I found this info on the web years ago. Is it valid/accurate?
"Always make sure the "neck set" on any Rickenbacker is good. That is, with the playing action set LOW, there should still be at least 1/16" to 1/4" left for the bridge to go lower. If the bridge is down all the way, or the top was routed to recess the bridge (to make it go lower), avoid that Rick! There is no "easy" way to fix this problem; the whole back of the guitar will need to be removed to reset the neck angle. No cheap or easy task (the cost of the repair could be more than the cost of the guitar!). The 1958 Rick 345 pictured here has about 1/8" left to go down, which is fine. Note the "toaster" style pickup."
Is this info on Rick bridge height valid?
Moderator: jingle_jangle
Re: Is this info on Rick bridge height valid?
Yep, the old "Vintage Guitar Collecting" page. Some other stuff he had on their was really his opinion alone ... IIRC, he didn't think that a Gibson ES335 from 1967 (like mine) was worth collecting or even owning ... 
I'm sure Paul will have a good comment or two about his take on Rickenbackers.
I'm sure Paul will have a good comment or two about his take on Rickenbackers.
With the way prices are now, that may not be true for most older Rickenbackers ... e.g. an original Model 1993 in need of a neck reset would be worth far more that the cost of repair. I'm sure there are many other examples (e.g. any Capri).320capt wrote:... (the cost of the repair could be more than the cost of the guitar!) ...
It is better, of course, to know useless things than to know nothing. - Seneca
Re: Is this info on Rick bridge height valid?
it is save to ignore most of his text, it is dated. it hadn't been updated in like 9 years or more. it is bit like blue book 
dusan palka who is also known as grazioso on infamous auction web site
if you want to reach the man and expect an answer please make sure you remove this email address ([email protected]) from your spam block if you have one.
if you want to reach the man and expect an answer please make sure you remove this email address ([email protected]) from your spam block if you have one.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Re: Is this info on Rick bridge height valid?
I agree with Dusan.
Even the very first time I looked at his comprehensive writings, I (like most of you) could see that a lot was opinion. The Rick "collectability" ratings are laughable and, of course, way off in most cases.
I'll tell you what I still return to his site for--his notes on Fender custom colors (which give paint codes). Invaluable to anyone contemplating refinning a Fender in a factory non-burst finish.
Depending upon the age and price asked for a Rick with the issue in the photo above, I'd proceed with caution. While it's not necessarily true that the back MUST be removed to reset a Rick neck, it's still a pricey proposition when the issue of refinishing the neck joint area comes up. Then, God help you if it's a FG...
Still, in an extreme case such as a vintage 1993 or 1997, the cost could be worth it in the long run. But on a $2500.00 '66 360/12, you'd have to have a long gaze, and still should think twice about acquiring it.
In general, I look for the bridge to be in the middle third of its travel. 1/8"-3/16" between the bottom of the bridge and the bridge plate, is ideal IMO.
Even the very first time I looked at his comprehensive writings, I (like most of you) could see that a lot was opinion. The Rick "collectability" ratings are laughable and, of course, way off in most cases.
I'll tell you what I still return to his site for--his notes on Fender custom colors (which give paint codes). Invaluable to anyone contemplating refinning a Fender in a factory non-burst finish.
Depending upon the age and price asked for a Rick with the issue in the photo above, I'd proceed with caution. While it's not necessarily true that the back MUST be removed to reset a Rick neck, it's still a pricey proposition when the issue of refinishing the neck joint area comes up. Then, God help you if it's a FG...
Still, in an extreme case such as a vintage 1993 or 1997, the cost could be worth it in the long run. But on a $2500.00 '66 360/12, you'd have to have a long gaze, and still should think twice about acquiring it.
In general, I look for the bridge to be in the middle third of its travel. 1/8"-3/16" between the bottom of the bridge and the bridge plate, is ideal IMO.
Re: Is this info on Rick bridge height valid?
A quick response and as always very helpful!
A setting of 1/8" to 3/16" is lower than I would have imagined. That would be with completely flat neck?
Thanks everyone.
A setting of 1/8" to 3/16" is lower than I would have imagined. That would be with completely flat neck?
Thanks everyone.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Re: Is this info on Rick bridge height valid?
That puts the bridge in the middle of its travel with a healthy neck and the truss rods adjusted for minimum or no relief.320capt wrote:A quick response and as always very helpful!
A setting of 1/8" to 3/16" is lower than I would have imagined. That would be with completely flat neck?
Thanks everyone.