Can't decide between Rickenbacker 4003 vs. 4001

[pbass2]

First bass (well, after a crap dept store bass) was a '75 4001, Jetglo, bought new. Very thin neck. I rocked Roto 66's on that thing for over a decade as my sole bass and never had an issue with fret wear, FWIW.

 

[Drifter_Bass]

Please take this as no more than an opinion of someone who's not an expert on Rics, but has owned a late '70s 4001 and played quite a few others...

These basses are about the only instruments that I would never even dream of purchasing without trying because of the huge variance in the neck profile(s). I've come across several early '70s examples that had huge necks and were complete no-starters for me for that reason alone, as much as I loved their sound. I've never coma across a single 4003 with a neck that I liked.

Your best bet may be something along the lines of 4001 V63 re-issue, where you'd get a newer instrument based on older specs, but it's not going to be an inexpensive venture.

I, for one, still have to find a Ric that sports a neck that I like and is for sale at a reasonable price at the same time.

Hopefully your luck will be better than mine in that respect.

This 10000%. Rick's are way up on the list of "basses that shouldn't be purchased online" because of the variance in just about everything from bass to bass, even within the same production year. Keep an eye out for local listings and try every single one before you buy. I love my Ricky to death, but I never wouldn't bought it without trying first.

 

[Wood and Wire]

You are REALLY generalizing. I've owned conservatively 30 Ricks over the years, both 4001's and 4003's and have never had tail lift that has hurt the bass in any way on any of them, my 79 has virtually none. I like the hairpin truss rods. The fretboard separates from the neck on 4001's because some people didn't know how to set them up properly, they just don't do that by themselves. Rotosounds which is what everyone used in the 70's destroyed the frets on a 66 jazz bass frets in a couple of years that I had, they are very harsh, but sound good. I have had no problem with the older bridges, you just need to do it correctly. If you get a 4001 in good shape they are excellent basses. 4003's are easier to maintain though, that I agree with.

Yes, I am generalizing : with a 40-50 year old instrument, there are a lot of pitfalls to look out for, both in terms of mechanical longevity, and previous owner modifications / abuse.

As I said, I prefer the 70's 4001. But buying one now is quite an undertaking, requiring a lot of knowledge, experience, and detective work.

A modern 4003 is as simple as clicking "add to basket" on a website (certainly for someone who knows they like Rickenbacker basses. And with a good return policy, a safe option for a first timer, too).

 

[msb]

I’m a long time Ric user , I have two , an 80 4001 and a slightly older set neck 4000 . I always suggest that any Ric should be played before buying as the necks do vary . I’ve seen 4003 basses with thin necks , and some that were like baseball bats . I prefer the older basses . You should check for fretboard separation around the first three frets , and look at the truss rods . The nuts should not be bending down . Both signs of the rods not being adjusted properly . I prefer the older rods , you simply tension the neck before you adjust the nuts . Once set they are very stable . Also check to see if the 0047 cap is on the bridge tone pot and if it’s been bypassed . The older pickups a a little weak by today’s standards but the tone is gorgeous . You simply boost your amp a touch .
Good luck !

 

[Stewie]

You guys are killing me. I played a late seventies Ric 4001 at a music store back in the eighties and hated the feel. If I'd known then that they could be very different from the same era, I would've kept looking. The coolest looking basses for sure.

 

[Fishheadjoe]

I've been through three, a 84 4003 and two later, 2012-13. I won't even consider looking at a RIC again, unless it's a mid 80's or earlier. the necks on my two later basses were as many have mentioned, like a baseball bat. One would think that given the thickness of the neck, it would be more stable, well one would be wrong IMHO. Both of mine had necks that would not hold a set up. Both are gone.
I am constantly on the watch for a local 80's 4003, but they are hard to find (rare) and priced way beyond what I perceive to be their real value. Maybe time will tell...
Fishheadjoe

 

[SgtHulka]

Exactly. Whenever you see a "laundry list" of grievances you know you're hearing from someone with zero first-hand experience.

If a tree falls in a forest and you're not around to hear it, did it still make a sound?

 

[Tommy Sparks]

Can’t help you with your question, however that blue one is a SWEET looking bass.

 

[Rabidhamster]

The blue one is an Azureglo, I had a '78 Azureglo, those are not common and are worth some money, if had the choice I'd go for the Azureglo in a NY minute, it will only increase in value and WILL last a lifetime, there is a lot of Ric bashing here for some reason, every time someone like you starts a thread like yours there is always a chorus of people bashing them, worst bass made, bla bla bla, just ignore that stuff., they're usually disgruntled players who never took the time to get used to them or didn't try to set them up or something like that, or even are just regurgitating stuff they read. As far as a lot of dogs out there go, same with any bass, and it's usually just down to poor set up. That Azureglo looks to be in nice shape. I wouldn't touch a vintage bass neck, it will ruin the value.


