A plea for wider 12-string necks - Mr. Hall?

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Wed Sep 12, 2001 8:07 pm

NO!!!! Leave the pickups alone .The spread of the magnets will work.

I just measured the spread of a Gibson Tun-O-Matic bridge and the magnets on a Toaster from 1967...they will work with no problem at all .

The center of the T.O.M. Saddles still is within the magnets .
This is a wider spacing than the stock Rick bridge .
This would in effect make the 12 string playable for anyone with large fingers .Or even people with 'normal' sized hands.

I agree with Don that the stock fretwire size is fine on a 12 string ,you are not bending or playing the guitar like you would a six string .You approach it from a different perspective.

You don't play a bass and a mandolin the same .

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Thu Sep 13, 2001 5:08 am

I just got up this morning and thought everyone would like to see the math concerning Fender,Gibson and Rickenbacker and pickups / bridge spacing.

Bridges from center of Low E /6th string to center of high E string /1st

Rickenbacker (modern version) 1.836
Gibson ABR-1 Tun-O-Matic 2.052
Fender Stratocaster 2.160

Pickups center of polepiece E to E /6th to 1st

Rickenbacker Toaster .......................1.982
Fender Strat Vintage polepieces.............2.064
Gibson PAF 1959 ........................2.030

Total polepiece width -outside edge to outside edge of the 1st to the 6th polepiece

Rick toaster 1967 .........................2.215
Gibson 1959 PAF Humbucker..................2.264
Fender Strat Vintage (pre CBS).............2.227

axel · Post by **axel** » Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:32 am

I played a nice '94 610 today, almost an hour, so I tried all the difficult licks and chord changes I'm suffering on at the moment.

Even though only a 6 stringer, I noticed a fatter neck than my own two but fretboard width was absolut perfect. No bindings, a little more playing space.
The way it should be on bound 620s and 360s; difference must indeed be around a couple of mm.

Had it been a 12, I would have taken it (and have the neck shaved off a little).

(Thickness of the neck seems to vary quite often from instrument to instrument; of all the ricks I've tried over here, 1 out of 4 has a thicker neck, regardless of model or year)

profjeff · Post by **profjeff** » Fri Jan 25, 2002 7:14 pm

Hi Friends:

I personally do not see a problem with the necks on the 330/360 series. They work great and are obviously playable with incredible results. I bonded with my 360/12 after only a few days--we have an understanding about a couple of chords, but I love playing it.

Perhaps the narrow neck is a sort of natural selection thing to keep certain posers from playing their G2-C2-D2 power chord progressions on the noble Ric. You have to admit, you don't see alot of hacks pounding out **** on a Ric. 330 or 360.

I am willing to bet my next paycheck that if Rickenbacker changed the neck profile on the 360 series, misguided tone freaks would come out of the woodworks making bogus claims about the inherent tonal superiority of the "pre-widened" Rics. They would mourn the loss of "the sound" and Rickenbacker would lose it commanding lead in the 12 electric market. The 360 would go the way of the late 50s Les Paul and the pre CBS Stratocaster with the legacy models commanding outrageously overpriced sums on the vintage guitar market.

Stay the course, Mr. Hall. Remember what happened to Gibson and Fender... and consider yourself a genius for not letting it happen to Rickenbacker.

Check out my new 360/12 doing the rhythm work on my new song! (4MB, mp3 format).

http://www.coe.unco.edu/JeffBauer/mp3.html

ricnvolved · Post by **ricnvolved** » Fri Jan 25, 2002 7:58 pm

One Jeff in support of another.

