Why did Rickenbacker change the 360 in 1964 just as it was becoming popular?

[audiodrome]

In June 1964 Rickenbacker presented the redesigned 360 model. The pointed "devil horns" were rounded off and the top binding was replaced with a rounded edge. By this time the old style gold pickguard and "TV" knobs had already been replaced by a white pickguard and smaller black indented knobs. Then with the addition of the famous "R" tailpiece by late 1964 the makeover would be complete. That's the background everyone knows, but I have always been puzzled about one thing.

In February 1964 Rickenbacker gave George Harrison a model 360/12 with the old style (O.S.) body shape. Harrison's 360 was the first true Rickenbacker 12-string model but it was not the first 12-string 360. The first Rickenbacker 360/12 was another prototype with traditional stringing, as opposed to the new reversed stringing on Harrison's guitar, and Capri features such as the gold pickguard and "TV" knobs.

George Harrison and his new Rickenbacker 360/12 were prominently featured in the movie A Hard Day's Night, as well as in other countless television and concert appearances, magazine photos, album covers, etc. All of a sudden there is this massive exposure for Rickenbacker with thousands of young boys wanting to buy a 360/12 just like George Harrison's. Considering this, why would Rickenbacker want to redesign and market a new 360/12 with a different body style from the one Harrison played?

[cmatthes]

People complained about the sides digging into your picking arm/wrist.

[Jahn]

But today you can get a 360-12C63 to relive those sharp edged years!

[kylek350]

I think it's because it was still the era that companies were evolving the product, not being paralyzed by the dogma of the guitar-buying public. I do dig the O.S. with binding. I'm holding out for a c63 for that reason!

[metropolis74]

The Harrison style ("old style") 360/12 didn't completely disappear. It was kept around for a few years as special order.

In June 1964 Rickenbacker change the body shape to have a rounded front edge with no front binding (only the back had binding). This is known as the "NS" or New Style body, and this body style is less desirable. The OS ("old style") body was still available through the end of the 1960s, but only as a special order. http://home.provide.net/~cfh/r360.html

[Rhomco]

I suspect the real reason the roundover 360 style evolved was to salvage a large number of carved bodies that had router tearout or chip damage to the top. The large roundover neatly cuts away the defects and equally as important...... eliminated the binding on the top side.
Follow the money, money beats soul every time!
Rob

[metropolis74]

I think it's because it was still the era that companies were evolving the product, not being paralyzed by the dogma of the guitar-buying public...

++++++1

Even George Harrison switched to the "new style" 360/12 in 1965 after receiving one as a gift. I don't think the OS 360/12 even had time to get popular since a Hard Day's Night hit theatres a month or two after Rickenbacker already switched to the NS. So most fans (notably Roger McGuinn) were seeing George's 12'er for the first time and it was already somewhat "discontinued". The change was already in the works before it got popular.

But I don't think anyone in 1964 was complaining that they couldn't get an OS 360/12 anymore. I think the OS style was all but forgotten by 1965 when Roger McGuinn started jangling on his NS 360/12.

[Guitarworks]

I think it's because it was still the era that companies were evolving the product, not being paralyzed by the dogma of the guitar-buying public.

This is probably it. The rounded-over-top body style of the 360 was likely seen as a necessary update to give it a more modern, sculpted look....possibly spurred on by the SG or the Strat(?). Youths looking to obtain a 360 back in 1964 were probably happy to settle for anything even remotely close to what they saw George playing. I'm sure Rickenbacker management was not inundated with a backlash of scathing letters from angry, distraught guitarists in response to the change, like they might be today.

[kylek350]

I'm sure Rickenbacker management was not inundated with a backlash of scathing letters from angry, distraught guitarists in response to the change, like they might be today.

I'm sure their sales records going into the mid/late '60s wouldn't have raised a concern! ;)

It's interesting how John Hall has admitted on the Rickenbacker forum that he's maintained flaws in the product (such as tethering the middle pickup to the neck pickup on 3-pickup models, which he finds totally useless) for fear of public outcry.

