F-hole Position in Rare Vintage 325 Models

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu Dec 28, 2000 7:56 pm

Glen: There has been some discussion in the past on the f-hole position as a feature in rare 325 models. I am wondering what you think about these claims and what you have learned from your research.

glen_l · Post by **glen_l** » Thu Dec 28, 2000 8:42 pm

According to my data, Rickenbacker changed over from 2 o'clock to 1 o'clock soundholes in April or perhaps early May of 1964. The last known example of a 2 o'clock soundhole is found on the modified and refinished Rose Morris 1996 sold from Guitar Broker this year. It was an April '64. The next known RM1996 was sold from the UK on Ebay this year - it was a 1 o'clock model from May '64. The exception is the '67 2 o'clock model sold on Ebay a couple of years back. It's story is unclear.

It's very hard to determine how many 2 o'clock models were made for Rose Morris in 1964. It could be as few as 25 or as many as 50. The bulk of the 201 units were almost certainly 1 o'clock models.

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Dec 29, 2000 5:30 am

Glen: As a follow-up question, have you found out why Rickenbacker changed the orientation of the f-hole?

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Dec 29, 2000 7:10 am

Glen: There is a photo of a 1986 Model 320 Registration #91 on the Rickenbacker Registration Page with an f-hole that is dangerously close to the two o'clock position. Would you characterize this instrument as being qualitatively different from the "classic" two o'clock f-hole postion in the early models. Was this a mistake or are there other models showing individual variation in the f-hole postion after the 1964 period? It would also seem that the f-hole of post 1964 models is slightly different in form as well as orientation compared to the 1964 and earlier models?

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Fri Dec 29, 2000 7:52 pm

I was talking with a collector/friend of mine a couple days ago about 2 o'clock and 1 o'clock f-hole 325's and I think we came up with what might be a reasonable explanation for the change. First of all, you have to believe Richard Smith's production totals for 310-325 guitars from '58-'63. I believe these totals as I've searched for these guitars for 20 years and know how scarce they are. The year with the greatest amount of 325's produced during this period would be 1958, when a total of 28 were made. These guitars did not sell that well in '58, and an attempt to make them more appealing was made in late '58 by upgrading them to 4 knobs instead of 2. The point I'm trying to make with this is they couldn't get rid of the original 28 from '58, so why produce more? They did produce 12 - 310 and 315 guitars in '59, 9 - 310 and 315 guitars in '60(plus one 325 which was serial number 3V154) and 1 315 guitar in '61. Because the 3 pick-up '58's didn't sell that well, we see only 2 pick-up guitars from '59-'61 except for the one 325. Now, in '62 Rickenbacker moved from Los Angeles to Santa Ana(and there were no 310-325 guitars produced from '62 up to '64). The move would of course shuffle things around and this is where we think the original pattern for the f-hole was either lost or misplaced. It was easier to create a new pattern than to try and find the old one, the new pattern would be the 1 o'clock f-hole which we see from then on. With the exception of left-over 1960-61 325's that were finished off and sold, all 325's from '64 onward
would have the new 1 o'clock f-hole(except for Lennon's Miami 325 and the sample fire-glo 325 that is in Japan, as they had solid tops). The first sample 325's were shipped to Rose Morris in January of '64, and these would be the left-over
1960-1 bodies with the 2 o'clock f-holes and square neck heels. Rose Morris faced the same 6 month wait for guitars. So by June or July of '64 they were being sent the new 1 o'clock f-hole 325's with rounded heels. The 2 o'clock f-hole guitars are very rare! I hope everyone can follow this explanation as it does seem a little confusing and is a lot of thought going into such a small thing as the shape of a sound-hole! In simpler form, the pattern for the f-hole was lost or misplaced during the move in '62 and a new one wasn't needed until '64. The new f-hole wasn't identical to the old one. Anybody have a better explanation? I can't see any other reason for suddenly changing the shape myself. Happy New Year!

glen_l · Post by **glen_l** » Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:30 am

Hi Larry, Yes can follow your line of reasoning here and it stacks up pretty well to me. I want to ask you about the body thickness though. The thickest bodies were the '58 325's right?, then I understand that the thickness went down a little for the '59 - '61 units. Then in '64 the body thickness went down again, as well as other things like the headstock size. Is it possible that the bodies were all previously made thick ones with 2 o'clock 'f' holes and they just thinned them down to suit the '64 requirement? The early 1964 Rose Morris 1996's with 2 o'clock 'f' hole do have thin bodies right? Never actually held one myself yet!

