Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Looking at the grain in these guitars, is it the same?

Model 325 in 1962



Model 325 Museum

It's hard to be 100% sure but they look the same to me.

Not to go against the grain Brian, but look at the tighter grain in the upper bout of the bottom photo that runs in bands toward the tail of the guitar. It is not present in the upper photo as far as I can see.

Yes, IMO those two guitars are the same. The pic of the 325 on the stand is the one that appeared in the Bacon & Day book back in 1994, smaller versions exist of it in the 1995 Rittor book as well..IIRC Lenono Music has the copywright on that pic. The grain in the upper bout looks like a match. The question on most peoples minds is:

Is the guitar on the stand the same one in the museum in Tokyo?

They do not look the same to me. Look at the upper horn and the upper bout. Close, but different enough to make me doubt.

Peter I looked at the grain variation that you pointed out and I concluded that the deeper grain still contained residue of the earlier black refinish and I was determined not to let that throw me off.

What helped me form my opinion was the apparent similarity (all things considered) of the grain in the top and lower horns as well as the horizontal grain in the top bout in both pictures.

They do not look like the same instrument. Most telling is the horizontal streak running through the upper half on the 1962 guitar, about 1" above the neck pickup.

Where is it in the museum guitar?

The museum guitar has a streak about 1/4" above the neck pickup, that is absent on the 1962 guitar.

To me, it looks as if somebody picked the wood on the second guitar to be close in grain (both upper bouts have a grain swirl, for example) to the 1962, but it's not an absolute match.

I agree Lefty, is this Rittor guitar the same as the one in the museum? That is an important question.

I cannot see that the two photos above are the same guitar. Perhaps I need to look at them more.

The lighting in both pictures is from different sources and they are of different intensities.

You may be right Paul but given that the top picture is awash in light from an apparent focal point somewhere to the left of John and directed towards the subject, I concluded that the some of the grain definition may in fact be "washed out". It is so hard to tell from the two pictures for certain one way or another.

Interesting subject.

People should be looking for similarities, not differences to confirm the theory. Any noticable differences between the two photos can always be put down to differing: angles, lighting, colour reproduction, age of guitar between shots etc, but unmistakable, and unreproduceable similarities cannot be refuted. There are two areas of grain that most certainly match in the photos, and would be unreproduceable in a clone guitar. That is enough in my mind to confirm they are the same, more than anyone who states they are different simply because certain artifacts are only visible in one of the shots.

Fine point Mark. It would certainly be nice to have a range of photos to examine.

Here's a photo from the Lennon Museum book.

I have to go along with Mark's thoughts also. I'm seeing a two distinct grain features on the ramp that indicate this is the same guitar as the Bacon/Day photo (John's arm is covering it on the other), and two very distinct grain swirls on the upper body (above the bridge pickup) in all three pics, that seem to indicate that it is the same guitar in each of the photos.

As a side point. The brochure has photo's of all the Lennon related artifacts on display and indicates below each photo whether the item is a replica. There doesn't appear to be an issue of pride or deception. They freely admit that certain items are replicas. eg: (dare I mention it) Gallotone Champion - noted as "same model",
Sgt Pepper Military Costume - noted as replica, Gibson J-160E - noted as replica.

Thank you, Glen. I was hoping to hear from you with something a bit more definitive. I'm still not sure (and won't be convinced until I get to Japan to see things myself), but you make a strong point.

I still wonder about the clones. Anyone else have anything to contribute on that topic?

And-remember--this topic started out as a "restoration" critique!

All of the photos may well be of the same guitar.

But one major point is being missed here. According to the information circulating, the original was on display for the first two weeks (or was it months?) after the museum was opened. It's supposedly also been on display several additional times as special events and dignitaries were visiting.

The rumors or whatever you want to call them are so detailed as to even indicate quite precisely the location and curator of the storage facility in Japan where all of the original guitar artifacts are kept, and the means for transporting them.

So the criminally inclined might have a shot at them?