Nut /string spacing on older 12s

zenobia · Post by **zenobia** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:30 am

Hello.
The old chestnut I'm afraid.
I'm new to this site, though I have discussed this problem on the Rickenbacker forum without reaching any real conclusion (probably due to my inablity to describe the exact query.)
Hopefully someone out there can help!
Two guitars: a 1992 330/12 and a 1980 360/12, both unmodifed.
Before I sell the 330 and buy the 360 (online, thus unable to compare), as these are older models: is the string /nut spacing exactly the same?
In anticipation, many thanks.

janglerocker · Post by **janglerocker** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:50 am

With a 12 year gap in the age of the two guitars you mention it may be impossible to say with complete authority but as a rule the 330/12 had a wider spaced nut while the 360/12 was slightly narrower due to the neck binding. As you may have read Rickenbacker now puts the 330 width nut on the 360, too. It is a fairly simple procedure to swap the nut to the wider style...and cheap, too.

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:26 pm

I'm going to bet that the '92 will have more comfortable nut spacing.

zenobia · Post by **zenobia** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:49 pm

Many thanks for your replies; you clearly understand my predicament!
To make things even more complicated...as I only like the sharp-horn Rics, I presume the ideal solution would be to buy a new 360/12v63 which would guarantee the new nut (and spacing), or (dream on...) a 381/12v69?
And while I'm here, apart from the tailpiece, what exactly is the difference between a 360/12 WB and a 360/12v63?

lennon211 · Post by **lennon211** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:25 pm

The 360/12v64 and the 360/12c63 are the two guitars that recreate the 12 string used by George Harrison. The latter 360/12c63 is the more accurate of the two, coming closer to replicating many of the finer details. Both had the period correct 21 fret necks. They were also equipped with vintage-style toaster pickups, with outputs varying over the years and the most recent ones being to spec with those of the 1960's. The 360/12 WB is a standard 360, with the modern features, the pointy horns, and the binding on the front and back edges of the body. It has the more modern 24 fret neck, and more than likely the hi-gain pickups. Those are the most basic differences, boiling down to the 360/12v64 and 360/12c63 are the vintage reissues and the 360/12 WB is their modern counterpart.

35012 · Post by **35012** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:29 pm

A 360/12 WB would most likely have hi-gain pickups, 24 frets, a bound sound hole, modern tuners and TRC, standard Rick-O-Sound and Tone control action and rounded inlays while the 360/12c63 would have Full-length inlays, 7.6k ohm toaster pickups, 21 frets, and an unbound sound hole, along with vintage reissue plexi TRC and vintage reissue tuning heads, parallel mono output rather than Rick-O-Sound, and reverse action tone controls.
Edit: Posted Too late...

epitreture · Post by **epitreture** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:30 am

I had a 2005 620/12 with the narrower spaced nut when I found a 1992 610/12 with the wider spaced nut. I discovered that the 610/12 was much easier to play so I sold the 620/12.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:46 am

John Hall has stated that the 360/12C63 guitars being made now have the wider spaced nut.

tomtrig · Post by **tomtrig** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:00 am

I can't believe they're changing the spacing from what the C Team decided was the correct spacing on a 1964 instrument.

The correct radius fingerboard compensates for that.

Now they're putting a 660/12 Nut on a 360/12OS
That's a shame!

The 360/12C63 is not supposed to be setup like a modern Rickenbacker.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:01 am

"Now they're putting a 660/12 Nut on a 360/12OS
That's a shame."

Nope. The 660/12 nut will never fit a 360/12 neck. It's the 330 nut with slightly wider spacing which is being fitted.

You can't please everybody...

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:34 am

I'm not sure what to think about this, but I will say that I REALLY struggled with the spacing on the c63 I played.

karl_teten · Post by **karl_teten** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:45 am

Harrison's nut was cut "wide and tight". Wide string spacing with each dual string tight together. See Andy's Beatle Gear book for details. Also, see close up of McGuinn's RIC 12 in the new Byrds CD boxset booklet.

Since the factory is making corrections, the bridge nuts on the C12 (and the C58) should changed to flat steel nuts for historical correctness.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:50 am

David: Thanks for your questions and I am sorry we didn't welcome you to the RickResource Forum. Welcome!

janglerocker · Post by **janglerocker** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:59 pm

So my '95 360/12WB is at my luthier for a new nut, purchased at the Rick boutique. The original nut was lacquered or CV'd over by the factory so I didn't want to attempt replacement myself and my guy did a great job removing the original nut without damage to the finish. The original nut had a more squared off top than the replacement so I had some difficulty comparing them before removal. The string spacing actually was pretty darn wide on the original and looked very similar to the spacing of the current Rick replacement nut. The string pairs looked a little tighter on the new one so I had him go for it replacement wise. After removal he found the original nut to be a good 1/32 in. WIDER than the replacement! (exact measurements to be relayed upon return of the guitar) Rather than using the replacement Rick nut he's making one from scratch using specs Mr. Arnquist sent me recently. I'll let y'all know how it comes out but I found the fact that the original is wider than the replacement very interesting.

janglerocker · Post by **janglerocker** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:26 pm

So I got my '95 360/12WB back from the shop on Friday. Turns out the current Rick 12 replacement nut measures close to 1/16th on an inch narrower than my original nut. A new nut was cut from a graphite blank with the spacing similar to my original but with the string pairing tightened up to a .070 gap on the G through high E strings and .080 on the lower A and E pairs.
Why is the original nut wider? I can only chalk it up to variances in the neck shaping process back when mine was produced. I guess the point of my post is to warn other owners you may have to go with a custom nut vs. a straight remove and replace on a RIC boutique shop nut purchase.
Very happy with the results but now I have another issue that may or may not have been there before and I never noticed: The strings go from being dead aligned with the width of the neck at the nut to them being 1/16th off center at the 24th fret. This is leaving the low E string just barely on the fretboard at this point with a large amount of space on the high E side. Is this a matter of the bridge slots being off or is it possible the entire bridge is off center? My luthier is out of town for a week so I'll have to wait to bring it up with him.

This probably belongs over in the technical thread.

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Nut /string spacing on older 12s

Nut /string spacing on older 12s

Re: Nut /string spacing on older 12s