Titans? Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-)
Go Cowboys!
Titans? Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-)
No need to be defensive, my post was simply a PSA.In our defence, nobody, except for a very select few have ever seen a 4004Cii in the flesh.
Not defensive at all. More regretful. I really wish I'd had a chance to see a 4004Cii. God do I wish I'd had a chance!No need to be defensive, my post was simply a PSA.
No, it’s less work to not finish the fretboard and to use oil instead.
Also Ric completely lost me when they went to some maple fingerboards.
I guess I'm a traditionalist, I don't care for that look.
Add in a satin fingerboard finish, it's just not for me.
If it were my decision, I'd say stick to the what you've been successful with for decades.
I ordered my two at an authorized dealer. Waited 10 months for the 4003 Fireglo and 24 months! for the 4003FL montezuma brown.They are, IME. I think an interesting poll would be to see if any 4004 series owners bought them "off-the-rack" at a music store (most likely, not). All four of mine were purchased through dealers, by telephone.
With the shortage and protection of certain woods, I would think the Rocklite boards would be a better option than dying a board to make it solid black.Almost all the jet black ebony boards you see now are either dyed or synthetic , the material just doesn’t exist anymore in large quantities. The Rocklite Ebano machines and feels almost exactly like ebony, if it sounds any different, I can’t hear it.
My 96 has this issue. The finish is lifting around each fret. No issue on my 71. Not sure why.It actually makes sense to me. Lacquering the whole instrument and then polishing a little off the top of the frets leaves the finish susceptible to lifting along the frets, and also is one more complication when it needs to be refretted. And I'll bet the wood they've been using for fretboards will look really good with just a little oil.
A 4001 with classic bridge, laquered fretboard, etc. And keep the 4003 modern and changing a bit.I think they should still make a vintage model and then make several lines of new basses with different features.
They have the name recognition to pull it off. But I don't think they should make new models and stop offering at least one version of the classic design that made them who they are.
Unless they do have many new and different models now (I haven't been following). But it seems like the Ric has been the same body/pup/hardware config forever and they only make mild changes now and then. I think they should go nuts and have a classic 4001, classic 4003 and then a dozen other basses with the Ric name, that are all completely different.
Done!A 4001 with classic bridge, laquered fretboard, etc. And keep the 4003 modern and changing a bit.
I think you’re mistaken. The way that Rickenbacker was doing things, they spray the whole thing, UV cure it, and it’s done. You can see that process - Rickenbacker has a tour you can see online. The new way, they have to mask the fretboard, spray the whole thing, UV cure it, then unmask the fretboard, and finish it. There’s no way the new way saves them labor - it adds labor. Not gobs more, but undeniably it is more labor.
The matte black ones still had the lacquer tho didn't it but it was a matte lacquer finish to match the matte black.The glossy fingerboard finish is something I’ve always liked the looks of. Of course when I finally ended up with a 4003 after 2+ decades of gas it was matte black with the non glossy fretboard. Go figure.