The reality for Rickenbacker is that they make as many guitars as they want to, never needing to maintain an inventory as they're all already sold! Too bad that for this reason they don't offer custom orders anymore.

Fortunately, I love their designs, but it seems a shame that their market almost forces them to remain frozen in time. ...Kind of like many other manufacturers' "innovations" consisting of how convincingly they can pre-age their product line.

[audiodrome]

++++++1

Even George Harrison switched to the "new style" 360/12 in 1965 after receiving one as a gift. I don't think the OS 360/12 even had time to get popular since a Hard Day's Night hit theatres a month or two after Rickenbacker already switched to the NS. So most fans (notably Roger McGuinn) were seeing George's 12'er for the first time and it was already somewhat "discontinued". The change was already in the works before it got popular.

But I don't think anyone in 1964 was complaining that they couldn't get an OS 360/12 anymore. I think the OS style was all but forgotten by 1965 when Roger McGuinn started jangling on his NS 360/12.
But I'm sure there were some Beatles fans/musicians who either ordered a 360/12 or walked into a store to purchase a 360/12 expecting to get a "Harrison" model and were disappointed when they saw the new redesigned 360. But like you said, at least the OS model could be special ordered. I personally think that the "gumby with devil horns" OS body shape is much more aesthestically pleasing, although the 360 NS certainly does have its own quirky charm. Even the '58-'61 Capri 360 with it's awkward "upside-down tooth" look (the horns were too small in relation to the main body) is strangely appealing.

[LSchefman]

Actually, being very old, I was a kid when the 360 with the rounded edges was introduced, and we all thought the new 360 looked more "modern" and nicely improved - remember, this was mid-60s, when people wanted to get away from a "50s-early 60s" guitar look. In fact, I remember gushing over it with guys in my early high school band.

The Byrds didn't seem to mind the change...

I'm sure it wasn't about saving a few pennies on bindings. It was simply more stylish. "New and improved" was a big slogan back in the day with any product. The change got attention.

[kylek350]

Actually, being very old, I was a kid when the 360 with the rounded edges was introduced, and we all thought the new 360 looked more "modern" and nicely improved - remember, this was mid-60s, when people wanted to get away from a "50s-early 60s" guitar look. In fact, I remember gushing over it with guys in my early high school band.

Yep, that sounds about right. :)

[will richardson]

My Dad let me order a 360 Fireglow with two pickup and an accent vibrato. It took about three months to come in. I ordered it through the Hank Snow School of Music on Church Street in Nashville, TN ( a classy store with a teacher named Henry Farrell who taught Chet Adkins after Chet was already established in Nashville - Nashville Guys we will do a thread on Nashvilles undergroung best kept secrets). I was disappointed when the New Style arrived as I had only seen the Harrision Model. I got over it immediately but still wondered what happened. Two years later the neck went haywire and no one could repair it. It was traded in Clarksville, TN to Hutchinson Williams Music Center for a Thoroughly Used but respectable Duane Eddy Standard in Sunbust with Bigsby and Pearl Button Tuners (as on the Ric). I beat it for two years ( the only guitar in my life with which I was not meticulous (thanks for the grammar lessons Momma Billie)) and traded for the FIRST (of 4-5)1968 Goldtops which was a true leftover from the fifties or sixties. It was stolen in Summer of 1971 near Fort Campbell, KY (also another good guitar saga).

My Ric had the pearl tuner buttons which I only see listed on Ebay or some of the more prominent vintage dealers websites.

My Band played LOTS mostly British Invasion with a heavy emphasis on Stones and Kinks.

Yesterday I just recieved a Rickenbacker Blueburst 660 on trade from a GP Member. Now have a 12 and 6 660 both in BB. The "little guy 660" was an after thought in the 60s. It probably cost less - guys wanted semi-hollow if they bought a Rickenbacker at all.

All this said. Both NS and OS have their place in rock due to Mr. Harrison and Mr. McGuinn.

Oh yes, my Band called the Joyfull Noise played several Byrds tunes including It won't Be Wrong.

Keep on pickin',


will richardson

[Rockinrob86]

have they ever reissued the old style pointy 6 string 360?

[tsar nicholas]

I'm a '95 360 owner, and when I got mine I knew nothing about guitars, choosing it over a sharp-edged 330 more or less on the basis of looks. I think the newer style looks waaaay cooler and more mod.

[Lemonhand]

have they ever reissued the old style pointy 6 string 360?

The 360V64 6-string was available for a number of years but was discontinued quite some time ago. They pop up on eBay pretty regularly.

[Rockinrob86]

The 360V64 6-string was available for a number of years but was discontinued quite some time ago. They pop up on eBay pretty regularly.

Thanks! The search will be easier with a model #.

And obviously, the pointy ones are way cooler.

[Ogre]

Hey Will. "It Won't Be Wrong", best Byrds tune ever! I did it , as well, back in high school, on my bandmates Hagstrom solid-body 12.

[scottlr]

Thanks! The search will be easier with a model #.

And obviously, the pointy ones are way cooler.

Also look for a used model 360WB (meaning with binding), which was made in the past, before v series came out.

[Help!I'maRock!]

meh, i like the understated look of my 330. you guys can have your contours, bindings, and triangle inlays.

[DrumBob]

I'm sure their sales records going into the mid/late '60s wouldn't have raised a concern! ;)

It's interesting how John Hall has admitted on the Rickenbacker forum that he's maintained flaws in the product (such as tethering the middle pickup to the neck pickup on 3-pickup models, which he finds totally useless) for fear of public outcry.

The reality for Rickenbacker is that they make as many guitars as they want to, never needing to maintain an inventory as they're all already sold! Too bad that for this reason they don't offer custom orders anymore.

Fortunately, I love their designs, but it seems a shame that their market almost forces them to remain frozen in time. ...Kind of like many other manufacturers' "innovations" consisting of how convincingly they can pre-age their product line.


This is exactly right on all counts. I have spoken to John Hall several times, and asked him why he keeps the anomalies intact, such as the narrow necks on the 12 strings (other than the 660). His response has always been that the mystique is something he needs to maintain.

Rickenbacker is in a very good position. They do sell every guitar they make. They have a very large cult following, and every guitar they sell is made in the USA. John will not farm out a cheaper version to Korea or China, unlike Fender, Gibson, PRS, etc. He would dilute the brand that way, and open the door to more Chinese fakes.

Also, Rickenbacker guitars is just a piece of the Hall puzzle. John has other business interests such as real estate, that earn him money.

[tsar nicholas]

His response has always been that the mystique is something he needs to maintain.


^ I love my Ric, but this is one of the worst approaches to musical instrument design I've heard of

[Jahn]

^ I love my Ric, but this is one of the worst approaches to musical instrument design I've heard of

Yep. So many musicians would buy a Ric 360-12 if it just had a neck made for bigger hands. myself included. I don't have baby hands!

http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2008/12/19/saturday%20night%20live%20lawrence%20welk%201_430x 262.shkl.jpg

[Laplacian]

I love Rics.

I agree they should just make the 360/12's neck wider. I have a 660/12 and it is great to play for that reason, but I also have a 360/12c63, and for some reason (while tight) it is also a breeze to play.

I used to have a modern 370/12 (in Mapleglo), but it was a devil to play. I think the c63 has a rounder radius which makes it a little easier to accomodate the thin width.

.. the 660 width would be the best way to go.

I'll only add that the 360/12c63 is magical. For THAT sound and look there is no other.

[Help!I'maRock!]

Yep. So many musicians would buy a Ric 360-12 if it just had a neck made for bigger hands. myself included. I don't have baby hands!

