What do you think of this???

krick · Post by **krick** » Sun May 08, 2005 4:25 pm

Look at the headstock! Opinions?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7321562077

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun May 08, 2005 4:48 pm

Wow. My first thought was "converted 6", but the headstock is about 3/4" longer than a 6. Nickel-plated tuning machines, interspersed with chrome plated banjo tuners points to a worker-built guitar, not necessarily a factory prototype.

Something hinky about the TRC, too...the lettering looks off but the pics are too tiny to tell.

"Factory doesn't want to talk about it" is an interesting embellishment.

Anyone else?

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Sun May 08, 2005 5:07 pm

What in the bloody hell?

dean712 · Post by **dean712** » Sun May 08, 2005 8:33 pm

Yikes!! Dicey...

Does it pass the sniff test? Would need more info. Dissing the Ric factory in the initial advertisement is a big stinkbomb.

Would you buy a used car here?

8mileshigh · Post by **8mileshigh** » Sun May 08, 2005 9:56 pm

It reminds me of the strange Richard Thompson Ricky......

I still don't think it's genuine.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun May 08, 2005 10:00 pm

God, was Richard ever that young and smooth? And--who shot out the lights?

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Mon May 09, 2005 1:24 am

I'd want clear closeup pics of the headstock, front and back. The heel is square. The answer awaits in the company logs.

8mileshigh · Post by **8mileshigh** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:43 am

I'm not too sure about the ric o sound pic. Serial number looks odd? Stereo output? and the binding too white. Could be just the pic but I feel uneasy about this one.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:48 am

According to the RIC site is was made in May '64

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon May 09, 2005 5:18 am

Or at least the jack plate was.

patrickkelly · Post by **patrickkelly** » Mon May 09, 2005 7:46 am

Or at least the jack plate was fabricated to look like it was...

The pictures are horrible. Some people are their own worst enemies. Unless there's a reason why they're so bad...

route66guitars · Post by **route66guitars** » Mon May 09, 2005 10:19 am

I'd be interested to know who this person is, as his story does not match what I know about the guitar.

Someone tried to sell this instrument to me, in person, when my shop was in Hollywood, 11 or 12 years ago. I have photos of it somewhere.

The neck has been replaced, as has the one on Richard Thompson's guitar. There are plenty of examples of 1960s 360s with factory replaced 1970s necks to know how this was typically done. These replacements were not done by the Rickenbacker factory.

The rest of the guitar, except for the replaced tailpiece, dates as a May '64 360. There are a few 'domestic' models from this era with the 'F' hole. My guess is it started out as a 6 string that someone chose to 'upgrade,' but John Hall could verify this if he were so inclined.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon May 09, 2005 10:22 am

Scott, you are the Gray Eminince of Rick Knowledge. This all makes perfect sense now.

Man, those banjo tuners are ghetto...

route66guitars · Post by **route66guitars** » Mon May 09, 2005 10:29 am

Don't everyone freak out that I bid on it. It's the only way to get the contact info on the seller.

Gray Eminence, eh? Makes me sound old... It does sound better than how my friends introduce me, "This is Scott, he used to be 'the man'"...

circles · Post by **circles** » Mon May 09, 2005 10:29 am

Would there have ever been a six string, with white binding and f-hole? I figured the binding was a dead giveaway for a RM model 1993.