Info on Rickenbacker Basses

[Mutthead]

My wife recently played a 1978 Rickenbacker bass while on vacation in Vancouver. Needless to say, it was a beauty. It was quite heavy as well. I'm assuming this is due to being made of a very dense wood and being a solid body as opposed to having "relief holes" in the body as is becoming (sadly) more and more common these days.

Anyways, my question, how do the Rickenbacker basses of old compare to the newer models? My wife very much wanted to purchase this bass, but as you can probably imagine, it was quite pricey. The newer models are considerably cheaper than this vintage beauty. Is the build quality of the new models as good as the oldies? Would she be better off purchasing the vintage model, or spend about a grand less on a new model?

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

[DerekEstrada]

Get the new model...unlike many of the other manufacturers out there, Rickenbacker has changed very little over the last few decades...spend less...get more!

[Bassomatic]

I had a beautiful late 70's a few years ago that played like a dream. I bought it from a well-priced local vintage shop, and I'm quite sure I paid a good bit less than a new one would cost.

My first bass was a used 4001, as well. Great basses for that certain Rick thing.

[tkozal]

Old Ricks seem to be appreciating in value......the new ones seem to hold their value better than many others...its kind of a "pick 'em" deal..

[SGNick]

My wife recently played a 1978 Rickenbacker bass while on vacation in Vancouver. Needless to say, it was a beauty. It was quite heavy as well. I'm assuming this is due to being made of a very dense wood and being a solid body as opposed to having "relief holes" in the body as is becoming (sadly) more and more common these days.

Anyways, my question, how do the Rickenbacker basses of old compare to the newer models? My wife very much wanted to purchase this bass, but as you can probably imagine, it was quite pricey. The newer models are considerably cheaper than this vintage beauty. Is the build quality of the new models as good as the oldies? Would she be better off purchasing the vintage model, or spend about a grand less on a new model?

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

There have been changes in the construction, however, build quality has remained high, and Rick recently added a little feature that will give you the best of both worlds.

If you played a 78, I believe it would still be the older 4001 model. The differences are, a skunk stripe in the neck (which extends to the end of the body, as it is a neck through bass!), a capacitor on the bridge pickup, and a single truss rod (I believe).

the 4001 was ment to be played with flatwound strings, but it can easily be set up to play with rounds, so it's not a big deal. 4001's also have walnut wings on the headstock that look kickass!

If you buy a brand new 4003 (which is the updated 4001) you get the dual truss rods, no skunk stripe, you MAY get walnut wings (they're being phased back into production currently, so it's not a guarantee) and a cool little feature they added was a push/pull tone knob that brings the capacitor on the bridge pickup off or on. so you get the choice between the vintage sounding growl, and the fuller modern bass sound!

I've loved All (both...) Rickenbacker basses I've played (a 4001 and a 4003) and you really can't make a bad choice. they keep their resale like crazy!

for more info, you can join the forum at www.rickresource.com

Those guys are very smart in all things rick!

[bbocaner]

4001's do have dual truss rods, but they are an older design truss rod. Many flatwound strings actually have higher tension than roundwound strings, so I don't believe the old adage that the 4001's truss rods are meant for flatwounds, and 4003's are meant for roundwounds. The deal is, 4001's have a trussrod design that requires you to loosen the truss rods, bend the neck by hand to where you want it to be, then tighten the rods to hold it there. 4003s have had two different truss rod designs, but both of them are the more standard design that are capable of moving the neck on their own. You see a lot of 4001s with trashed necks because people didn't adjust them properly, and I'd stick with lighter guage strings on a 4001 so as not to put any extra stress on the neck! There are lots of other small differences over the years -- horn shapes, headstock shapes, pickup positioning, type of tuning machine, inlay material, binding colors, neck profile, etc etc etc. IMO the brand new ones with the adjustable polepieces, vintage thin neck profile, and vintage tone control circuit are the ones to have. Although... a nice '73 sure would look nice in my hands!! A local luthier here in the DC area has an original '74 that looks absolutely minty brand new -- it's an object of lust for me!!

[SGNick]

Thanks for clearing that up! a friend of mine has a 1973 4001 with original toaster pickups.... warmest sounding bass you'll hear!

It's been modified just a touch though... new tuners, and a union jack paintjob!

http://archives.rickresource.com/oldattachments/164133.jpg

[cmatthes]

I've dug RIC basses forever, but don't currently have one for some really odd reason!(????) That'll have to change...

RIC prices have nearly doubled in the last couple of years. A price quote I got from a great RIC dealer just over 14 months ago is almost $800 less than he is selling the exact same instrument right now. The backlog has really helped drive prices up on those, and the vintage (hell, even '80s models) are climbing monthly.

Here's an oldie from almost 25 years ago:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/cmatthes/1983_Chris_wRick.jpg

[bbocaner]

Here's my 1993 4001V63.

http://web.bocaner.net/~barry/v63.jpg

The prices sure have been going up a lot lately! Especially if it's anything limited edition... A color of the year, a V63 or C64(s) model, the 75th anniverssary, or one of the signature models. I remember a few years back I could've bought a used chris squire for $1200... now they are going for $4000 and up!!

[The Golden Boy]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/cmatthes/1983_Chris_wRick.jpg

Awesome Tie!!!

:D

The only pic I have of my old Rick is:

http://images.lilypix.com/albums/userpics/10038/normal_1990collection.JPG

From the time I was a kid on, I had always wanted a Rick like McCartney's. I walked into this bass by chance- and it was a mapleglo. I wanted to like this bass, but I hated it. I held onto it for 6 years hoping I would bond with it. But it never happened.

To this day, I still kind of jones for a Rick, but the minute I pick one up and start playing, I remember why I didn't dig mine.

[SFK]

I've had this one since 1978. My first "real" bass. I've long since switched to guitar but I've never let this one go.

1976 4001:

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL361/492960/949860/96361091.jpg

[Mutthead]

Wow, those things are so damned gorgeous! Thanks everyone for all the tips and info, it's been very helpful. If anyone else wants to share pics of their rick or have any other bits and bites of information, feel free to post.

[redmax61]

Back when I was working for a cable TV outfit in Southern California, I went to a trouble call at this one guy's house and he had the dream mama guitar. It was a black 4080 double neck that was made in 1976 IIRC. He let me noodle with it a few times over the next couple of weeks, and it was absolutely amazing.

I just played a brand new 4003 at Sam Ash in Richmond, VA a few days ago, and aside from the action being just a tad high for my taste, it was awesome! It was advertised at just over $1600.

[FFTT]

Quite sadly, I had one of the original 4001 stereo basses, black with rare hash mark binding.

As you mentioned, the neck developed a twist that eventually made it impossible to get the intonation right on the low E.

I sold it out of frustration and of course now know that a truly competent
tech could have made her right again with some proper TLC.

I loved the sound of that bass.