Stag Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Evening chaps / chapettes Its no secret to many people on here that ive been after getting a burgundy 4001 or 4003. 4001's in this colour seem to be a bit more common as the 4003 only had burgundy as a special colour in 2002 from what ive learned. Not that im admitting defeat just yet, but I was trying to get an idea of what differences exist between the two models, as I played a fantastic new 4003 today. It isnt burgundy of course, but my word, the neck is so much nicer than my 4001! The weight is great, and so is the balance. The PU cover on the bridge PU now has a nice cutaway into it so you can lower the action as much as you like, which you couldnt on 4001's due to the pesky PU cover. And also, the addition of this new Vintage Tone selector, which appears to turn it into an Uber-Twangy machine, which could have its uses! Does anyone else have any thoughts on the differences between the two? Anything ive missed... any opinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charic Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I have nothing useful to add but I've always preferred the look of the 4004's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='charic' post='1180017' date='Mar 28 2011, 08:58 PM']I have nothing useful to add but I've always preferred the look of the 4004's [/quote] lol cheers dude Actually seeing charic on here reminded me of that cool 4003 that appeared at the East Anglia Bash... damn that had a fine neck too! Cant remember for the life of me who on here owned it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 It rather depends on which 4001 or 4003 as they've both changed a bit through the years, but the overriding differences are in the neck. The 4003 had a chunkier volute, a revised truss rod and (if memory serves) quarter sawn timbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Musky' post='1180029' date='Mar 28 2011, 09:02 PM']It rather depends on which 4001 or 4003 as they've both changed a bit through the years, but the overriding differences are in the neck. The 4003 had a chunkier volute, a revised truss rod and (if memory serves) quarter sawn timbers.[/quote] I get the impression that much like Leo's stuff there was a certain amount of random variation between standard models! The 4003 neck seems slimmer to me, maybe im crazy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Stag' post='1180034' date='Mar 28 2011, 09:05 PM']I get the impression that much like Leo's stuff there was a certain amount of random variation between standard models! The 4003 neck seems slimmer to me, maybe im crazy....[/quote] Yeah, the necks on Rickenbackers are all over the place really. Some are quite chunky and others really slim - playing the one you're going to buy beforehand is a must, otherwise it's a bit of a crap shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charic Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Forgotton the guys name... he wasn't a member on here at the time. Mart or something?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 [quote name='charic' post='1180435' date='Mar 29 2011, 08:56 AM']Forgotton the guys name... he wasn't a member on here at the time. Mart or something??[/quote] I really cant remember. He had a lot of love for my LP bass, I remember that! Any more things to consider re: 4001 v 4003 guys? weighing up my options this week... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charic Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 That LP bass really was a lot of fun good luck in your search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonunders Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Rob owned the rick you saw at the eabb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charic Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Well remembered!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhysP Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 The 4003 was meant to be used with roundwound strings, the older 4001 to be used with flats. I remember reading an interview with Chris Squire where he was invited to visit the Rickenbacker factory & he got a telling off for popularising the use of roundwounds on the 4001 because Rickenbacker were getting loads of basses back with neck problems. I don't really know why this should be, as the 4001 has twin truss rods so should be able to cope with a change between flats & rounds. I only ever used roundwounds on my 4001's & didn't have a problem (apart from the basses being badly made sh*t that is!) I remember when the 4003 model was released the reason they gave was that it was better suited to the use of roundwound strings. Strange really, as roundwounds tend to have lower tension than flats - they certainly did at the time of the 4003's release anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor J Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 The truss rod system on the 4001 is archaic - you're supposed to manually set the neck into the position you want and you use the truss rods to lock it into place. The 4003 has a redesigned truss rod system which works in the contemporary way you'd expect. As mentioned, the neck of the 4001 wasn't designed to handle roundwounds. I used to own a 1991 4003 and, above everything, it was the tone I loved - aggressive, growly and fat, almost too punchy, a wonderful experience. I had a guy with a 4001 in the studio a few