My '79 4001:


View attachment 4236079

It's ok to not like the feel or sound of a Rickenbacker, and to let people know they may just not like them. It's ok to have a differing opinion, or have had a bad experience with the company.

I agree Rickenbackers are quite variable, which makes the search either frustrating or invigorating. Natural variance means you can find instruments you hate but also find that gem built "just for you". I'd buy that Azure Glow too, at the right price! But I'd want a return period if I couldn't try it first.

Physically most basses won't fall apart in a lifetime or two or three, with reasonable care. If you're not talking about something actually falling apart, but rather something a person will be happy with using for the rest of their life, then "lifetime bass" is too personal for anyone else to make judgement on what opinion is right for someone else. Is a lifetime bass your main bass for a lifetime, or just one of many flavors that you plan not to sell?

The 4001 got a somewhat unfair reputation for unstable necks usually because people didn't know how to adjust the dual truss rod appropriately and broke something. You see a lot of them for repair with the fretboard popped off at the nut. The 4003 Ricks got a potentially unfair reputation for finish bubbling up and maybe a few other issues. I do not agree they are even close to the worst built bass even at their worst.

My opinion is you have to try the individual bass yourself, no matter the maker, to know whether it can work as whatever you consider a lifetime instrument. A Rickenbacker is just too variable to make a generalized recommendation between 4001 and 4003

 

[Rabidhamster]

Interesting thoughts. I could get my hands on a Rickenbacker 4001 79 too and it seems to be in a good shape:


View attachment 4235844 View attachment 4235845 View attachment 4235846 View attachment 4235847 View attachment 4235848
I'm completely aware that bass will cost quite a bit more than a 4003 but i'm looking for a bass for life.


On the other hand this would be the 4003 i could get:

View attachment 4235850

Would it be possible and a good idea to grind the neck, so it's thinner?

Its possible to shave down the neck, you'd pay a luthier to do it for you but it would add cost as well and they can only thin it so much before they make the neck unstable and/or hit the truss rod. It would definitely hurt the resale value as well, very significantly, but if you're keeping it who cares.

Its always a risk shaving down the neck on anything, it could go poorly, but it generally goes well enough. Geddy did ok with a shaved neck, Jimmy Page did ok. I've shaved down the necks on a few personal instruments and been very happy - no stability issue. You do tend to change the tone of the instrument thinning the neck though, the neck is sort of the main tone bar of the instrument. Whether it's better, worse, or even detectable would be up to you. If the neck isn't stable as is, or if you can put light pressure on the neck and hear an audible change in tuning, for example, this would be a counter indication for shaving down the neck on that instrument.

 

[Kevorargh]

I had a mid-70's 4001 that I did not take care of and eventually sold because I was trying to make my Tobias Growler 5 work for me (foolish decision for both), but it played great and sounded great. I currently have two - a 2003 4003 which plays fast and sounds great and is easy to adjust, and one of the new 4003S/5's which is more of a bear to play. I don't find issues with the neck on the 4003. The 5 string's neck is a little odd and has taken some getting used to.

I bought both without trying them out and I am very happy with the 4003 and fairly happy with the 5 string.

 

[bobyoung53]

It's ok to not like the feel or sound of a Rickenbacker, and to let people know they may just not like them. It's ok to have a differing opinion, or have had a bad experience with the company.

I agree Rickenbackers are quite variable, which makes the search either frustrating or invigorating. Natural variance means you can find instruments you hate but also find that gem built "just for you". I'd buy that Azure Glow too, at the right price! But I'd want a return period if I couldn't try it first.

Physically most basses won't fall apart in a lifetime or two or three, with reasonable care. If you're not talking about something actually falling apart, but rather something a person will be happy with using for the rest of their life, then "lifetime bass" is too personal for anyone else to make judgement on what opinion is right for someone else. Is a lifetime bass your main bass for a lifetime, or just one of many flavors that you plan not to sell?

The 4001 got a somewhat unfair reputation for unstable necks usually because people didn't know how to adjust the dual truss rod appropriately and broke something. You see a lot of them for repair with the fretboard popped off at the nut. The 4003 Ricks got a potentially unfair reputation for finish bubbling up and maybe a few other issues. I do not agree they are even close to the worst built bass even at their worst.

My opinion is you have to try the individual bass yourself, no matter the maker, to know whether it can work as whatever you consider a lifetime instrument. A Rickenbacker is just too variable to make a generalized recommendation between 4001 and 4003

I agree it's ok to post opinions about basses but telling people they may not like them? I think that is pretty obvious about any brand of bass and does not need to be posted again and again in Rickenbacker threads like there is something inherently wrong with Rickenbackers that many people don't like because that is hooey. I do also think there are differences between 4001's and 4003's that can be generalized about. Otherwise I pretty much agree with you.

