The Last Bass Outpost
Gear Discussion Forums => Rickenbacker Basses => Topic started by: Blazer on June 19, 2008, 07:16:56 PM
-
Okay I know they are going for the look of Sir Paul's bass but I can't help but to think that a reversed headtsock looks better on a lefthanded bass than it does on a right handed bass.
(http://elderly.com/images/vintage/55U/55U-4077_headstock-front.jpg)
It looks so odd in comparison to the usual way 'round
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v663/johngear/Rickenbacker-Resto049.jpg)
-
You're certainly not the only one who feels that way.
-
I think it looks weird on any bass, right- or left-handed. A lefty headstock should be a mirror image of the righty. Rossmeisl designed a very elegant shape with the 4000 Series, and the headstock is an integral part of it. McCartney's bass was made with a righty neck, even the dots on the fretboard are upside down ;)
-
You get used to it. Actually I even like the "different" headstock now.
(http://4001c64.nl/plaatjes/IMG_9732-800.jpg)(http://4001c64.nl/plaatjes/IMG_9737-800.jpg)
(http://4001c64.nl/plaatjes/IMG_9625-800.jpg)(http://4001c64.nl/plaatjes/IMG_9668-800.jpg)
-
Of my 3 Ric basses only one has the "mirror" headstock, I prefer the backwards one on lefties.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/leftyfam07008.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/eggricbyardlg.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/csnew.jpg)
-
Too me, a left handed headstock on a right handed looks daft. I wouldn't mind owning a C64, but not as long as they continue to make them this way. Just my opinion.
TD
-
A good luthier should be able to reverse the upside-down headstock. Remove the walnut wings, make new righty ones, re-drill and refin. I'm sure RIC will exchange a righty lucite TRC for the lefty. Shouldn't be too expensive to convert a C64 to a v63.
-
Shouldn't be too expensive to convert a C64 to a v63.
Oh no? As a luthier myself I can say that the amount of work including the refinish will set one back at least 200 bucks.
-
I don't think a C64 owner would object to a $200-$300 conversion cost.
-
I don't think a C64 owner would object to a $200-$300 conversion cost.
I would. Nobody will be butchering my 4001c64. ;-)
a) it's an homage to Paul McCartney who still plays with a reversed headstock.
b) the instrument was supposed to be this way.
c) You get used to it or even begin to like it once familiar with it in real live.
-
Bert, I meant that the cost probably wouldn't be a big problem for a C64 owner who wanted to convert it. No doubt many owners are happy with it as is.
-
I have had lots of rics over the years, including a V63. I LOVE my reverse headstock C64 it's a tribute to Paul and thats why I bought it ! Looks cool to me.
-
I think they look goofy. If you are a Beatle-dork they are fine, especially if you play in a tribute band. To that end I appreciate that they made them. But to dictate that a supposed reissue be made with an incorrect headstock kind of stinks. Not that the Rick people care, and I don't really pay attention to them either. But to the degree that they offered a peculiar thing demanded by Beatle fans, I would have wished they would have offered a special order "correct" headstock option. Rickenbacker was much more accomodating to customer requests like that 25 years ago when I could special order things from them, and as they have gone the other way I have not bought new from them. I will get a used V63 one of these days, or a 4001s.
-
He called us a Beatle dorks :o
-
The C64 is a Beatles tribute bass, or maybe even a signature model without a signature.
I don't care, I'm not buying one. They look silly unless they are left-handed.
-
Thats cool but I love 'em/mine if I'm a dork so be it. Been called far worse.
-
Beatle Dorks are fine but you really gotta watch those Yes Geeks. :P
-
Beatle Dorks are fine but you really gotta watch those Yes Geeks. :P
Ooh, just you wait til leftybass sees this. He's got a Squire and a psychedelic finish 4003, among many others.
-
Too me, a left handed headstock on a right handed looks daft. I wouldn't mind owning a C64, but not as long as they continue to make them this way. Just my opinion.
TD
I too would never buy one with those weird looking headstocks besides the fact that I can't play them with the horseshoe (or cover) anyway. I have never gotten used to that look.
-
Ooh, just you wait til leftybass sees this. He's got a Squire and a psychedelic finish 4003, among many others.
Haha, I represent that remark!
The psych finish one is a 4001S actually, here it is at a gig in Corpus Christi,Texas a couple days ago.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/Ronn_at_Bayfest_2008-1.jpg)
-
your bass looks just fine with the mirrored headstock, lefty. nice GK stack, too!
-
Nice shot, Ronn. I can almost feel the Gulf breeze.
-
Cool pic Ronn!
That headstock can be fixed, you know? :mrgreen:
-
Brilliant! And while you're PhotoShopping, please change the amp in a big sixties Vox and make a nice uniform jacket of his shirt;)
-
You've dropped a few lbs. , looking sharp !
