Jump to content
Why become a member? ×
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Rickenbacker basses - differences between models?


Paul S

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Paul S said:

I'll invite him to the party - @Bassassin what would you say was the Rick copy to be Rick copies?

Hard to pick one as the best - the Japanese copies were all well-made instruments and some were frighteningly accurate, to the extent that they sometimes turn up in circulation as originals.

If I was to pick one, I'd say you wouldn't go too far wrong with a Shaftesbury - these are exceptionally well-made and are more robust than some of the others. Aesthetically very accurate aside from the single truss rod and the tuners, which are the small cast-button types used on many 70s MIJ basses. What's good is that these are probably the most common through-neck Fakers on the UK market, and turn up pretty regularly if you know where to look.

I don't think I'll be breaking any BC Rick Defence Protocols by posting this link:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/78514186083

FB group for Fakers, been around for years now and they're bought & sold with impunity there. Not sure why JH leaves the group alone, possibly doesn't feel he can chuck his weight and empty legal threats around in Mr Zuckerberg's gaff. I dunno...

Worth mentioning that the current crop of Chinese Fakers are very, very inaccurate - they're really only Rick-shaped basses. All the hardware & electronics are wrong, as are the neck proportions. Most MIJ Fakers copied the 33 1/4" scale and all have the correct narrow string spacing, whereas the modern versions are all 34" and have much broader, Fender-esque spacing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current specs for the 4000 series came into play around 2006, when the headstock gained the Walnut "wings", and the neck became a bit thicker than the previous incarnation. The fretboard inlays also became full width again, after being slightly narrower than the fretboard since the early 80's.

Also, the current "Vintage" circuit only became a standard fitting from 2006 models. Pre 2006 didn't have it, though some were retro-fitted with it.

Edited by Skybone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skybone said:

The current specs for the 4000 series came into play around 2006, when the headstock gained the Walnut "wings", and the neck became a bit thicker than the previous incarnation. The fretboard inlays also became full width again, after being slightly narrower than the fretboard since the early 80's.

Also, the current "Vintage" circuit only became a standard fitting from 2006 models. Pre 2006 didn't have it, though some were retro-fitted with it.

I’m pretty sure the necks slimmed down again - relatively speaking - relatively recently. The recent ones I’ve played have been nothing like the size of the ones I played several years ago, or even my ‘98 V63. They’re more like a chunkier version of my ‘72s. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 4000 said:

I’m pretty sure the necks slimmed down again - relatively speaking - relatively recently. The recent ones I’ve played have been nothing like the size of the ones I played several years ago, or even my ‘98 V63. They’re more like a chunkier version of my ‘72s. 

My old 2005 model had a relatively slim neck compared to the newer version 4003's I've played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I remember reading that the 4001CS was slimmer and lighter than standard, since it was a replica of Chris Squire's own bass that had been sanded down and refinished several times over the years. I'm interested in that sound, but not at that price ..!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bnt said:

I'm sure I remember reading that the 4001CS was slimmer and lighter than standard, since it was a replica of Chris Squire's own bass that had been sanded down and refinished several times over the years. I'm interested in that sound, but not at that price ..!

Actually it’s not, sorry. I’ve had 2, played maybe 3 or 4? One of them (my ‘96) was possibly the heaviest Ric out of the many hundreds I’ve played. The other (a ‘91, see pics in previous posts) was about 9 and a half pounds. In fact if you read the interviews with Chris, he says that despite them weighing and measuring his bass (which was indeed sanded and slimmed down), the CS models are not really anything like it, other than cosmetically. Apart from the Vermillion fingerboard and headstock wings, the paint job and the scratchplate, they simply follow the spec of the equivalent V63. So around ‘96-‘98 (forget the exact year) the headstock was shortened on both models (less vintage correct) and the neck was thickened. The earlier ones have nice slim necks, but Paul Wilcynski, who refinished my ‘73 4001 shown previously, has held Chris’s bass and he says the neck is by far the thinnest Ric neck he’s ever seen, and he’s worked on a lot of Rics, including vintage ones and reissues (including CSs). 

The electronics on the CS were the same as the relative V63 too, so at the time had relatively hot pickups and low pot values (nothing like Chris’s - his treble pickup, which is a genuine horseshoe and not the technically dissimilar reissue- apparently barely worked),  making them generally quite dark sounding, although there will be exceptions, as always. A guy I know from Rick Resource has the first one into the country and that’s a really nice one. He’s also had a few RMs (i.e. original ‘60s ones) and he says his stands up.

One of the reasons Chris had his wired in stereo(the other being to use effects on one pickup and not the other) was to bring the output of his treble pickup up. 

http://www.rickresource.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=20

Some people say they can’t tell the difference sonically between the V63 and CS, but the 2 CSs I had were the most similar sounding Rics I’ve played, and sounded more honky and less open than the various V63s I’ve owned/played. I do (or rather did as they’re fading fast) have ears that frighten sound engineers though, or so some of them have told me! Sonically - certainly from the perspective of the bass itself and not the player, effects, amps etc - you’d possibly get nearer Chris’s sound with a C Series, or better still, go vintage. Although if you got a CS and put a lower output scatter wound toaster in the neck, put a real vintage horseshoe in the bridge, and changed the wiring loom (or at least the pots), then you might not be far off. Although there is that super thin neck and body...... 😉

Oh, one last thing about the CSs, in my experience; they look gorgeous, but the paint discolours/ falls off if you so much as look at it. Cue Nigel Tufnell. 😂

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve owned five, and to this day I’m unsure why I sold two of them, C64 and a 4003FL. All I have to add to this thread is that there is a lot of nonsense talked about the ric sound, the 4003s are easily as versatile as any twin PUP passive bass, and can do dub just as well as they can do clank. A 4003 with heavy flats, played with a pic through a B15 is about as iconic a bass tone as youll get - powerful rounded bass, slightly subdued mids and sweet highs - it’s like a fine wine :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...