years back and it was heartbreaking- thin, weedy, lifeless tone out of the thing was such a disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacker Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 the 4001 truss rod is an ellipse, a bit like a hairpin. One end of that is threaded and is what the nut locks onto. The slightly shorter other end lies on top and butts up against a small aluminium plate. As the rod is tightened, that top section flexes upwards. If the neck is not moved into position manually and the rods are tightened, this could cause the inlays and indeed the fingerboard to pop. Anyone here old enuff to remember if RIC stated this in their manuals in the '60s/'70s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacker Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 the 4001 truss rod is an ellipse, a bit like a hairpin. One end of that is threaded and is what the nut locks onto. The slightly shorter other end lies on top and butts up against a small aluminium plate. As the rod is tightened, that top section flexes upwards. If the neck is not moved into position manually and the rods are tightened, this could cause the inlays and indeed the fingerboard to pop. Anyone here old enuff to remember if RIC stated this in their manuals in the '60s/'70s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacker Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 the 4001 truss rod is an ellipse, a bit like a hairpin. One end of that is threaded and is what the nut locks onto. The slightly shorter other end lies on top and butts up against a small aluminium plate. As the rod is tightened, that top section flexes upwards. If the neck is not moved into position manually and the rods are tightened, this could cause the inlays and indeed the fingerboard to pop. Anyone here old enuff to remember if RIC stated this in their manuals in the '60s/'70s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS73 Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 The new 2010/11 4003's are said to be really excellent, nice neck's etc, now they have the full width inlays and the Walnut wings, you're looking at a 71 or earlier to get that, the new 4003 is now a real 4001 and they're well priced too, with strong magnets they're going to kick out a lot more than a 4001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 I think im swinging to the 4003 I must say. The one I tried (2010 model) really kicked the pants off my 4001 in every possible way. Now..... someone pass me the swarfega while I fetch the burgundy paint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charic Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I want to see a pic of this dream ric actually! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 [quote name='charic' post='1180892' date='Mar 29 2011, 03:22 PM']I want to see a pic of this dream ric actually![/quote] dream ric? My dream one is probably a BG 4003 but they are incredibly rare, rarer than BG 4001's... sadly The new 4003s are amazing, the one I played was standard JG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS73 Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Not brilliant shots, but this is my 79 4001, mint but for the frets on the A string a usual problem for the 4001. [attachment=76052:V8_Twin.jpg][attachment=76051:IMG00268...826_1202.jpg] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) That is totally utterly lush in every possible way. Fact. Decided against keeping faith with the old bridge? Edited March 29, 2011 by Stag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhysP Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 [quote name='SS73' post='1180860' date='Mar 29 2011, 03:03 PM']The new 2010/11 4003's are said to be really excellent, nice neck's etc, now they have the full width inlays....[/quote] The full width inlays are a step backwards aesthetically - the smaller ones look MUCH better IMO. Having owned both I think the full width crushed pearl inlays on my checkerboard bound 4001 looked tacky as f***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 4001 vs. 4003? Every Ric is a little bit different - very good and very bad! You can find a great 4001 and bad 4003 and vice-versa. I would always say play if you can before you buy! I've owned 6 Rics - 4 4003's and 2 4004's (not at the same time!!). Just got a single 4003 now. Been problematic, but now it's on fire and the best I've had. If you going for a 2010, avoid the early part of the year as there is a problem with the bridge saddles. Some basses have been returned, but obviously that will be a problem buying here if not from a main rip-off merchant - sorry, importer. Oh, and swerve the early 2009's in MG as a chemical in the hardcase made the finish turn green! My JG is a late '09, and it's the best neck I've played on a Ric. I've always found how they differ on the first fret by the headstock does it for me. It's personal taste at the end of the day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gelfin Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 I would echo the comments above TRY before you buy. I have a 4003 which to me is utterly superb. I recently aquired a 4001 for a friends son and was very impressed with it. Tried the latest offering in PMT Bristol and thought the neck felt awful. Oh and I have a CS Ltd edition which I think is awsome too, although the neck isn't as slim as my 4003. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.