660/12 v. 330/12 v. 360/12 Neck profiles

fendertweed2 · Post by **fendertweed2** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:41 am

I was at my local GC yesterday and played a new (02, wk 42) 330/12. Leaving aside the fact that the neck had about 1" of relief and desparately needed a truss rod adj. (typical GC lousy presentation of on display guitars), the neck felt to me significantly bigger than a 360/12, closer to the 660/12, though maybe a little flatter front to back than the 660/12.

Anyone have more info on the relative profiles: I wonder because the 360/12 is almost always too narrow for me, yet the 330/12 seemed much more like the 660/12 and larger than the 360.

Thx,
Jon

lawnjockie · Post by **lawnjockie** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:17 am

Jon: I can tell you this with certainty. Last year I purchased a 330/6 and two 360/6's. I also bought three 660/6's and a single 660/12.

The 330/6 neck definitely feels wider, and is in fact much beefier than the 360/6. I confirmed this with Chris Clayton (pickofthericks.com). While I won't say that the 330 is as wide as a 660...it certainly feels much wider than the 360.

I also understand (don't know it to be truth) that Rickenbacker is slimming down the 660 necks to 620 size. This information was recently on alt.guitar.rickenbacker. I cannot confirm this. This change was supposedly to take place the last quarter of 2002. All of my 660's were "born" prior to that.

fendertweed2 · Post by **fendertweed2** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:44 am

Thanks, Scott,

Part of my question stems from liking my late '02 (wk 48) 660/12 neck far more than the 360/12s, and being surprised at how much I liked this 330/12 neck: it does seem deeper than the 660/12, maybe not as wide. Can't say if my 660/12 is the slimmed profile, but I would say it's somewhat slim front to back: tho' the 660/12 neck is not tiny, the 330/12 neck seemed chunkier in the shoulders.

Makes me wonder if the 660/12 I love may have been the 2d best Ric for me, with that 330/12 being the best compromise in neck profiles. I prefer that body shape, but love the new 660/12 and I can only justify having one electric 12... decisions, decisions. I could probably beat GC down a bit on their price (looks like ~20% off list price, I got the 660 (not at GC) for ~30+% off)...

Thanks,
Jon

wileyibex · Post by **wileyibex** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:02 am

I'm certainly not saying I distrust any of the impressions cited above, but I'd love to hear more from the company itself about the actual, rather than perceived, neck profiles of the models 330, 360, 620, and 660. Up to this point, I assumed that the necks on the 330, 360, and 620 all measured the same; and that the 660, 650 and 380 models shared a different, wider profile.

We've heard that in the last quarter of 2002, the 660 neck was re-shaped, slimming the thickness of the neck on that model. Was that change ONLY on the 660, or is there to be a more "svelte" 650 and 380 neck as well? Now I've heard a rumour that the 660 neck is to be changed (again?) to the same dimensions as the 620. Thus it is incumbent upon me to enquire:

Whassup wi dat?

So please, somebody, clear up the Ric neck issue. Answer a few questions for me/us:
(1) Do the 330/360, and 620 share the same neck measurements?
If not, how do they differ?
(2) Do the 660, 650, and 380 share a set of common neck measurements?
If not, how do they differ?
(3) Was the 660 neck profile changed in late 2002?
If so, in what way was the neck changed?
(4) Is the 660 neck being re-shaped again to be the same as the 620?
(5) And what became of little Nell, who was tied to the tracks with the train approaching?

Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter, and for any assistance you can provide to clear up my confusion.

fendertweed2 · Post by **fendertweed2** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 9:12 am

The Ric site shows the width to be same on the 360 as the 330, so it may've been my subjective feel, but the 330/12 seemed easier to play than the 360/12s I've played.

In any case, I still think I prefer my wider 660/12.

Cheers,
Jon

lawnjockie · Post by **lawnjockie** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:52 am

Paul: The slimming of the 660 that I spoke of above came from http://www.alt.guitar.rickenbacker.com. Eleven posts discuss the 660. Here is Zonmails post:

"I got a note from Mr. Hall yesterday stating that the neck on the 660 has been slimmed down
as of last quarter 2002 and that it is more in line with the 620 and 330 now."