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Sat Dec 30, 2000 8:51 am

Glen, I have a photo here of the '58 325 laying next to a '59 310 that I used to own(which is the
autumn-glo 310 on your web-site). The '58 325 I
have is 2 inches thick, and the '59 310 is quite a bit thinner. I believe the '59 is the same thickness as the '64's and most likely the '67's.
I had measured the '59 310 at one time and should have wrote it down! The thing to do now is measure a 2 o'clock f-hole export 1996, a '59-60
310 and a '67 325. I know collectors who own those guitars so it shouldn't be that difficult to get those measurements. It is a mystery why
Rickenbacker went to thinner bodies on the '59
310's and left the full scale Capris thick bodied until the end of '61.

glen_l · Post by **glen_l** » Sat Dec 30, 2000 2:44 pm

Thanks Larry. That's exactly what I was wondering about. It really makes the idea about existing bodies being used on early '64 production seem more likely. And as Peter also noted, it wasn't just a matter of changing the angle of the opening either. The 1 o'clocks have a different shaped hole. Now let's see if we can get some body thickness dimensions.

Joe_Hardman · Post by **Joe_Hardman** » Sun Dec 31, 2000 1:07 pm

Just to confuse the subject of 2 o'clock "f" hole
325 models a bit more..... At least by April 1964, 2 o'clock Rose Morris 1996 models were made with round heel necks.

If the original old style pattern was lost or damaged, how do we explain the 1967 325 that sold on eBay a year or so ago, which had an old style 2 o'clock "f" hole? Another old left over body? Perhaps, but by 1967 one would think that all of the old bodies would have been finished and long gone from the factory. Also, the '67 in question has flat bottom neck and center pickups and the top of the body is not routed in those positions, like a '64 would be.

It would seem that in 1958 the depth of Capri guitar bodies ranged from 1 7/8" to 2". I own an original '58 325, 335 and 345, which all measure 1 7/8", just as John Hall's '58 325 measures 1 7/8". However, there are others, like Larry Wassgren's, John Lennon's and another '58 325 that I once owned that are 2" thick. Therefore, either depth and anything in between is correct for 1958.

glen_l · Post by **glen_l** » Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:35 am

Hi Joe, Yes that '67 325 of Greg's is a tricky one to work out. I wonder if it could be an old body that turned up - perhaps these alleged pre-made bodies were all unrouted in the pickup positions?

The question of the heels may not be a huge issue. Seeing as the headstock concept had undergone a revamp it would be unlikely that old necks were used. Is it the case that Ric changed from square heel to rounded heel in that early period of '64 as well. We know that Lennon's '64 and that other Fireglo solidtop prototype in Japan have square heels. I assume some other really early '64 325's may have square heels too. I don't have any data myself on when the changeover took place. It may have happened right across the model range I guess - so other's may be able to shed some light.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Jan 01, 2001 3:37 am

It is possible that there are a number of patterns that were kept over the years and that different patterns were pulled out by different workers in the plant at different times. I don't mean to suggest that this was helter skelter but perhaps, in the heat of the moment and in the pressure to fill orders, an older template was chosen inadvertently. I am hoping that John Hall may shed some light on these individual variations.

Joe_Hardman · Post by **Joe_Hardman** » Mon Jan 01, 2001 10:57 am

I tend to agree with Peter's theory, because when I visited RIC just before the factory was moved to its present location it was obvious that very little, if anything, had been disposed of in decades. John Hall was kind enough to let me spend time alone in the warehouse, which was quite large, and I recall seeing items on shelves that dated back to the 1950's. The experience was nothing short of amazing. There were new old stock blue Jensen speakers that were still in original boxes, new 4000 and 360F gray (not silver) cases and parts from the 50's and 60's that I still dream about to this day. The experience left me with the impression that John and F. C. Hall had saved almost everything, even parts for instruments that had gone out of production years or decades earlier. During one of my other visits to RIC, around the mid 80's as I recall, John took me on a tour of the old factory, which was located several miles or so away from the general office and warehouse complex. Once again, the factory had items, including templates as I recall, that dated back to the 50's. Like the warehouse, it seemed as though nothing had left the factory, other than perhaps saw dust and scraps of wood, in years.

