Vintage 325's have a larger body?

The short-scale model that changed history

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

Postby (anon) » Tue Jan 16, 2001 11:52 pm

Too bad it is maple and has square neck block instead of being tapered. And now that the "C" series is out, your clone is up there with a Jay Turser and the rest of those other copy guitars.

It ain't a Ric unless it's a Ric.....
(anon)
 

Postby (anon) » Wed Jan 17, 2001 3:20 am

It's true that it ain't a Rick unless it's a Rick, but it is a guitar and it plays and looks like a great Rick guitar. Some real 1958 Ricks don't even play at all. They just look good in a glass case or photo.

This guitar is light as a feather and good luck seeing the centerblock width and wood grain thru the black paint. It's about as easy to see as it would be on a 1958 325 refinished black.

I'm sure that Pamela Lee look-a-like in the wet teeshirt would get most people's attention as well.

This clone guitar was made to be played, not to be sold.
(anon)
 

Postby (Joe_Hardman) » Wed Jan 17, 2001 9:48 pm

Based on the writing style of the first Anonymous individual above, who claims to own a 325 '58 "clone", I believe that I have had the opportunity to closely examine a few examples like his and they were all quite convincing. Although I was never able to track down the fellow, who actually built the bodies and chat with him personally, I was none the less impressed the over all quality of his work. There is at least two other features that have not been mentioned that distinguish one of his bodies from an original '58 325. Both features can be observed regardless of finish color and, like the center block mentioned by the second Anonymous individual above, are neck related.
(Joe_Hardman)
 

Postby (Joe_Hardman) » Wed Jan 17, 2001 10:56 pm

Regarding the maple body.....Until a member of our Project C group had the opportunity to personally examine the '58 325, which was owned by John Lennon, almost everyone seemed to think his guitar was made of maple. There were both alder and maple body 325 models made during '58, but as we now know, the one John owned just so happened to be made of alder.
(Joe_Hardman)
 

Postby (glen_l) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 1:19 am

I believe I've seen photo's of one of these 'clone' '58 325's. The one I saw had a 2 o'clock soundhole which was great to see, but was finished in an unusual choice of fireglo. Wrong for 1958's that were only offered only in natural or brownglo. Nevertheless it looked to be a very convincing repro. I was left wondering whether it was the correct weight (5lb's) and whether it had a rounded heel.

I've been fortunate enough to see detailed pics of the only known twin of lennon's '58 325 in captivity. Also thanks to a good friend who posts here. The heel was not square, nor was it round. I would describe it as having the dimensions and look of a square heel but with quite rounded corners. Joe and Larry, how about your '58 325s? What sort of heels do they have?
User avatar
(glen_l)
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2000 3:43 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Postby (Joe__Hardman) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 7:34 am

Good day, Glen. I believe I also have photos of the twin of Lennon's that you are referring to. As I recall, the heel of my '58 325, which is 13 digits higher than Lennon's, is the same shape as the one in the photos we may both be thinking of.

Two factors that can effect weight are the type and thickness of wood. Maple tends to be heavier than alder, so as a rule, guitars made of alder do weigh less than those made of maple. There also may be weight variance depending on how thin the top, back and sides of the body were cut.

These topics were closely examined and carefully studied by the Project C advisory board, and are only two of many reasons why the new 325C58 will be the most accurate recreation possible.
(Joe__Hardman)
 

Postby (larrywassgren) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 4:47 pm

The heel on the '58 325 I have is very similar to the twin of Lennon's. I can't say identical because I think each one is just a touch different. I do consider these the squared heel though. The round heel is definitely round! Each '58 has subtle differences because they were hand-made. If you look closely at the headstock of the twin of Lennon's which is on your site Glen, you'll notice the headstock is a touch wider and more 'squat', if that is a word. Hope you can understand what I'm getting at! The way they are constructed is the same, but because each was handmade there are differences. I think Roger Rossmeisl may have handmade the ones with the smooth 'ramp' for the Kauffman and another employee made the 'scooped out', not so smooth ramps.
(larrywassgren)
Veteran RRF member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2000 8:34 pm

Postby (FATRAT) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 4:58 pm

I don't know a thing about 50s Rick 325s. I haven't even seen one up close, I have had 320s. I know that Martin headstocks changed over the years, starting off quite square then by the 70s they were rounded, due to the Jigs and patterns that were used over the years wearing out.
Could something like that have happened, and when the patterns started off they were bigger and have just changed shape over the years being worn down? Just a thought.

