I played this 1996Re C64

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:55 am

Kevin, how do these two guitars compare?

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:17 am

Hmm, is the 1996 a little wider in the lower bouts, Kevin? Looks like it's a little fatter than the V63, but it may just be the camera angle..

krick · Post by **krick** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:53 am

John and John, I finally had some time to spend with both guitars. Unplugged, the new 1996 is slightly louder which I believe is due to the differences in the construction and bracing. Plugged in, they sound quite different. The new model is much brighter. I believe most of the difference is due to the pickup changes but the older one has Pyramid Gold 13s. I have always thought the RIC strings were brighter. Both guitars are the same width so it must be the camera angle. The new 1996 feels about a half-pound lighter though. Also, the new 1996 has dual truss rods where the older model only has one. The roller bridge is cool and I haven't noticed any rattle yet. Several other minor differences were noticed in headstock shape, pickguard shape/placement, TRC, and the finish shading.

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:32 am

Kev, you got the NAMM display guitar. Sweetness.

rick36 · Post by **rick36** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:54 am

Kevin, do you have a photo of the roller bridge?
P.S. Is there any Ric that you don't have???
Wait a minute - I've got one of them! (Thanks again).

krick · Post by **krick** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:11 pm

Bob, I don't think this is the actual 1996 that was displayed at NAMM. It doesn't match the photos I have seen. Here is a link to a close-up photo of it that Jim Wargowski posted in another thread about NAMM.

http://hometown.aol.com/jwargowski/Guitars/Images/1996afg.JPG

I believe RIC made a few of these before the show and used a different one for the display. Mine has a serial number from October 2005, 3 months before NAMM.

James, here you go.

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:00 pm

Grinkies! I am SOOO jealous.

rick36 · Post by **rick36** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:12 pm

Quite a piece of work. Cool - Thanks...

oyoyobeatle · Post by **oyoyobeatle** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:29 pm

You can look inside from the F-hole.
Is there "THE BRACING" ?
I could see it when I saw 1996Re in Japan and i believed that is actual "X-Bracing".

krick · Post by **krick** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:08 pm

Jonathan stated:

"It is not really "X" bracing. It is one brace that goes diagonally across the body. Maybe it is more like "I" bracing. It starts aft of the soundhole and extends to foward of the control cavity."
After looking inside the control cavity and f hole, I would agree.

oyoyobeatle · Post by **oyoyobeatle** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:19 pm

Oh,my...
But great guitar anyway,Kevin!!

36012 · Post by **36012** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:50 pm

This how they were braced up until 84. The ones from the 70s and 80s had thicker tops(3/8" approx.)

glen_l · Post by **glen_l** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:02 am

The 1996 looks really nice. With it's correct appointments and afg finish it looks just like the real deal. Those closeups of the roller bridge could easily be mistaken for a real '64 1996

By the way, from what was written on the carton I'd say you have unit #1 of 2 made for Namm

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:08 am

Nope. This is standard UPS shipment stuff. 1 of two packages sent to a destination.

There was only 1 1996 at NAMM, although there were more than two in the first run.

glen_l · Post by **glen_l** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:17 am

It's interesting that UPS appear to have taken to opening the outer cartons and marking the inner carton as 1 of 2, hey they even got the model number correct.

It was already established in this thread that the one at Namm wasn't this guitar, but that this guitar does have the marking "Namm" inside the control cavity.