I have not read with any degree of certainty that this has happened or ever will happen. To me it would seem counter-productive to slim the 660 to the 620 specs. Why not just do away with the 660 altogether if you are going to do this (with the exception of cosmetics)?

However, on to the 330 and 360. There is absolutely no doubt that a 330 (late 2002) feels much wider and beefier than a 360 (late 2002). I have both and have wondered what I'm missing when I read the current Rickenbacker specs.

Obviously the binding on the 360 makes a huge difference feel wise. Your mileage may vary.

Is Nell in danger? Will she escape? What has become of the train? Tune in tomorrow, same RIC time, same RIC channel.

wileyibex · Post by **wileyibex** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 12:05 pm

I think that the "slimming" of the 660 model's neck is more likely intended to bring the *profile,* rather than the *width* of the 660's neck down to 620 spec's, as the chief complaint about the 660 neck that I've heard voiced has been that the radius was too large -- that the neck was not only wide, but thick.

I'd agree that to narrow the 660 neck would bring that model to within two toasters and a bridge of being a 620, and would pretty well obviate the model.

So does the binding on the neck of the "deluxe" models (360/370, 620) reduce the actual playing surface of the neck and render those necks functionally narrower for the player? If so, that would seem to result in the 330 and 610 having wider playing surfaces on the fretboard than their "deluxe" siblings. Talk about unintended consequences! ("I'll take the cheaper one, Ed; it seems to have room to put my fingers...")

So I'll revert to my original questions about neck widths of the various models, and now I want to add a further question about the nuts used. Are all the 6-strings nuts cut to the same pattern? And all the 12-string nuts?

Looks like Nell is still on the tracks...

1964 · Post by **1964** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:28 pm

> "I also understand (don't know it to be truth) that Rickenbacker is slimming down the 660 necks to 620 size. This information was recently on alt.guitar.rickenbacker. I cannot confirm this. This change was supposedly to take place the last quarter of 2002"

I hope we're talking back profile here, as opposed to nut width, as my fat fingertips need the additional string spacing accorded by the wider nut width, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

fendertweed2 · Post by **fendertweed2** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 11:41 am

Miguel,

You describe my perceptions exactly: A 660 width neck with the 330's profile would be perfection IMO.

Cheers,
Jon

anonymous · Post by **anonymous** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 12:25 am

I just finalized my trade of my 2000 660 FG-6 for a NOS 1992 360/12 JG. In the end I preferred the slim neck to the wide one. For those interested in the 660, check out Chris Clayton's pick of the ricks site.

Its my first 12, so I'll let you know how I find the change.

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:44 am

Sorry for beating this dead horse...I am very frustrated with my '99 360-12MG....I had some work done on it and now that the neck is perfect, I find that I can't play it because the neck is so darn narrow....I have been checking out this thread and have come to this conclusion...I must try out the 330-12, 660-12, and 620-12 to try and find the right neck width for me. I have large hands and my fingers smother the intended strings and the surrounding strings...so is the spacing between the pairs of strings larger or the space between the octave strings? I am desperate....

Anybody out there with little hands and a 660-12 to trade for a 360-12????

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 6:18 am

my hands smother the intended strings on my 660/12. I'm 6'1 and 175 pounds but got extra large hands

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 6:51 am

Jerry-

So what's the deal? Is the fretboard wider on the 660? I'm probably not ever gonna find one to try, so I may end up buying one by "word of mouth".....a scary thought, but I just can't make it happen on my 360-12. I LOVE this guitar but I just can't work with it....

riffmeister · Post by **riffmeister** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:09 am

Chis, the string spacing on your 360/12 can be widened a bit with a modified nut. And with new frets which extend to the edge of the neck (over the binding), the spacing can be widened even further. I'm not sure how all of this compares the wider neck of the 660, though. I've had the new frets and wider string spacing nut mod done to my 360/12/V64. I'll tell you later this week how it turned out when the guitar arrives.

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:53 am

Thanks Peter! I'll keep an eye out for your post...