Did I just waste $200.00?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
- jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
I'm not sure about that "whatever nameplate" theory, John S., the Rick 1000s I've seen had pretty nice finishes, whereas the ES 16s and 17s had thinner, non-buffed out CV finishes, surely as a cost-cutting measure. Perhaps they were pulled off the line (so to speak) before sanding and buffing, to become Electros, and stayed to become Rickenbackers...
My '83 ES-16 is a high-gain and neck-thru. The TRC screw hole is almost exactly centered.
My '83 ES-16 is a high-gain and neck-thru. The TRC screw hole is almost exactly centered.
“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
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
Paul: Concerning the 1000/ES-16 models, I have yet to see a difference in construction on these save for the TRC(and running specs like pickup style etc), but I'm not discounting your observations in the least...from my own data, the Rick could be an Electro and vise-versa. The full-scale guitars are another matter althogether, with set-neck construction being used in Rickenbacker 420/450/460 production in some instances..I consider thsese guitars an example of the lesser-brands being reversed..the earlier the production, the more likely you'll see the thinner finish(but still nice)on both brands.
My own 1967 950 is Jetglo and in original minty condition, but the finish is rough and un-buffed, substandard to what you'd expect on a Rickenbacker...'Your mileage may vary..'
My own 1967 950 is Jetglo and in original minty condition, but the finish is rough and un-buffed, substandard to what you'd expect on a Rickenbacker...'Your mileage may vary..'
- 8mileshigh
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3532
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:00 am
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
- 8mileshigh
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3532
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:00 am
Dave wrote: "...The neck on mine looks straight, however, the broken truss nut scares me a bit...."
I'd try to put a new rod in it on that side for sure, but it's possible that it'll play fine without it. It's just one of those things you'll have to keep an eye on..
When you get to the point of putting strings on it Dave, I'd go with .012s at a minimum, probably .013s would be better. It probably wont intonate properly unless you use these string guages. Just follow the same guidelines as if you were stringing up a 325. It probably had .013s on it from the factory....
I'd try to put a new rod in it on that side for sure, but it's possible that it'll play fine without it. It's just one of those things you'll have to keep an eye on..
When you get to the point of putting strings on it Dave, I'd go with .012s at a minimum, probably .013s would be better. It probably wont intonate properly unless you use these string guages. Just follow the same guidelines as if you were stringing up a 325. It probably had .013s on it from the factory....
If the original rod is there you may be able to repair it. They are actually longer than they need to be. Sometimes just the threaded portion breaks. In that case just recut the ends to approximate the original offset. Use the other rod as an example. Then cut threads in the longer side with an appropriately sized die. Put a little electrical tape between the rod halves to prevent rattles.