 

[iiipopes]

As with anything else, try before you buy. Tendencies, but not specifics, may be drawn from historical and current instruments. But they are all finished by hand, and who knows how hard the person leaned into the sander that day.

 

[bobyoung53]

Its possible to shave down the neck, you'd pay a luthier to do it for you but it would add cost as well and they can only thin it so much before they make the neck unstable and/or hit the truss rod. It would definitely hurt the resale value as well, very significantly, but if you're keeping it who cares.

Its always a risk shaving down the neck on anything, it could go poorly, but it generally goes well enough. Geddy did ok with a shaved neck, Jimmy Page did ok. I've shaved down the necks on a few personal instruments and been very happy - no stability issue. You do tend to change the tone of the instrument thinning the neck though, the neck is sort of the main tone bar of the instrument. Whether it's better, worse, or even detectable would be up to you. If the neck isn't stable as is, or if you can put light pressure on the neck and hear an audible change in tuning, for example, this would be a counter indication for shaving down the neck on that instrument.

One problem with shaving the neck of a '79 4001 one is the same kind of paint isn't available anymore I believe, it was a conversion varnish (whatever that is).

 

[bobyoung53]

I’m a long time Ric user , I have two , an 80 4001 and a slightly older set neck 4000 . I always suggest that any Ric should be played before buying as the necks do vary . I’ve seen 4003 basses with thin necks , and some that were like baseball bats . I prefer the older basses . You should check for fretboard separation around the first three frets , and look at the truss rods . The nuts should not be bending down . Both signs of the rods not being adjusted properly . I prefer the older rods , you simply tension the neck before you adjust the nuts . Once set they are very stable . Also check to see if the 0047 cap is on the bridge tone pot and if it’s been bypassed . The older pickups a a little weak by today’s standards but the tone is gorgeous . You simply boost your amp a touch .
Good luck !

Bent down truss rod nuts are also an indication that high tension strings were used at some point, too heavy for the bass. They can be pretty easily straightened out though.

 

[bobyoung53]

This 10000%. Rick's are way up on the list of "basses that shouldn't be purchased online" because of the variance in just about everything from bass to bass, even within the same production year. Keep an eye out for local listings and try every single one before you buy. I love my Ricky to death, but I never wouldn't bought it without trying first.

I've bought many online and never had a problem, sometimes the set up is terrible and you have to tweak them but contrary to what you read online Rick never made terrible, unplayable basses with oak tree necks, if you measure those necks they are maybe a little thicker than others.

 

[Rabidhamster]

One problem with shaving the neck of a '79 4001 one is the same kind of paint isn't available anymore I believe, it was a conversion varnish (whatever that is).

I don't believe hes talking about shaving anything vintage, he mentioned playing a new satin finish 4003 but he didn't like the fat neck or the neck dive, so he was considering that bass and shaving its neck, OR looking for something with a thinner neck which we presume the '79 might have.

totally agree not to shave anything "vintage"

 

[Rabidhamster]

I agree it's ok to post opinions about basses but telling people they may not like them? I think that is pretty obvious about any brand of bass and does not need to be posted again and again in Rickenbacker threads like there is something inherently wrong with Rickenbackers that many people don't like because that is hooey. I do also think there are differences between 4001's and 4003's that can be generalized about. Otherwise I pretty much agree with you.

Well there is something about Rickenbackers that many people just don't like. It's true. Whether it's something "wrong" is subjective. It's something to think about before shelling out a lot of money when you're infatuated with one and want a lifetime bass. If the person is looking for a lifetime Rickenbacker, not just a lifetime bass, then someone else mentioning they may just not like the feel isn't going to hurt them at all.

 

[PWRL]

My first Ric was a '77 mapleglo 4001 I bought brand new for 429.00 in Boston at E. U. Wurlitzer, was the best shop around until GC drove it out of business.

I just found the check I wrote for mine, for $897.39, I think, and that was in 05, IIRC. Talk about the good ol' days.

 

[bobyoung53]

Well there is something about Rickenbackers that many people just don't like. It's true. Whether it's something "wrong" is subjective. It's something to think about before shelling out a lot of money when you're infatuated with one and want a lifetime bass. If the person is looking for a lifetime Rickenbacker, not just a lifetime bass, then someone else mentioning they may just not like the feel isn't going to hurt them at all.

Yes, but how often do you see that in a Fender P or J thread? Practically never and those basses are not inherently any better than a Rick, just different. I started on a P bass and was playing for ten years before i bought my first Ric and it was an entirely different feel and sound and it took me a while to get accustomed to how to play it and get used to how it sounds and feels. For example I thought the strings were way too close together at the bridge for finger plucking, nowadays I find that width easier to play than my Fender width just for example. When I started playing Gibsons I again had to get used to them, the way you EQ them for example. When I first started playing though people were lucky to have two basses and you kept them.