Personally, I would not be opposed to RIC widening the neck on the 12-stringers. But I'm sure the outcry would be pretty much as you've stated.

rkbsound · Post by **rkbsound** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 3:45 am

I wonder what the critical mass is for there to be justification to build a different guitar, or one with a modified neck. 20? 30? 100? Perhaps it would impede production of hotter sellers, which would be a reasonalble reason to not make them. I wonder if the wider neck would affect the sound. JH mentioned that the "Rickenbacker Sound" was due in large part to "neck to joint" manufacturing technique. I have no authority to speculate on this, but could it be possible that a wider neck and more wood could affect this joint and alter the sound a bit as well? Perhaps only to the extent that Roger M could notice?
-- Jeff.

rkbsound · Post by **rkbsound** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 3:50 am

Mr. Bauer, As usual, I decided to write a post without reading the archive above it. I apologize for making the redundant point about sound alteration -- but we are on the same page. Could it be the first name? My laziness is due to the two rugrats at my feet. I try to read and type as fast as possible while trying to prevent WWIII! -- Jeff.

fred56 · Post by **fred56** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 1:00 pm

I am not a manufacturer, just a player.

But I am in agreement with the frustrations of others who have posted concerning the narrowness of the 300 series 12-string fingerboard. I also consider that the adapting of a 660/12 neck on a 330-381 would be the ticket, achieving both playability and the semi-hollow tone.

Surely, the same vintage pickups are used on a 360/12 as are on a 660/12. The main retooling I would anticipate is the neck-body joint. Other tooling is already in place for fingerboards (on the 660), inlays (on the 660). If the pickups are the same there should be no issues there either.

Just make mine Fireglo.

Fred

russell · Post by **russell** » Sat Jan 26, 2002 5:34 pm

Hi,
I still think that adopting a 380L, which has a 1 3/4 inch nut, into a twelve string would be the easiest solution. The basis of the perfect twelve string is already in the Ricky line-up, the 380L 12 string.
Thanks

fred56 · Post by **fred56** » Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:06 am

Shoot!! I totally forgot about the 380Laguna! You're right of course. That's a set neck, not a neck-through, isn't it?

That is one model I have never actually seen live and in the flesh, yet.

Fred

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Jan 27, 2002 12:48 pm

Miguel: RIC has many irons in the fire at present. John Hall has given some consideration, by his own admission, to the possibility of a wider neck. It may be, for the factory, an all or none move as I understand it. I was rather impressed by Mr. Hall's comments and his willingess to respond to request of owners. I certainly wouldn't rule out a wider neck in some fashion over the course of time.

Just in passing, the sales of the Tom Petty Signature Models may not be a good measure of the popularity of the wide neck. For the most part, signature models sell well.

rkbsound · Post by **rkbsound** » Sun Jan 27, 2002 2:42 pm

Miguel, please remember my disclaimer: I have no authority to comment! Just pleasurable speculation. LOL. Just having some fun in the Rick Forum!

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Jan 27, 2002 5:37 pm

Miguel: I am with you, in that it is necessary to convey our needs to the manufacturer on an ongoing basis. There is no dispute that a fair number of folks would opt for a wider neck. They certainly have expressed this wish in this thread. My point wasn't that those who wished a wider neck were "unrepresentative." I just think that signature models appeal to many for a whole host of reasons and a wider neck may not be the most important feature. While I may be too far out on the limb, I would expect that RIC will introduce a wider neck option at some point. Why not? They certainly would, in my view, have little to lose.

aladams · Post by **aladams** » Sun Jan 27, 2002 8:30 pm

I bet if you have 2 12 String RICS, side by side, on a Musical Instrument dealers wall...the 12 String with the wider neck would sell much FASTER...any takers??? AL

markthemd · Post by **markthemd** » Mon Jan 28, 2002 4:48 am

There is something that you have all forgotten about in this , to do this correctly means that a new bridge will need to be made .

The saddle spacings will need to be wider as well .To do this ,it may just be a case of CNC tooling and telling the program to drill the 12 screw holes at a wider spacing .The same saddles could even be used , why not?

This would put a gap inbetween each pair , but would work just fine .

Now whether or not this is an option , remains to be seen .They are maxed out as far as production goes and as JH once said , to do this is "all or not at all" .
I personally think that a new 12 string , say the 350-12 would be great as a wide neck with the wide bridge and the trapeze tailpiece and the trapeze should have 12 holes .
This could even further be distinguished by leaving the sharkfin guard and forgetting the standard/teardrop guard -mount the controls through the wood .