New Rickenbacker Finish

[vax2002]

Perhaps I am picky but the New finish on the 4003 just does not look right to me, the new rosewood neck is dark in colour like most copies are and the contrasts between the plastic imitation mother of peal triangles and the dark wood is glaring.
Ricks were always famous for the redwood necks that fit well with inlays and binding.
The New finish makes the necks look really wide
Either the Neck finger board needs to go back to a red wood or the inlays need toning down ?
Also the contrast between the joins in the wood is very loud and really stands out that it is joined.
On a mapleglow, that looks nice but on the fireglow, the bass looks patched in.
Then we see they have stopped the glow feathering on the headstock and just blasted it all the same, this highlights the contrast in the jointed wood.
Rickenbacker 4003 have always been a bass you pay a huge mark up premium for as the woods were well matched and the quality of the finish was not replicable by other manufactures, but the new line look more like copies than some of the copies do ?
Would I pay £1500 /£1700++ for one of the new finish basses, no I dont think I would as the inlays really stand out and look plastic like.
I think many may agree ?
Or disagree ?
Perhaps you like the new finish, darker more common wood on finger board, one blast headstock and the sharp contrast in wood joints ?

Debate ?

Edited April 14, 2012 by vax2002

[Mr. Foxen]

Ha, I think I saw one of the new ones on ebay and was going to post in Rickenfakers 'cause of the dark neck, but it had all its certificates and such.

[Doctor J]

Got a link?

[vax2002]

One of the new ones in my local shop, the fireglow just does not look good on the headstock as the contrast in the wood, well lets put it this way, if you were making a bass, you would had a look for a bit of wood that match more closely.
Say in a squire you expect the woods not to match, its a £149 bass, but at a price level of a rick it should be immaculate.
I dont know whats changed, but hopefully they will go back to basics and instead of swapping odd bits of wood in , make a few different colours now and again.
The solid reds and white instruments of the 80's and early 90's, the azureglow, bring it back for a year, the "midnight blue" just does not cut it.
They were supposed to be having a colour of the year, but its a lot of years since they made any 4003 with anything other than standard, until they decided to use odd bits of wood that is.

[Doctor J]

Is this what you mean?



They're just copying this from the old 4001, they're not using maple for the headstock wings anymore, that's how they always used to be.



I think I prefer the yellow in the Fireglo finish, personally. My old 92 4003 was yellowish in the middle and I always found the pinkish hue of the followin years to be a bit offputting.

I have to say, I like this a lot (other than them being uncomfortable bastards to play)

[Musicman20]

Wish I liked Ricks. I love the tone and I absolutely adore the style, but the way they play puts me right off.

[vax2002]

No Dr J that looks ok as they have feathered the fireglow across the headstock, on the one in my store its just red and looks like a kay bass.

[Machines]

Damn it, I still want one.

[4000]

I've always found it's down to the individual instrument. I recently played 2 brand new 4003s and the fingerboards looked fairly different (as you'd expect, being wood...). All the boards on the Rics I've had (13 or 14) have been slightly different. FWIW the boards were bubinga.

I'm not a fan of the new inlay material, but that's only because I prefer the crushed pearl inlays. I don't like the post-'73 inlays either; in fact I much prefer the newer ones to those as I like them to be full-width. The new inlays are more like the inlays that were pre-crushed pearl.

Fireglo varies massively from bass to bass and year to year; the pics below are my '72 4001 and my old '71 4001 21 fretter. Find one you like and stick with that.

Edited April 14, 2012 by 4000

[vax2002]

On the wings on the headstock, on older non cnc machine basses they are smaller and outside the machine heads, on the new basses the machine head comes through either on the joint or in the joined area, as theses are stuck on, I must wonder, will we see 30 and 40 year old 4003 lasting as long ?

[4000]

This is the '71 headstock; the machineheads come through the joined area on this. Same with my '72.

[vax2002]

On it, but not outside of it !
The wings have become bingo wings
Hope they have a good glue these days.

Edited April 14, 2012 by vax2002

[4000]

In your previous post you stated that the earlier basses machines came through on the outside of the join and that newer basses either come through on the join or in the joined area, and then questioned whether or not these would last as long, unless I misunderstood and you were querying the shelf-life of the earlier heads (it seemed clear enough). My older basses are also on the join. FWIW the newer, larger heads just more or less mimic those of basses from approx '69 and earlier; the smaller heads were a later thing.

As many people claim that a neck break is stronger after a repair I wouldn't foresee too may problems due to a glue line . Also, if I was worried about glue I'd be far more worried about instruments with scarf-jointed heads...

Edited April 14, 2012 by 4000

[4000]

Here's a '69 head, just for comparison purposes....