Ric sells every last one as is. why change if you already can't keep it in stock?

[Jahn]

Ric sells every last one as is. why change if you already can't keep it in stock?

Exactly. "we don't need your kind of customer, mister Big Hands. We're doin just fine without you!" I feel left out, with no hope that it'll change in my lifetime!

[Gray]

Exactly. "we don't need your kind of customer, mister Big Hands. We're doin just fine without you!" I feel left out, with no hope that it'll change in my lifetime!

Pretty much. People often use the "Rickenbacker sells every guitar they make" line in the face of any detractors to the brand but really, that's not a good thing. It's good for the company, but not good for the consumer. They don't need to try new things or change what they have because the fan base has well established that all they want is more of the same.

There are wide-necked Rickenbacker models, though.

[Help!I'maRock!]

Pretty much. People often use the "Rickenbacker sells every guitar they make" line in the face of any detractors to the brand but really, that's not a good thing. It's good for the company, but not good for the consumer. They don't need to try new things or change what they have because the fan base has well established that all they want is more of the same.

There are wide-necked Rickenbacker models, though.

how is giving the consumer the thing that sells the most not good for them?

[Baxtercat]

Because nearly everybody ends up saying their 12 string necks are uncomfortably narrow.
Yes, they sell, because they are so cool! [Roger Rossmeisl had quite the designers eye!]
http://www.tatadoheaven.com/Ric/images/germancarve/rrossmeisl02.jpg

[Gray]

how is giving the consumer the thing that sells the most not good for them?

I thought I explained it pretty well. They are comfortable staying inside their "box" of guitar models and see no need to venture outside it because the guitars they make consistently sell, and "why change a good thing".

That's not good for people who don't fit into that box, because they have virtually no hope of seeing something different from Rickenbacker which might suit their playing style better. They are content, and have no drive to continue innovating because they are content.

[scottlr]

They did add those Dakotas to thei lineup several years ago. I never liked them much. But they were quite different than their standard lineup.

[Jahn]

They did add those Dakotas to thei lineup several years ago. I never liked them much. But they were quite different than their standard lineup.

true, but those solidbodies are a far cry from their bread and butter models, those 360/330 types. Plus, those were wider necks but way too thin/flat in the back - so a big chunky neck's not in the cards, or even a "normal" rounded neck. like said above, the reissue 360-12 rics actually have that more classic rounded carve which is nice, but with that narrow nut, man, still no go.

in other words, Ric still hasn't ever put out a bigger neck that won't make your palm spasm. Well, at least my palm. If they ever do, and they put it on a 360-12, hopefully with the non-curvy edges, man that's my dream electric 12.

[tsar nicholas]

If they hadn't discontinued the 380 Laguna, I wouldn't be complaining

[Help!I'maRock!]

I thought I explained it pretty well. They are comfortable staying inside their "box" of guitar models and see no need to venture outside it because the guitars they make consistently sell, and "why change a good thing".

That's not good for people who don't fit into that box, because they have virtually no hope of seeing something different from Rickenbacker which might suit their playing style better. They are content, and have no drive to continue innovating because they are content.

and what i'm saying is that i respectfully disagree. not everybody has to be a consumer of every brand. it's perfectly fine to make a niche product, make that product to a high standard, and make that product exclusive based on what the core customer base desires. outsiders can either conform or find something else.

take the hint and go find something else. i'm sure it'll be a great instrument. it just won't say Rickenbacker on it.

[Gray]

outsiders can either conform or find something else.

take the hint and go find something else. i'm sure it'll be a great instrument. it just won't say Rickenbacker on it.

That "take the high road" attitude is exactly the problem people have with Rickenbacker fans.

[Stratobuc]

Yep. So many musicians would buy a Ric 360-12 if it just had a neck made for bigger hands. myself included. I don't have baby hands!


The width at the nut is very close to a Fender. Are those made for "baby hands" too? You can change the string spacing a bit with a new nut. I have big hands - and playing my Rickenbackers is nothing but a pleasure.

