affect the sound? If the re-issues are different, why? As most players who purchase re-issue instruments like the original features (warts and all sometimes) and I see references to "cottage industry" type folks who attempt to re-create the actual Horseshoe, would it not be most authentic if Rickenbacker were to make the real deal EXACTLY like the old ones? Kenny

The orginal shoes are magnetized tungsten steel fitted with a plastic bobbin that has screw-top poles. The VRI shoes are non-magnetic and fitted with alnico poles. From what people have reported here, the original VRI pickups were hotter than the current ones. The VRI coils are hotter than the 60's coils. It is possible to make your own vintage style pickup by combining parts from certain Rickenbacker steel guitar pickups and modern Rickenbacker treble pickup parts. I have built a few like this with excellent results. RIC is currently trying to trademark the look of the old design.

V63

C64

FWIW

Also, the resonant frequency, inductance, and therefore the impedance are quite different as well.

The V63 also has a much greater flux density than the C64 at the typical string location, but also a much narrower aperature.

I have played a 4003, a 4001v63, and a 4001C64 ... they all have a similar fatter modern sound ... better than my old 1968 4001 original horseshoe pickup ...

So what was/is the purpose of "magnetized" shoes?

Question for John Hall:

If you do a re-issue 4001-V68 or (my real hope) a Rose Morris re-issue 1999 could/would you make the Horseshoe Pickup as they were originally? (IE: magnetized shoes/screw top poles?)

I don't think they will ... the old horseshoes were weak to begin with and then they would degauss and get weaker ... sometimes new technology is better ...

I've never heard one myself, but somewhere here on the forum ,I know JH said something to the effect that the old style magnetized shoes, when they were new, would blow you away.....

Chris Squire's Bass still sounds great after all these years...

The original Beauchamp pickup design utilized horseshoe magnets instead of bar or rod magnets. It is said that he experimented with many different arrangements of magnets and coils before he settled on horseshoes as the best design. This is purely speculation on my part but it could be that in the days before cheap (and strong) permanent magnets, this may have been the only way to concentrate enough field around the strings to get the job done. The first rare earth (cobalt) magnets were still about 10 years away. It was not until the 50's when cobalts were considered cheap enough for this application. The horseshoes may also have provided a certain amount of EMI shielding.

From everything you have said John I assume then that the new C64 horseshoes put out less voltage for a given string location and are probably more clear than the V63's?

Seems a good excuse to own both a v63, and a c64 !!!

Chris Squire's Bass still sounds great after all these years...

You don't honstly think that that 4001 hasn't been built, rebuilt and then refitted, more than once. over the years.

Chris admits on his website that at one time the headstock was broken completely off, and had to be sent back to Rickenbacker for repair.

As a service to the Steel Guitar Community ... I have been re-magnetizing Rickys ... for no charge (pardon the pun) ... for awhile now ... keeping records as I go.

Well over a hundred sets just last year.

All of the following measurements are done without the bobbin present ... placing my gaussmeter probe "mid-gap", at the mouth of the magnets.

Here's the "breakdown" ... All these values are after remagin' ...

Those original 1931-32 3/8" thick giant frypan magnets ... weaker than you'd expect ... 200 gauss.

1933 - 1939 ... varied greatly. Some charged to 210 gauss ... others only to 130 gauss. My take on the variety ...inconsistant grades of hardened, cobalt steel.

1940-42 ... the "Wartime" steels ... very strong ... up to 235 gauss. The magnets are thinner ... but an improved grade of steel undoubtedly was used.

1946-50's ... consistantly strong ... 225+ gauss. Even though these 1.25" have a "bad rep" amoung some steelers ... their power is undeniable.

Then comes the 60's ... I have had several come in ... steels and basses ... and they, on the whole, are weaker. Some barely climbing above 100 gauss.

My guess here ... a less magnetic steel alloy was used.

Anyway ...

The "magnetic qualities" associated with Rickys is a function of two things ...

1) The steels COBALT content ...

2) The fact that they are "Hardened" ...

Tungsten is not ferromagnetic (its paramagnetic) ... therefore it's presence has little effect on the steels magnetic qualities.

Steel must be hardened in order for it to retain its magnetism (all remaining austenite must be converted to martensite) ...

Alloying with ferromagnetic metals helps to increase its Remnance (ability to hold the magnetizing charge) ... and cobalt is the best.

Hardened cobalt steel will retain its "charge" for 20-30 yrs ... then slowly diminish.

The "opposing pole configuration" ... i.e (N) to (N) and (S) to (S) ... needed for the pickup to be functional ... a "stresser" for the deguassing ... futher shows that hardened cobalt steel makes a good permanaent magnet.

Anyway ... as far as the cobalt steel's Coercivity (ease in degaussing) ... compared to alnico, ferrite, samarium cobalt and neodymium-iron-boron ... yes its low.

But rarely have I ever recieved a set ... that was less than 40% its max.

Not too shabby for magnets made in 1933 ... ha, ha

Welcome Rick, very interesting information there. Your name sounds familiar. There was a writer for Bass Player a few years ago on recording studio practices that had a name that IIRC was the same as yours. ???