600-Series Shape Changes

Vintage, Modern, V & C Series, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

Which 600-series style do you like more?

1963 - 2010(?)
36
82%
2010(?) - 2013
8
18%
 
Total votes: 44

User avatar
deaconblues
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:14 pm

600-Series Shape Changes

Post by deaconblues »

This has come up before, but I think it deserves its own thread.

I've noticed recently that the 600 series (at least, the 620 and 660) has changed shape.

The basic shape from the inception of the series in 1963 or thereabouts has a flattened bass horn and a long treble horn, almost like a 325. Also notice the extra strip of wood to the right of the guard.

Image

The newer 600s - since about 2010, by my reckoning - have a thinner bass horn with a rounded top that sticks out more, and a shorter treble horn.

Image

Now, you could say "there is no consistency, they have changed a bunch of times, etc." But I challenge you to find a shift in design as significant as this one throughout the many decades of production.

So the question is, which do you like better? My personal opinion is that the new design looks off-balance, but I wanted to hear what people think.
User avatar
jps
RRF Consultant
Posts: 37132
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:00 am

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by jps »

deaconblues wrote:The basic shape from the inception of the series in 1963 or thereabouts
1958 IIRC.
User avatar
Ontario_RIC_fan
Advanced Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:39 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by Ontario_RIC_fan »

The headstock shape changed in 1984... If I could vote it would be from 1962-1983 as preferred!

:P :P
Brian Morton
A Rickenbacker Fan
in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
=========================
67 FG 625
74 JG 4000
76 JG 430
77 JG 620
77 JG 320
79 JG 4001
80 FG 620/12
81 BG 480
91 JG 610
02 BG 620
78 TR7
83 TR25
User avatar
ByrdBro
New member
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:19 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by ByrdBro »

Strewth, reading this was a real surprise, had no idea there had been recent changes to the 600 range.

Wonder why?

I have a 2000 model 660-12 and love it, as am sure many do. Can't understand why the shape should have been changed.

In fairness the new style doesn't look too different and this could go un-noticed if you walked into a music shop and
saw a new one hanging on the wall. But side by side, yes it is apparent.

Curious
User avatar
deaconblues
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:14 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by deaconblues »

ByrdBro wrote:In fairness the new style doesn't look too different and this could go un-noticed if you walked into a music shop and
saw a new one hanging on the wall. But side by side, yes it is apparent.
Personally, I noticed it straight away. The smaller treble horn is really obvious in person.
jps wrote:1958 IIRC.
You're right, I was thinking just of the 620.
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6650
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by aceonbass »

I noticed the change in body shape (as well as the change in shape of the body contour under the tailpiece on 300 series guitars) a couple of years ago. I took a lot of heat here for noticing it and preferring the earlier shapes. John Hall said the change in 600 series shape was based on an early one he had sitting close to him, and Ben Said he liked the newer 300 series contour better. Kudos to you Dan for noticing this and posting a survey.
User avatar
chronictown
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 791
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 12:09 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by chronictown »

I hate to be a fence-sitter, but I actually like them both. If I had to pick, I'd say the older version just for the sake of tradition, but the recent changes are not offensive IMHO (unlike the 300-series re-vamped ramp circa 2010, which has mysteriously returned to normal lately). I do like how the cresting wave line is not "broken" across the neck with the new style.
User avatar
deaconblues
RRF Consultant
Posts: 2390
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:14 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by deaconblues »

By all accounts, Ben is doing a fantastic job at the factory, especially QC-wise.

I won't be in the market for a 12-string anytime soon, but the new 620/660 shapes will definitely affect my decision when I am.
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6650
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by aceonbass »

chronictown wrote: I do like how the cresting wave line is not "broken" across the neck with the new style.
I would consider this an improvement too, but did all of the older ones have the "broken" cresting wave line, or just some of them? The basses always seemed fine in this regard, so I'm wondering if the older 600 shown here is an exception rather than the rule.
Clint
Intermediate Member
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 2:03 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by Clint »

Mine's "broken" it's an '87.
Jangle, Chime & Twang.
User avatar
chronictown
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 791
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 12:09 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by chronictown »

Good question, Dane...I've owned three cresting wave guitars (two from '64 and one from '77) and they are all "broken" across the meeting of the neck and body. That said, though, there may be some other years of production when this was not the case; I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking.
User avatar
analogpackrat
Member
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:34 am

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by analogpackrat »

Despite the seemingly minor difference, I very much prefer the older style upper horn. Its flatter face looks more aggressive and wave-like to my eye. I find the lower horn difference less obvious for some reason.
If it is to be, it is up to me.
Clifton
Junior Member
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:54 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by Clifton »

analogpackrat wrote:Despite the seemingly minor difference, I very much prefer the older style upper horn. Its flatter face looks more aggressive and wave-like to my eye. I find the lower horn difference less obvious for some reason.
I agree--I like the older style better, too. Even though it's probably only a visual thing, it looks like the guitar would be a little stronger with the extra wood. Tone-wise, it probably doesn't make much difference, I would imagine. I have a 620/12 from about 1980, and a 620/6 from 2006. What's interesting about the headstock of the 12-string is just how roughly cut the channels are for the extra strings--not as smooth as modern woodworking.
User avatar
Kingbreaker
Junior Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:31 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by Kingbreaker »

My (old style) 660/12 had just a bit of neck dive. . .. I think I'd prefer the heavier body, whatever that would be. They both look good. Old style is a little more distinctive and unique.
User avatar
Kingbreaker
Junior Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 5:31 pm

Re: 600-Series Shape Changes

Post by Kingbreaker »

Kingbreaker wrote:My (old style) 660/12 had just a bit of neck dive. . .. I think I'd prefer the heavier body, whatever that would be. They both look good. Old style is a little more distinctive and unique.

Looking at it closely, is it true that the upper horn is extended a bit?

This might give us an explanation, as it would probably balance a bit better.
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Guitars: by John Simmons”