[Help!I'maRock!]

That "take the high road" attitude is exactly the problem people have with Rickenbacker fans.

this is like the Cole Hamels/Bryce Harper argument from a couple of weeks ago. You're allowed to hit the guy, just don't say you meant to do it. make something up about how the ball got away from you.

apparently it's ok to market only to a certain crowd. just don't say that's what you're doing because then everybody else gets mad.

[Gray]

apparently it's ok to market only to a certain crowd. just don't say that's what you're doing because then everybody else gets mad.

I'm sure you think you're being clever, but where are you getting this from? My whole arguement is that they shouldn't market their product to only the few.

[Jahn]

Fender Strat Nut Width: 1.685" (42.8 mm) or your typical 1 11/16. Most other guitars are this as well, like Martin and Gibsons and so on. With exceptions, but those are exceptions, not the rule.

Ric 360-12 Neck Width at Nut, 1.63'' (41.4 mm) or a little under 1 10/16.

That might not seem like a big difference, but to some folks (including me) it is. It's the difference between being able to chord cleanly, especially at the cowboy chords (first three fret positions). I actually used to own even worse, a late 60s Gibson ES-345 with a 1 9/16 nut width, and that thing made me cry, even with just 6 strings. That was the ONLY thing I didn't like about the guitar, but it was bad enough to move it along. It had a great rounded back of the neck and everything, but the nut width was the dealbreaker.

So hey, maybe it's just my dealbreaker being different, but a 1 10/16 nut and 12 strings to boot, ugh forget chording period, not just chording and picking cleanly. I tried for a long time to get used to a 360-12/C63 that i was noodling with, but i guess the way i play just doesn't jibe with it. Maybe replacing the nut and moving the strings around so i can chord cleaner is a solution, but without trying one with a modified nut first, i'm too gun shy to pull the trigger on a guitar just for a mod that may or may not work for me.

[tsar nicholas]

The width at the nut is very close to a Fender. Are those made for "baby hands" too? You can change the string spacing a bit with a new nut. I have big hands - and playing my Rickenbackers is nothing but a pleasure.

^ yeah, but it's not just the nut width. It's the entirety of the neck dimensions. I own both Rickenbacker and Fender, and without having measured, I can guarantee that the Rick has a much skinnier neck.

But I don't like vintage Fender nut width either. I like Gibson / modern Fender nut width, and so do a whole army of players who all the same love the sound of Ricks.

And also, a lot of the guys (not me) who dislike the Rick nut width are specifically unhappy with it as appears on the 12-string models. I'm sure that there are Fenders with vintage nut widths and 12-string necks out there, but I doubt many people are playing them.

[Help!I'maRock!]

I'm sure you think you're being clever, but where are you getting this from? My whole arguement is that they shouldn't market their product to only the few.

right. and i think marketing only to your core audience is perfectly acceptable. we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Jahn]

Plus the fretboard radius.

360-12/C63 Crown Radius, 18.4 cm (7 1/4''). That 7.25 is a vintage radius, which i can handle on a '52 Tele due to a chunky neck and a wider nut, but if you put 12 strings on it, narrow the nut, thin the neck and keep that 7.25 radius, that's a deadly combo.

Compare that to my Eric Clapton Strat, which is a VERY comfortable 6-string:

Neck: Maple, Soft V Shape
Fingerboard: Maple (9.5-inch Radius/241 mm)
Number of Frets: 22 Vintage Style
Scale Length: 25.5 inch (648 mm)
Width at Nut: 1.650 inches (42 mm)

See, that nut width is between the standard and ric nut widths, but with the flat radius and chunky neck, chording on this thing's great.

It really is all the parts making up the whole. I know Ric folks think that if they change it to be more, uh, modern, that they'll lose that vintage feel and maybe even the Ric tone. But heck I'd love to find out if that's true or not, right?

