This is why vintage costs so much..

aristeas · Post by **aristeas** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:07 pm

Down south for the holidays and came across a Rose-Morris 360WB 12 string in a luthiers shop. When I twisted it in the rack he came over in a hurry - "Don't move it, it 's got a protector around the neck because of..". "The nitro lacquer," I interrupted, "I have a Tom Petty. I've never even seen one of these in the flesh before ..". Then he interrupted me with the 6 of the best words I've ever heard: "Would you like to play it?"

Fifteen minutes of bliss followed. It played superbly. The neck was narrow, but not impossible. Even with my fat fingers it was chord-picking heaven. And the sound! It sparkled when I picked a little harder. It rang when I opened a chord. And it shimmered when I brushed the strings lightly and, of course, it gave the truest meaning to that over-used word 'jangled'.

It wasn't for sale. But it would have beyond my means anyway. But now I know why the best vintage guitars get the high prices. They're worth it. They've matured rather than aged. Like a violin the tone gets better with age (and good use). The only guitar I've played that's been anywhere near as good was a 50's Hofner archtop.

I've never been a 'gotta-have-a-new-one' kind of guy. The new guitars I've bought in recent years have all needed some work to get the best out of them. But now I've played that 360WB I at least know what the best plays and sounds like.

headbanger · Post by **headbanger** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:51 am

Lee, great post. Are you sure it was a 360? The 1993 had body binding like a 360 but dots like a 330. There were a very few made with triangle markers & neck binding. Either way a rare guitar. You didn't happen to check the s/n?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:20 am

Wasn't nitro. Was "conversion varnish" (a mouthful, I'll admit) or, generically, "clearcoat".

(I know, picky, picky, but misinformation should be un-disseminated ASAP.)

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:15 am

Speaking of misinformation...when the guitar player I was in a band with at the time heard I was getting a Rick, he tried to convince me they were "made of plywood"! I didn't believe him & I didn't care if they were anyway!
Why are Ricks so mysterious to everyone else?

longhouse · Post by **longhouse** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:32 am

Especially to luthiers. I whinced as my longtime shop owner/luthier CRANKED on the wrong screw on the bridge pickup of my 340/DG.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:56 am

Ricks are thin on the ground. After all these years, that's a pretty amazing statement, isn't it?

Most luthiers may have seen a Rick and possibly even worked on one, but there is one Rick for every 2500 Strats out there, and few would take the time to really take a look at how they are built, much less understand company philosophy and practices in the building end of things.

Imagine Dr. Screwcrank really tearing into one. I'm wincing already, and will probably whinge about it tomorrow...

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:25 am

Thin on the ground is an understatement here in Canada. The availability that you have in the USA is something that we can only dream of.

I suspect that only owners know how to work on them up here. We're the only ones blessed enough to actually be able to hold one for any length of time.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:02 am

Lovely post, Lee. I envy you being able to play it! Was "down south" Sydney, by any chance?

We're in the same boat as Brian - you've got to snap them up when you see them. Having said that, there are currently three at my local dealer - a 360/12 FG, a 370/6 FG and a 350V63 JG.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:20 am

Brian...yeah, Ricks are more available here than in Canada. But you have one or two things more 'available' than we do...

Let's all dream together...

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:26 am

Well said Dane. I am thankful for the all that is available in this beautiful country of ours. Hopefully one day all our dreams will come true.

rick36 · Post by **rick36** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:08 pm

In which years were Ric's finished with "conversion varnish" or "nitro" or whatever else? Also, are the RM's, CW's and V series guitars finished in the original way or newer, modern finishes?

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:24 pm

Ask the Curmudgeon he will have those details pretty much at hand.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:48 pm

From some time in '59 on, Rickenbacker used some form of catalyzing conversion varnish or other, on all guitars (save the recent walnut-bodied ones in the 300 and 600 series). The formula for this material has changed over the years to keep abreast of coating technology. "The original way" is the current way, as it turns out, and the RMs, CWs and "V"s use it, too.

Conversion varnish is considered primarily an interior wood finish, and is used on all sorts of contract furniture to provide great gloss and ultimate protection. However, high-end coffins are also finished in conversion varnish, too.

That puts RIC over 20 years in front of most of the industry. Some manufacturers are still using nitro, and others charge extra for the privilege of having a nitro finish on your guitar.

It's a very labor-intensive material, as for best appearance, each instrument must be hand-sanded and hand-buffed and detailed after spraying.

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:16 pm

Right on cue Paul. You following me around or something? LOL

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:40 pm

To the ends of the earth, Brian.