What do you think about Rick Nut Sizes (300-series)?

[pfflam]

What do you think about Rick Nut Sizes (300-series)?

1 - I think the nuts are too small and force many good players away from the brand
2 - I think the Nut size is perfect
3 - I think that Rickenbacker wants to keep too many people from purchasing their product - it keeps them precious
4 - I think that if people like Rickenbackers they should learn to adapt to the small necks
5 - I think that Rick should make wider necks/nuts and their business would go through a small renaissance

[sloop_john_b]

5 - I think that Rick should make wider necks/nuts and their business would go through a small renaissance

Just curious, are we talking about the same Rickenbacker that has a two-year backlog and zero inventory?

['70RS]

This sounds more like a poll at The Gear Page.
A Ric is what it is.....and it's been pretty successful at being what it is for a few years now.

[Clint]

I don't think the nut width is really the problem. My Fender AV '62 Strat has the same nut width as my 350V63. It's the fact that Rickenbacker's spacing stays tight, all the way to the bridge, while Fenders and most other types have much wider spacing at the bridge.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but it's never been an issue for me. I can play them the way they are and if they widened the nut, I could play them that way as well.

[beatlefreak]

It's not so much the neck size - It's the slim necks. The nut goes all the way across the neck, and has been optimized for wider spacing a few years ago.

[jimk]

I've been around the RRF for a couple years now and this discussion looks familiar.
JimK

[lennon211]

I've been around the RRF for a couple years now and this discussion looks familiar.
JimK

And the subject line sounds a bit dirty...


Just sayin' what others are thinking.

[pfflam]

Who is this Rick with such small nuts?!

But seriously,

I know demand is high and output is low, but sometimes that serves the purpose of perception over reality - perhaps the median demographic for Ricks tends to be working on hairloom guitars rather than finding their players, and since that demo (43-year-olds) will be moving on, Rick might want to consider appeasing other players via a renaissance in new qualities and attractions . . hohum?! Who knows?!

['70RS]

- perhaps the median demographic for Ricks tends to be working on hairloom guitars rather than finding their players, and since that demo (43-year-olds) will be moving on...

I find that to be much less true with Rics than other guitars. I'm on my 22nd Ric....vintage, new, reissue, solidbody, semi-solid, bass....I've gigged and recorded with every one of them. That's the only reason I get any of my guitars.

I know plenty of people that won't gig their Murphy R9, PRS, or Fender Custom Shop (I like the idea of not taking out a Murphy aged LP, or Fender Relic 'cause it might get 'damaged').

Rics? I see them out all the time getting played hard.

[kingblud]

IMO, they make them this way just because they always have. People want guitars made the way they "were", look at the OCD that goes on when people shop for a nice Les Paul for example. If the inlays are different, they throw a fit.

I have gotten used to the nut width, but in my eyes it is antiquated. There's no reason not to want more room, or at least as much room as 95% of the other guitars in the world. But this is how the old Rics were, so this is how the new ones shall be. I admire that in a way. The 660s are for the people who are upset about the nut width, almost to the point of comedy. Everything people complain about Rics is "fixed": they have toaster pups, 12 saddle bridges for the 12 strings, a super wide nut (the widest electric nut available on a production guitar, no less) and all the vintage trimmings.

For the record, I love my 330, I really really want a 660/6, and am a big Ric fan. But there's no reason to have the narrow nut aside from keeping with tradition. If the 60s nuts were 1.75, the current 330s and 360s would be 1.75, I believe.

[ken_j]

IMO, they make them this way just because they always have....

Except the fretboard crown radius was 7.25" as opposed to todays 10". I find the 7.25" easier to play especially for chords. I like this on my C63 but not sure I would want it a 6 string. There I would prefer a little extra width.

[RutleDirk]

Forgive me if I've missed the point, but hasn't this "renaissance" already come about, in the form of the 650, 660, and 4004 models?

[sodbuster]

I don't have an issue with a 1- 5/'8 nut but I have had friends of mine really struggle with it on my Ricks, I don't care for the 1- 3/4 width but 1-11/16 I feel is the perfect width

[libratune]

The Rick 300-series 12-string may not be the place to start if you've never played a 12-er before. But for the practiced/accomplished 12-string player, IMO the Rick string spacing (combined with the octave-2nd layout) provides a much greater range of fretting, fingering and other possibilities than one with wider string spacing.

Reference: The 12-String Guitar of Roger McGuinn (video)

Personally, I started on a Vox Mark XII with an aircraft-carrier sized fretboard and worked my way up to a 360-12.

[RutleDirk]

A new nut can help, to some extent. A friend of mine had a 360/12, and didn't like the cramped feel of the string spacing. He had the nut replaced, cut with the widest possible spacing, and he said it made a huge difference. That one was Monte Brown with toasters. He sold it a couple of years ago, so someone here may have it, now.