The thing is, Ric's core audience is bigger than Ric wants to accomodate. After all, think of it as the Guitarists Who Like the Beatles audience. That's a BIG core audience. And yet very few of that big pool can comfortably play a "Beatles" Ric. It's a shame.

[Help!I'maRock!]

Plus the fretboard radius.

360-12/C63 Crown Radius, 18.4 cm (7 1/4''). That 7.25 is a vintage radius, which i can handle on a '52 Tele due to a chunky neck and a wider nut, but if you put 12 strings on it, narrow the nut, thin the neck and keep that 7.25 radius, that's a deadly combo.

Compare that to my Eric Clapton Strat, which is a VERY comfortable 6-string:

Neck: Maple, Soft V Shape
Fingerboard: Maple (9.5-inch Radius/241 mm)
Number of Frets: 22 Vintage Style
Scale Length: 25.5 inch (648 mm)
Width at Nut: 1.650 inches (42 mm)

you should instead compare it to a modern production Ric. it's a more fair comparison. here are the specs for a modern 360/12:

Body Type Semi-Acoustic
No. Frets 24
Scale Length 62.9 cm (24 3/4'')
Neck Width at Nut 41.4 mm (1.63'')
Neck Width at 12th Fret 49.05 mm (1 .931'')
Crown Radius 25.4 cm (10'')

[Jahn]

but the modern Rics are really thin on the back of the neck, while the C63 is nice and fully rounded - the "neck carve?" so the closest i actually got to a comfortable Ric was the C63 - but the rest just didn't add up to Comfortable.

so the modern Ric has a flatter radius but skinnier neck, and same narrow nut. the vintage reissue Ric has a rounder radius but thicker neck, and same narrow nut.

the common yuck thing is the narrow nut, so that's usually what folks complain about the most. but even with a modded nut, there are issues here that can be dealbreakers as well.

even if you mod the nut not just to have wider string spacing but also a wider overall nut - aren't you going to have to get a wider fretboard too? and so on down the line. i get it, it's a pain in the arse type overhaul on a model that Ric doesn't want to fool with. That's why for the most part folks just sigh and move on, instead of petitioning. we get it. but we aren't happy.

[Gray]

I'm having a new neck built for my Rick with a 10" radius and 1.65" nut width.

1.65" is comfort city for me, my Jazzmaster has the same dimensions.

i get it, it's a pain in the arse type overhaul on a model that Ric doesn't want to fool with. That's why for the most part folks just sigh and move on, instead of petitioning. we get it. but we aren't happy.

Exactly.

[Help!I'maRock!]

but the modern Rics are really thin on the back of the neck, while the C63 is nice and fully rounded - the "neck carve?" so the closest i actually got to a comfortable Ric was the C63 - but the rest just didn't add up to Comfortable.

so the modern Ric has a flatter radius but skinnier neck, and same narrow nut. the vintage reissue Ric has a rounder radius but thicker neck, and same narrow nut.

the common yuck thing is the narrow nut, so that's usually what folks complain about the most. but even with a modded nut, there are issues here that can be dealbreakers as well.

even if you mod the nut not just to have wider string spacing but also a wider overall nut - aren't you going to have to get a wider fretboard too? and so on down the line. i get it, it's a pain in the arse type overhaul on a model that Ric doesn't want to fool with. That's why for the most part folks just sigh and move on, instead of petitioning. we get it. but we aren't happy.

my 330 has a pretty substantial neck profile. it's from '06 and i'm not certain if they changed it since. definitely not thin like an Ibanez shredder or an old Hagstrom.

i don't see any problem with moving on if you don't like something.

[Jahn]

well the problem is we don't really have anywhere to move on to. and don't think i wasn't THIS close to getting a Variax just for some 12-string jonesin', because I was! but that's not the same as getting a Ric, is it? sux.

[alexanderplatz]

Seems like there would not be a "public outcry" if Rickenbacker kept on making 330 and 360 models but introduced a model with the same bodies but the neck profile of a 660. They could call it a something 336 and 366, or if those names have been used already then some other similar designation.