Tom
(FATRAT)
 

Postby (glen_l) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 5:13 pm

That sort of thing can happen over time with jigs and tooling fatrat, however, in this case it's guitars that were made side by side or at least in the same week, having noticeable differences in certain details. Larry covers it well. It really shows how much discretion was given back then. There doesn't seem to have been any strict template followed for exact dimensions in heel countour, headstock size and shape, and overall body thickness. They all have the same close 'Ric' appearance of course but it's likely that the craftmen were more interested in getting the flow right than following exact dimensions. I hope that makes some sense.
User avatar
(glen_l)
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2000 3:43 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Postby (fatrat) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 7:15 pm

In the Rick book with color photos of johns 325s, the 58 has some of the finish missing or theres a weird glare between the bridge and the treble Pu ? It looks like it was taped off in that area around the bridge or something?

FATRAT
(fatrat)
 

Postby (glen_l) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 9:38 pm

That last question is a good one fatrat. I've been curious about that shadow-like area between the bridge and neck Pu for a long time.

A very good friend of mine has just returned from Japan and seeing the Lennon exhibit. He is also a big fan of this particular guitar like so many here. He spent a long time inspecting every detail he could manage. He commented that the restoration to Natural seemed poorly done. On close inspection small pieces of grey undercoat were visible on various areas.

That shadow is apparently a large area of unremoved grey undercoat. Figure that one out!!!
User avatar
(glen_l)
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2000 3:43 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Postby (larrywassgren) » Thu Jan 18, 2001 11:15 pm

Fatrat and Glen, That gray shadow is actually dust that was not removed for the photo. That great old guitar must have sat around and collected dust for quite awhile before being poorly wiped off for the photo. These photos were
not that professionally done as you can see the shadow from the guitar stand going across the 2nd fret. You can see some of that dust between the bridge and middle pick-up and also around the edges of the other pick-ups and near the neck body joint(left side). I would imagine the dust showed up more in the photo due to lighting. Had they known this I guess they would have done a better job of wiping it down first. Glen, I think your friend my have noticed some of the black specs left in the guitar. I think Ron was afraid to sand all the black out and go through the guitar. You can especially see a lot of black left in the Bigsby area. Fatrat, that How They Became The Beatles Book is one of my favorites, amazing pictures of some great days for sure. Also, the white pickgaurd was put on when the guitar was refinished back to blonde. Definitely not correct and a major mistake. I'd buy a ticket to Japan right now if they'd let me in to put a gold pickgaurd back on John's '58!
(larrywassgren)
Veteran RRF member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2000 8:34 pm

Postby (glen_l) » Fri Jan 19, 2001 3:05 am

Hi Larry. I agree with you about Ron DeMarino being cautious rubbing back the 325 back in 1972. Seems he prefered to leave parts of the refinish in low areas, rather than remove timber by extensive sanding. It still doesn't explain that shadow area near the bridge that my friend identified as unremoved undercoat. Perhaps Tuck can elaborate further as he has been twice to look.

http://www.beatles.co.jp/tuck/beatleguitars/325.jpg
User avatar
(glen_l)
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2000 3:43 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia

Postby (larrywassgren) » Fri Jan 19, 2001 7:27 am

Glen, If you reread my post above, it does explain the gray area. It is simply dust on the
surface of the guitar, nothing more. If you had a polish cloth the gray would be removed in one swipe. It is on the surface, not under the finish of the guitar. Look around the edges of the pick-ups and between the bow-tie bridge and bridge pick-up. The gray dust is there too. The guitar sat unplayed for a long time before this photo was taken and collected a thick coat of dust. No one took the time to dust it off properly like we would before the photo was taken. That gray area is no longer there, your friend must have been looking at something else(maybe the black areas?).
(larrywassgren)
Veteran RRF member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2000 8:34 pm

Postby (larrywassgren) » Sat Jan 20, 2001 12:33 am

Fatrat, Are you 20 going on 12? If you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all! Are you from Florida? Why don't you identify yourself and at least try to talk intelligently. Come back when you have something constructive to say. Most importantly, what is your real name and where are you from?? I hate the fact that people hide behind who they really are on this global CB!
(larrywassgren)
Veteran RRF member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2000 8:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Rickenbacker Vintage 325 Models: by Glen Lambert

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron