What’s up with the new small 60’s head stocks???

Vintage, Modern, V & C Series, Signature & Special Editions

Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4

User avatar
octagon
Senior Member
Posts: 3798
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:19 pm

Post by octagon »

What's next?Twenty one fret necks and toasters pickups as standard equipment?
User avatar
johnhall
RIC
Posts: 3926
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 11:17 am
Contact:

Post by johnhall »

"Gumby" head- there you go again.

Greater mass in the headstock- notwithstanding the claims from a certain add-on device maker- does NOT improve the tone or strength. The larger mass at the end of essentially a lever robs energy from the strings that otherwise would be released into the bridge.

The strength of the head itself might be ever so slightly greater but not in any useful way; the extra weight, on the other hand, provides additional stress at the throat of the neck.

The only reason the head was made larger was to give the larger Schaller M6 key buttons some extra space to turn. It never had anything to do with tone or strength.

It's only the general acceptance of smaller buttons and tighter spacing that let us reduce the size again.
User avatar
aceonbass
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 6651
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:00 am
Contact:

Post by aceonbass »

"Gumby" head is nothing John. I think your description of the 4005 as "donkey donged" was all time over the top funny.
User avatar
charlyg
Senior Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:01 am

Post by charlyg »

And there there is the pool of players, like me, who don't even pay attention to the differences in headstocks, or tuners for that matter, over the years!

Back in the day, I didn't even pay attention to the amps or instruments. I was into the groove, man!

John - I was wondering about something you said somewhere else. You were talking about robbing designs for entry level guitars. I am curious how far to take that. There are only so many pleasing ways to cut out a hunk of wood for a guitar, and the other parts have to be somewhat similar to work as a guitar. So, where is the line to be drawn between ripping off a design and making it different? Those that have tried radical new designs mostly look like attempts to make sure it looks "completely different". This usually makes it ugly, or unplayable. In the case of RIC, the design is different enough, that there is no way anyone could say you guys copied. But for most of the rest of the guitar makers, you have single or double cutaway, how pointy vs, round on corners and edges, hardware, and shape of headstock.

PS - this may have looked like a dumb question, but it has been puzzling me.
User avatar
eric_b
RIC
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:16 pm

Post by eric_b »

The bigger ones were better for smacking people upside the head due to the larger impact/area ratio..The smaller ones require a higher velocity to achieve the desired result..
"It's not the obscene thick gloss, but how it's applied"
User avatar
karl_teten
Intermediate Member
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:09 pm

Post by karl_teten »

I have always been for the original smaller headstock. Not only do they help the guitar sound better but they look the coolest.

IMO, huge tuners are tone suckers as well.
User avatar
sloop_john_b
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 13843
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am

Post by sloop_john_b »

I'd always heard that less headstock mass = more sustain, which is partly why i'd always thought the Rick 12 headstock was a great idea.

Love the old skinny ones, glad to see 'em back.

Image
User avatar
doctorwho
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 12652
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 3:28 pm

Post by doctorwho »

Milking the pics of the 360CW, eh JB? Image
It is better, of course, to know useless things than to know nothing. - Seneca
User avatar
charlyg
Senior Member
Posts: 3755
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 2:01 am

Post by charlyg »

If he's milking, what do you call a certain jetglo 4005?

{:^)
User avatar
sloop_john_b
Rick-a-holic
Posts: 13843
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am

Post by sloop_john_b »

I call it Jeff Scott Jr.

Image
chucksimms
Veteran RRF member
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 1:16 pm

Post by chucksimms »

Alright! My favourite thing about my 60's 335 is now back. I've been thinking about ordering a new 330/335JG... and now I have a VERY good reason. Thanks!
'66 365 O.S. FG, '66 335 FG, '68 375 O.S., '66 330/12 MG, '69 365 O.S. azureglo, 2007 4001C64
User avatar
robbo63
Member
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:43 am

Post by robbo63 »

What's insulting about the term Gumby? I love Gumby, dammit! But I like the vintage headstock, it's what I'm used to.
randyz
Advanced Member
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:39 am

Post by randyz »

Yeehaw! I was planning to buy an ugly or worn 330 and get Dale or Paul to reduce the headstock and refinish JG. Now I can just buy a new 330 JG. Thanks for listening Mr. Hall!
User avatar
elysrand
Advanced Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:00 am

Post by elysrand »

I particularly love the cigar-smoking Eddie Murphy Gumby, "don't wan no banana up my tailpipe, unnerstan". He would look hilarious in a publicity shot with a Rick strapped around his neck: "Don't wan no Fendson up my tailpipe, hear?"
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and sit in with the band whenever you can, to keep your chops up!
User avatar
red_rob
Intermediate Member
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:28 am

Post by red_rob »

YESSSS!!!!!

Fantastic news - I LOVE the smaller vintage style!

Thanks Mr Hall!
Post Reply

Return to “Rickenbacker Guitars: by John Simmons”