[Help!I'maRock!]

well the problem is we don't really have anywhere to move on to. and don't think i wasn't THIS close to getting a Variax just for some 12-string jonesin', because I was! but that's not the same as getting a Ric, is it? sux.

there are many other companies that make 12 string guitars. i'm sure you can find one that plays and sounds the way you want. i played a Dano DC-12 for 8 years and it did everything i wanted it to. (recently sold it for more than i paid too.)

[Jahn]

Danos have the octave strings flipped from the Rics - actually it's the Rics that are strange with the octaves under the main strings, everyone else puts them over. just another quirk. there's just not much out there just like a Ric. if there was really a viable alternative, I probably woulda jumped at it by now.

which by the way, is an all-electric discussion. Guilds rule for Acoustic 12s. but hey, eventually they'll saw my fingers in half, as seen below (and look, they have the octave strings where "they belong," above the main strings too):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/jahn0603/F312/Picture2003.jpg

[Help!I'maRock!]

Danos have the octave strings flipped from the Rics - actually it's the Rics that are strange with the octaves under the main strings, everyone else puts them over. just another quirk. there's just not much out there just like a Ric. if there was really a viable alternative, I probably woulda jumped at it by now.

the dano Gotoh bridge is really great in that every string is intonatable. so if you recut or replaced the nut, you'd be golden. much easier than waiting for Ric to change their neck dimensions.

[Stratobuc]

^ yeah, but it's not just the nut width. It's the entirety of the neck dimensions. I own both Rickenbacker and Fender, and without having measured, I can guarantee that the Rick has a much skinnier neck.

But I don't like vintage Fender nut width either. I like Gibson / modern Fender nut width, and so do a whole army of players who all the same love the sound of Ricks.

And also, a lot of the guys (not me) who dislike the Rick nut width are specifically unhappy with it as appears on the 12-string models. I'm sure that there are Fenders with vintage nut widths and 12-string necks out there, but I doubt many people are playing them.


I just got out the 330 and compared it with an '84 Strat. The width is very close at the 12th fret. The Rick neck is thinner, but the width is very close to being the same. Its not hard to play by any standard.

[Jahn]

But a dano doesn't sound like a ric!
And is yours a 12? I mean I guess I could keep it capod up where it's wider, but why buy something that needs to be capod all the time for big hands?

[Gray]

But a dano doesn't sound like a ric!
And is yours a 12? I mean I guess I could keep it capod up where it's wider, but why buy something that needs to be capod all the time for big hands?

You've got it easy, the neck on mine was 1.59"

[Stratobuc]

I have two 330's, a six and a twelve string. Both are 2005 color of the year Blueburst.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f232/Stratobuc/DSC00118.jpg

[Gray]

Blueburst


:drool

[R13D]

My '67... I've got skinny fingertips,no problem playing it. Most other folks, big problem.
http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv149/blueshade2/MISC%20guitars/palerider050.jpg

[Baxtercat]

so if you recut or replaced the nut, you'd be golden. much easier than waiting for Ric to change their neck dimensions.
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac345/Baxtercat65/Guitar%20Bob%20collection/Ric360-12.jpg
As an FYI, I did refile the nut on my '95 360-12. Like most I just wanted to be able to play chords on the thing without damping the adjacent strings!

I moved the strings a tiny bit closer together, which helps, but it's not all gold.
It gets into an area where the two strings of an individual 'course' bump into each other and don't ring as clearly or as loud, depending how light you strum.

[Help!I'maRock!]

http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac345/Baxtercat65/Guitar%20Bob%20collection/Ric360-12.jpg
As an FYI, I did refile the nut on my '95 360-12. Like most I just wanted to be able to play chords on the thing without damping the adjacent strings!

