At some point several years ago, a previous owner of the 1968 366 I have 'modified' the headstock to look just like a 2005 Rickenbacker 12 string headstock.
It is much easier to string, and the people I play music with don't seem to care whether the headstock is routed or not when they ask me to play it.
New 12 string headstock?!?!?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
radiognome3
- New member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:47 pm
My email is [email protected] or [email protected] the email in my profile above is old.
I don't believe that there is any significant change in the strength of the headstock Gil. It might be argued by some that the headstock was built stronger than it needed to be in the first place.
I think this is a great improvement and I would love to have this feature on my Rickenbacker 12 strings. Stringing has to be so much easier. The modification also makes the headstock a tad lighter, which may please some who commented that their 12 strings were top heavy. Finally, I have heard that there may be more sustain with this modification. I cannot speak to this first hand, but perhaps John Hall could comment.
As a follow-up question for the Rickenbacker historians, how many models had this modification performed before this new headstock design. I can recall one of Roger McGuinn's 12 strings having this modification but I don't know if it was carried out at the factory or elsewhere. Further, folks such as Radiognome3 have already seen the benefit of this modification.
I think this is a great improvement and I would love to have this feature on my Rickenbacker 12 strings. Stringing has to be so much easier. The modification also makes the headstock a tad lighter, which may please some who commented that their 12 strings were top heavy. Finally, I have heard that there may be more sustain with this modification. I cannot speak to this first hand, but perhaps John Hall could comment.
As a follow-up question for the Rickenbacker historians, how many models had this modification performed before this new headstock design. I can recall one of Roger McGuinn's 12 strings having this modification but I don't know if it was carried out at the factory or elsewhere. Further, folks such as Radiognome3 have already seen the benefit of this modification.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
If it affects the strength, it's so far out there beyond normal wear and tear it doesn't matter much. In other words, you'd have to work pretty hard to break it, either way.
It's hard to notice but there is just a bit more sustain with this design, just as there usually is with headless guitars. Basically, the less mass hanging out there, the better the sustain as energy doesn't have to be expended as much to move the head, therefore remaining to move the strings instead.
There is an extreme point where the equation changes, however, as the metal plates to increase head weight prove. The theory there is to provide a really large mass to reflect the string energy back into the neck and strings. This doen't usually work well with a hollow body guitar, however.
It's hard to notice but there is just a bit more sustain with this design, just as there usually is with headless guitars. Basically, the less mass hanging out there, the better the sustain as energy doesn't have to be expended as much to move the head, therefore remaining to move the strings instead.
There is an extreme point where the equation changes, however, as the metal plates to increase head weight prove. The theory there is to provide a really large mass to reflect the string energy back into the neck and strings. This doen't usually work well with a hollow body guitar, however.
-
desertgoldenboy
- Member
- Posts: 316
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:28 am
- Contact:
One of the reasons I bought an '05 360/12 and not an earlier year was for the new headstock design. I passed up several 'in stock' '03 and '04 guitars at just to get this feature. It just made sense to me that restringing would be easier...and I'm all for that.
Question for John or Ben:
My new 360/12VP has an August '05 serial number - would this be one with the 330/12's nut installed? The string spacing feels the same as previous 360/12's to me. Just wondered if my fingers are playing tricks on my brain.
Question for John or Ben:
My new 360/12VP has an August '05 serial number - would this be one with the 330/12's nut installed? The string spacing feels the same as previous 360/12's to me. Just wondered if my fingers are playing tricks on my brain.
"If things were different...things would be different."
-
chefothefuture
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:00 am
Well-
I really should thank JH. The new design made me order
my true dream Rick, and not be cheap.
So in about 18 months or so, I should be strummin' away
on a BB 381/12 v69. That's the one I really wanted and
was just eyeing one of the lesser models to avoid the cost.
But you only live once right?
I'm still not thrilled with the new design as the old one
is a true work of art.
What do I know? I'm still mad at Jaguar for no longer making a series 3 ......
I really should thank JH. The new design made me order
my true dream Rick, and not be cheap.
So in about 18 months or so, I should be strummin' away
on a BB 381/12 v69. That's the one I really wanted and
was just eyeing one of the lesser models to avoid the cost.
But you only live once right?
I'm still not thrilled with the new design as the old one
is a true work of art.
What do I know? I'm still mad at Jaguar for no longer making a series 3 ......
'68 4001MG, '70 4001 21Fret, '71 4001S MG, '71 4001FG, '72 4001AZ, '73 4001FG, '73 4001resto, '59 365FG, '96 381/12v69FG, '71 4001 21Fret FG
-
chefothefuture
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:00 am
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
John, I think you mean BBR. (Blueburst)
BB is "Blue Boy" and is no longer available in a new Rick.
You will LOVE the 381. It's a spectacular guitar.
BB is "Blue Boy" and is no longer available in a new Rick.
You will LOVE the 381. It's a spectacular guitar.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
chefothefuture
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:00 am
My mistake...
Thanks for the correction.
In my excited state I forgot
about the "Blue Boy"....
For BBR- what's the R stand for.....
Yep- I've been on the 381s since I bought
one of the first 25(w/numbered COA) in '87.
Wish I still had it......
Oh well, I can't own them all, but I can own them all once.....
Thanks for the correction.
In my excited state I forgot
about the "Blue Boy"....
For BBR- what's the R stand for.....
Yep- I've been on the 381s since I bought
one of the first 25(w/numbered COA) in '87.
Wish I still had it......
Oh well, I can't own them all, but I can own them all once.....
'68 4001MG, '70 4001 21Fret, '71 4001S MG, '71 4001FG, '72 4001AZ, '73 4001FG, '73 4001resto, '59 365FG, '96 381/12v69FG, '71 4001 21Fret FG
-
radiognome3
- New member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:47 pm
Gil: I have been away, so I didn't see your question until this morning. I have no idea if it weakens the guitar. This modification was done at least 10 years ago, as this guitar had been on one rack or another at shops around Oklahoma City for at least that long.
It looks to me that this guitar was a basket case at some point, because it has had all of the hardware removed at least once (to modify the headstock, at the least). If I had to guess, I would say that 11 of the tuners, the tailpiece, the volume/tone/mix knobs, and the jack plate are original hardware.
It plays wonderfully, and I will continue to play it until it falls apart. Then I will fix it and keep on playing....
It looks to me that this guitar was a basket case at some point, because it has had all of the hardware removed at least once (to modify the headstock, at the least). If I had to guess, I would say that 11 of the tuners, the tailpiece, the volume/tone/mix knobs, and the jack plate are original hardware.
It plays wonderfully, and I will continue to play it until it falls apart. Then I will fix it and keep on playing....
My email is [email protected] or [email protected] the email in my profile above is old.
-
chefothefuture
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:00 am
Ben-
That's too cool!
I might have to get one!
I guess I should just relax on the headstock thing.
I was just amazed as I had thought that the old style
was a Rick trademark or whatever. I never had a problem
restringing; in fact having the back or slot bottom act as
a "stop" always gave me the correct amount of string on the
other side of the post.
But hey- if everyone else wants the other way, there are
still plenty to choose from with the old style. I'm looking
forward to that 381/12 BBR.
That's too cool!
I might have to get one!
I guess I should just relax on the headstock thing.
I was just amazed as I had thought that the old style
was a Rick trademark or whatever. I never had a problem
restringing; in fact having the back or slot bottom act as
a "stop" always gave me the correct amount of string on the
other side of the post.
But hey- if everyone else wants the other way, there are
still plenty to choose from with the old style. I'm looking
forward to that 381/12 BBR.
'68 4001MG, '70 4001 21Fret, '71 4001S MG, '71 4001FG, '72 4001AZ, '73 4001FG, '73 4001resto, '59 365FG, '96 381/12v69FG, '71 4001 21Fret FG