Was I ripped off - please advise

gibsonlp · Post by **gibsonlp** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:03 am

Hi guys,

As some of you probably noticed - I bought a 366 FG from Voltage Guitars.
When I asked Llyod in what year was the guitar made, he said that it's from 1967.
The output plate has VERY unreadable characters on the upper part (Could start with either G (67) or O (75), however - it is very hard to read it so it might actually be something different...)
THERE IS NO SERIAL ON THE BOTTOM SIDE OF THE PLATE, ONLY THE TOP 2 LETTERS - UNREADABLE.
When I asked him how could he know that it's from 67 and not from a later date he said that these were made only in 1967/8.
I believed him,

Since I am flying tomorrow to NY on my way back home I simply grabbed this one (it really sounds great... but I am not sure it worth the amount of money I paid...)
Tonight (it's 3AM already) I started investigating a little bit after I got some sence ("how come there is no serial" I asked myself...)
I found out from numerous sources that these were made at least til 1975.
Llyod either lied or didn't know (He seems like a really nice guy, so I hope he was simply mistaken).

Now here is the big question - is there a way for me to check the real year for this guitar?

Since It's 3AM I can't take flash pictures of the guitar as my GF would kill me...
Here is what I can tell about it's appearance:
1. I did notice a difference from the 75' ad on rickenbacker.com - the comb is located much higher than the one seen on: http://www.rickenbacker.com/images/catalogs/cf75-2.jpg (although the guitar on the ad doesn't really look like a 360...)
2. The bridge seems to be a non roller bridge, I understand from http://www.provide.net/~cfh/r360.html that all 360's were changed to roller bridges on 1968.
So if a roller bridge looks like that - http://www.the-music-connection.com/mw17.jpg then that's not the one I have.

Some not so high-detailed pictures can be seen at voltage guitar's selling ad (still online...) - http://www.voltageguitars.com/a/voltage2.cgi?keywords=6317

I'll upload high-res ones as soon as I wake up.

Thanks in advance!

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:46 am

The photos from Voltage look like a '68.

The only other place I would say to check are the numbers on the volume and tone pots.

What do they say?

rick_ovic · Post by **rick_ovic** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:06 am

Gil,

I think you are safe, judging by the photos provided on the Voltage website. The inlays are full width across the fretboard; the fireglo colour "looks" right; the wear on the back of the neck is consistent with an older guitar; 21 frets not 24; toasters not high gains etc. My bet is that you have a 1967 366 FG.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:11 am

Gil, I meant your guitar looks like a '67.

Check the pots and see if ther are any 67's in the numbers.

If so, then you are good!

janglebox · Post by **janglebox** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:41 am

I think you are safe, judging by the photos provided on the Voltage website. The inlays are full width across the fretboard; the fireglo colour "looks" right; the wear on the back of the neck is consistent with an older guitar; 21 frets not 24; toasters not high gains etc. My bet is that you have a 1967 366 FG.

I agree, but I'm wondering about the round heel instead of square... does that indicate anything of significance?

randyz · Post by **randyz** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:52 am

Steve: The sixties Ricks that I own (450/12, ES-16, 325, 335, 370/12), all came with round heels.

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:26 am

It would have had a round heel for sure by 1967.

If the guitar is 100% original, then it's possible the guitar may have been NOS and had a '75 jackplate installed at the time of shipment....that would be kinda cool, for I've never seen a coverter-comb Rickenbacker that late. I've never seen a 366/12 with a 24-fret neck either. More than likely a weak strike when the stamping occured.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:32 am

I played that guitar, it's a nice one!!!!

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:37 am

Scott Jennings ought to be able to give you the best reading on this.

gibsonlp · Post by **gibsonlp** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:20 am

Thanks for the replies guys.
I could not check the knobs as I don't have a screwdriver with me...

as I said - I am not at home...

The pictures I took are available on -
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4781.jpg
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4782.jpg
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4783.jpg
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4784.jpg
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4785.jpg
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4786.jpg
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4787.jpg
http://gil.disatnik.com/rick/img_4789.jpg
Thanks again.

beefandbones · Post by **beefandbones** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:31 am

Beautiful!

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:58 am

Yes, it's a nice guitar. I'd say '67, and a bad strike on the plate when they stamped it. The strings are installed in the non-Rickenbacker manner, i.e. the high string on top...no biggie. Nice Fireglo on this one.

gibsonlp · Post by **gibsonlp** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:04 am

I didn't put the strings, I got it like that from Voltage

Also - one string is missing.
I am simply busy with packing and everything, I guess that when I'll get home (or maybe in NY) it'll come to me that I actually bought such a piece

Mr. Hall - thanks for your reply, How can I contact him? (I am flying to NY in 3 hours... So I guess I won't be able to...

)

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:05 am

What I like about Voltage is Lloyd will let you pull anything off the wall and fiddle with it. Not like a lot of Vintage shops. I had been watching your guitar for some time, Gil, congratulations and you have my envy!