I moved the strings a tiny bit closer together, which helps, but it's not all gold.
It gets into an area where the two strings of an individual 'course' bump into each other and don't ring as clearly or as loud, depending how light you strum.

actually, i was talking about changing the nut on another brand 12 string, so that you could put the octave string on the bottom, like on a Ric.

[Frankee]

You know what? That 1/16 of an inch isn't a big deal. I got used to it pretty quickly. I don't even notice anymore. My hands are normal.....kinda on thick side and beat-up actually.....from years of industrial construction work and wrenching on cars and bikes.

Here's my 12 banger with its sibling.

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg298/pacbastard/fa915a88.jpg

[tsar nicholas]

well the problem is we don't really have anywhere to move on to.

^ this is a fact.


Nothing (nothing) sounds like a Rickenbacker semi-hollow

[tsar nicholas]

I just got out the 330 and compared it with an '84 Strat. The width is very close at the 12th fret. The Rick neck is thinner, but the width is very close to being the same. Its not hard to play by any standard.

^ I have both as well (though my 360 is a '96) and by my standard, the 360 IS hard to play in comparison to the wide, flat, thicker necks I discovered long after I bought the Rick at age 16. If it wasn't harder to play, I'd still be using it as my #1 and I wouldn't be complaining.

The tiny vintage frets on my 360 don't help either. It's like in 'fretless wonder' territory.


For the record, I've written a good many times to Rickenbacker, lobbying them to put a 660-width neck on a production semi-hollow again as they did on the 380, but they never even acknowledge me.

I understand that they primarily sell nostalgia, but for those of us looking for modern musical instruments with good playability, that's too bad.

[iluvfender]

The OP is Paul

[emdub123]

Actually, being very old, I was a kid when the 360 with the rounded edges was introduced, and we all thought the new 360 looked more "modern" and nicely improved - remember, this was mid-60s, when people wanted to get away from a "50s-early 60s" guitar look. In fact, I remember gushing over it with guys in my early high school band.

The Byrds didn't seem to mind the change...

I'm sure it wasn't about saving a few pennies on bindings. It was simply more stylish. "New and improved" was a big slogan back in the day with any product. The change got attention.

I wasn't there at the time, but this would have been my guess. Secondly, the 360 with the rounded top looks different from the 330. The previous model looks too similar to the 330, IMO.

[Gray]

Would be nice if they still had that same drive to modernize their instruments.

[emdub123]

As an owner of a 2011 360/6, it's been my personal experience that the Ric wasn't as playable on Day 1 as other guitars that I've owned. However, once I started to get used to it, it's difference from my other guitars became an asset. Each guitar brings out a different aspect of your personality and self-expression, so by taking the time to bond with my 360 I have been rewarded with a new variation in my playing style. I don't play or write songs in the same way on my Les Paul vs. my telecaster and likewise, the Ric brings out something entirely different than the other two.

On another note, I'm not one of those Beatle-fan Ric players. I love the Beatles, but my original intention was to find a guitar with a mid-range bite, hollow-body sustain and the authority of a Les Paul when used for overdriven songs. My 360 does all that and sits nicely between my Les Paul and my Tele.

Nothing sounds better with Lovepedal overdrives like the Amp 11 or the Amp 50. Haven't played the eternity series, but the tonal complexity of the 360 really works with that signature clarity that Lovepedal has. If you want to hear what I'm talking about, check out the song "Looking to the Sun" in my signature link.

[scottlr]

Funny how many pickup swaps we read about here, yet I can't recall anyone putting toasters on a different brand than a Ric. I winder how close to the Ric sound one could get if you put toasters on a different brand 12. :dunno

[SGNick]

Much like Gibson, Rickenbacker's main problem is the nut.

Look up a guy named Dr Quist to see how he takes the stock Rickenbacker neck and makes a nut for it that makes use of the whole fretboard. Same neck, but MUCH better playability.

[vortexxxx]

Rickenbacker are strange beasts. More people would like them if the necks were wider. But they are so busy that they don't need to make one like that.