360WB versus 360V64

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:13 pm

Please pardon my ignorance, friends, but I'd like to establish the essential differences between the two. I absolutely adore my 6 string V64 - by far the nicest 'player' in my small collection - and was wondering if the 360WB is the same or similar in specs.

Thanks in advance, all.

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:18 pm

Howard, the WB has 24 frets, regular non-full-width inlays, and higains. Pretty much like a double bound, deluxe 330.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:45 pm

Thanks, John. Any idea how the necks compare? I find the V64 neck a delight compared to a regular 360 or 330... a shallower 'D' profile rather than a deep 'C'.

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:07 pm

I have never had the pleasure of playing either, unfortunatley.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 3:07 pm

My '82 360 WB has full-width inlays. And it does have a shallow neck. It's a lovely, very solid-feeling player.

rick_ovic · Post by **rick_ovic** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:47 pm

In addition, the 360WB has an R tailpiece and black control knobs with silver discs, whereas the 360V64 has the trapeze tailpiece and vintage black knobs.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:45 pm

Thanks, guys! The tailpiece and knobs don't bother me either way - the neck is my main concern.

I think I'm in danger of becoming a double-bound freak.... I just love 'em!!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:20 pm

They do have a unique feel to them; sort of like a lightweight, double-bound, solid body. Completely different from a 330, my 381, or my 1997 reissue. And the neck is very slim, fast and solid. Possibly the best-feeling of my Ricks, too.

Mine has an Accent, BTW, not a trapeze or "R" type.

eggman · Post by **eggman** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:23 am

Howdy,

John Hall won't bring back the 360WB, and that's a shame. I know he claims that they're cost prohibitive for most guitar players. I would certainly buy a 360 WB in a 6-string.
That's the problem, I don't WANT a 12-string (sorry), and that's currently the only way to get a new double-bound 360

They are sinfully photogenic; gorgeous guitars.

Eggman

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:27 am

Hey, Larry. That's two definite sales he's got, then........

steve_hershberger · Post by **steve_hershberger** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:11 am

Howard & Larry - I'm with you guys regarding the double bound 360 look. I'm not all that interested in the 6 strings, but anything that looks close to my 12 string V64 (or the C63's) certainly gets my attention.

In a day or two I'll have a lot of new pics on my Webshots site from the Plimsouls concert we attended this past Friday night. Lots of shots of a 24 fret 12 string OS or WB on there. I'll post a link once I get the pics uploaded.

But here's a question(s) - What's the difference between the "OS" and "WB" designations? I know the differences between a "regular" 360 and the "WB's" and "OS's" but what the heck is the difference(s) between those two designations?

Are they different terms talking about the same things, or is there more to it - like certain years apply to OS and WB - or what? Anybody know what's the official Ric word on that?

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:40 am

Excellent question, Steve. I hadn't even thought about the 'OS'.

Looking forward to the pics, too!

leftyguitars · Post by **leftyguitars** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:47 am

Two different terms for the same guitars.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:56 am

Thanks, Lefty! So what does 'OS' actually stand for?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 pm

OS stands for "Old Style".

This was given by default when the "new style" 360s came onto the market.

If you hear of one referred to as "OS" it will usually be of late '60s vintage, like the one I restored for Bill Yantz earlier this year.