Like all guitar companies, RIC was a manufacturing company, which produced instruments in order to fill orders generated by the sales department. During the 50's and 60's no one at RIC, Fender, Gibson, Gretsch, etc. could have known that decades later people would be discussing the size and placement of "f" holes, etc. Certainly there are absolutes, but there are also many gray areas that we may never be able to truly understand or explain. However, I do believe that as more serious students of RIC history, such as my old friend Larry Wassgren, share their experience on sites, such as Peter's and Glen's, we may learn more in the future.

Joe_Hardman · Post by **Joe_Hardman** » Mon Jan 01, 2001 11:23 am

Glen, you are correct that John's 325 and the fireglo "Sample" 325, which are both solid top models, have square heels, as do other early '64 325 or 1996 models. We know that John's guitar has a February 1964 serial number, so it is probably safe to assume that necks with square heels were at least in production during that portion of the year. We also know that my April '64 Rose Morris 1996 and I believe Steve Ison's, which is one serial number higher than mine, have round heels. What I do not know for certain is at what point did round heels first appear between February and April of 1964. I suspect that at some point during the second and fourth month of '64 there may have been both square and round heel necks going down the assembly line together, but that is only speculation on my part.

glen_l · Post by **glen_l** » Mon Jan 01, 2001 3:28 pm

You're makin me drool Joe. Wish I could have been shown around the old Ric factory like that. How amazing to see all that old tooling, parts, etc - still in existance.

Incidentally, what did you guys think of the fact that John Hall's '58 325 brown burst has a serial number several prior to Lennon's? Also that it has a soundhole. I found that astounding. I assumed that V80 had to be unit number 1 for 1958. Doesn't the '8' signify '58 - and the 0 signify unit number 1? Unless he has a '57 serial number. Which would also be a first for a capri wouldn't it? There I go speculating again. And happy new year to you guys too.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:36 pm

Just another thought here on the square heel necks
on 2 o'clock f-hole bodies. I still believe that the 2 o'clock 325's were leftover '59-'61 310 guitars that were finished off in late '63 and shipped out in January of '64 as samples to Rose
Morris(per Richard Smith's book). It would make sense, or it would be easier, to finish off the guitars that were already complete with necks and just needed the spray booth and assembly. So these would be leftover '59-'61 guitars with square heels as that's what they were producing then. Then the bodies that were left(without necks) would be finished off with the new style round heel necks, so that's why we see both style heels on 2 o'clock f-hole 325's? Or did some of the January and February full scale export guitars have square heels also? I haven't owned any of those so I can't say on that one. We do know that the Arden, Harrison, Marsden 12 strings had square heels. Also, these first 12 strings from '63 have a wider body like the 360 guitars from '62-'63. The mid-60's double bound 12 strings have a slightly narrower body. So were the first 12 strings made from leftover '62-'63 360 bodies? Plus, there were so few 12 strings made in '63 and early '64 that we can't find one to say when they went to a rounded heel. Has anyone checked Lennon's 325/12 to see if it has a square or round heel? I'm betting that one has the rounded heel! Back to the early export 325's with 2 o'clock f-hole and square heels, I think there is no difference between the headstock shape on a '59 310 and an early '64 325 with square heel. That includes Lennon's Miami model 325 from February of '64. If you compare his headstock to a '59 310 or even a '58 325 they look the same to me. Of course they were not all identical, if you compare headstocks from '58 you'll see differences. But the early '64 shape seems to have sharper edges like the late '50's guitars. That would also make it more likely that they were leftover necks and bodies. Also, I always wondered how they got it right and made Lennon's Miami model with no f-hole(like his '58)? That and the sample in Japan are the only two I have ever seen. Somebody went out of their
way to get that right. We know that Rickenbacker was aware of The Beatles already in '63 and had photos of John playing his black '58 325. Did someone at Rickenbacker notice there was no f-hole on the '58 and think it was important enough to make a one off guitar(plus one fire-glo sample)? Or could Brian Epstein have contacted Rickenbacker and sent photos to them to have another 325 ready when they came to New York? He was trying to clean up The Beatles look on stage and the refinished black '58 325 was showing wear
around the edges. Just something to think about.
But I do find it surprising that the first few '58 325's had no f-hole, and the only other two we know of without f-holes are the '64 made for Lennon and the second sample which was finished off in fire-glo.