-
You've dropped a few lbs. , looking sharp !
Thanks, down 44 lbs. since June.
Here's my lefty Squire with "normal" headstock.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/csnew.jpg)
-
I'm sure RIC will exchange a righty lucite TRC for the lefty.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Last I heard, they won't even do color changes anymore. I'm glad I got my black with chrome letters in exchange for a white one when I did back in 2000.
-
I think it looks curious, but that bass was made to match what Paul played. Kind of like people playing righty Strats with lefty headstocks to emulate Hendrix. Those look weird too.
-
I think it looks curious, but that bass was made to match what Paul played. Kind of like people playing righty Strats with lefty headstocks to emulate Hendrix. Those look weird too.
I can justify upside-down Strat headstocks even without Hendrix, they have different string tension with those headstocks. But an upside-down Ric headstock is only saying, "I want to look like Paul". And it messes with the classic shape of the 4000 Series, IMHO, YMMV, etc. I have no idea why they didn't give him a complete lefty bass.
-
I have no idea why they didn't give him a complete lefty bass.
You mean RIC had lefty headstocks in the earlier days? As far as I know these older Lefty Ricks are all upside down headstockwise.
-
"I can justify upside-down Strat headstocks even without Hendrix, they have different string tension with those headstocks."
Hasn't Herr Westheimer relegated that to the myth department? On an identical scale, the tension of two equally gauged strings tuned to the same note will always be the same (manufacturing differences between the strings excepted) irrespective whether they end directly after bridge and nut or still go on for a while. What's beyond the bridge saddle and nut is irrelevant except for saddle and nut pressure me thought. (Dave Westheimer citation needed.) :mrgreen:
Uwe
-
It makes sense. So the "Compensator" tailpiece, that didn't work either?
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:hg_Dmhm9QtUf_M:http://www.vintagehofner.co.uk/sen6.gif)
-
You mean RIC had lefty headstocks in the earlier days?
They didn't, but if I was going to give a lefty bass to the guy from the Beatles, I think I'd have someone in the factory custom make a mirror-image headstock and nameplate for that bass.
-
The tension doesn't change. The feel certainly changes. I read elsewhere that the proper physics term for this is compliance.
If you have the chance to compare normal and reversed headstock Strats at the same time, you'll be able to tell the difference. Or if you have a guitar with a locking nut, by comparing the feel of your longest string with the string clamped and unclamped.
But the pounds of tension needed to bring the string to pitch won't change.
-
The tension doesn't change. The feel certainly changes. I read elsewhere that the proper physics term for this is compliance.
If you have the chance to compare normal and reversed headstock Strats at the same time, you'll be able to tell the difference. Or if you have a guitar with a locking nut, by comparing the feel of your longest string with the string clamped and unclamped.
But the pounds of tension needed to bring the string to pitch won't change.
Well I don't know if the reversed headstock makes a significant influence on the way a strat plays but my Voodoo Strat IS my best sounding guitar.
(http://a280.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/125/l_30032bd3b1b84e5369b1415780094817.jpg)
-
The string length in relation to the nut and bridge does have an effect on the instrument. I can't remember the physics involved, but the reason a MM Stinkray has the G tuner where it does was that Fender figured out that dead spots on a P bass were a result of the longer G string. Moving it changed the tension with it in tune, and got rid of the dead spot. Somebody will know what it involves. So - from all I recall - a compensator tailpiece does effect the instrument, as does reversing the headstock. Maybe minor, but I don't think it is a myth. But then again I don't recall all the details either.
-
Maybe that's what MM claimed at some point long ago, but I've found all sorts of basses with the "Fender dead spot" including my Gibson EB-0L with it's 2+2 headstock and the occasional MM. I don't think string length has anything to do with dead spots.
-
The string length in relation to the nut and bridge does have an effect on the instrument. I can't remember the physics involved, but the reason a MM Stinkray has the G tuner where it does was that Fender figured out that dead spots on a P bass were a result of the longer G string. Moving it changed the tension with it in tune, and got rid of the dead spot. Somebody will know what it involves. So - from all I recall - a compensator tailpiece does effect the instrument, as does reversing the headstock. Maybe minor, but I don't think it is a myth. But then again I don't recall all the details either.
If that's really the case here then why did Leo Fender return to using a four-in-line headstock for his Post-musicman G&L basses?
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b107/139vinny/GLSB2.jpg)
-
I believe the reason for that is that Music Man owned the design - not Leo Fender or his own company which manufactured them for Music Man. Even though he did design it. The leap from the Sting Ray to the L-1000 is pretty tiny, and in general the differences are the lack of active controls and the headstock design reverting to an older Fender vibe. MM would probably have sued if G&L had those features, and Fender did sue G&L for using the older headstock. The L-1000 is an altered Sting Ray the way that bass was an altered Mustang.
But then this is wavering way of Rickenbacker territory.