Problems with new Rickenbacker 325C58 MG

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:38 pm

Hi Jerry,
Sorry to hear of your issues list. If it is poor workmanship there is no excuse, but who knows who tweeked on this thing before you bought it. As with many "reissue" instruments, guitar manufacturers recreate the same "****" hardware, assembly and wiring techniques that was used in that era. If you look at the wiring cavity in a Gibson 61' SG you will see all the grounds soldered to the back of the pots, it's a sloppy mess. Look at a new instrument and the pots are mounted on a piece of sheetmetal which is grounded. The point is do you want a reissue instrument or a more modern one? The machine screw strap buttons were used for years by Rick without a stripping problem. I agree that is not the proper use of machine threads. Their modern versions use Schaller strap locks. If you want a Bigsby, maybe a 325V59 would have been a better choice, a 325V63 with the accent vibrato, or a modern 325 moded to your liking . I don't know how you can even strum any rhythm parts with vibrato on the C58. The arm is in the way for my playing style. But then I don't like the short scale either. Good luck with your repairs and moding this thing to where you want it. I just hope you don't end up putting more into it that it is worth.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 5:16 pm

Hi Ken,
I still am standing by my original analysis of it being a manufacturing problem. I've had quite a bit of experience in that field. I would have figured a reissue would have been better than an original. Although this was my first purchased Rickenbacker, I have seen the ones from the 50's and 60's as many of the bands I played with had them and they were an absolutely great looking and playing guitar. Their quality surpassed many of the other guitars of that period in looks and workmanship, I only wished I was able to afford one at that time. Now being retired and disabled, I felt I would get one, even if later in life, and felt a little let down on what I recieved. But if it costs me more to get it where I would have liked to have had it in the first place then so be it. I still like the Rickenbacker and feel mine may have just been a fluke. Oh well we all learn even in later stages in life. My next Rick will be a 12 string, but I'll do a little more research on that one.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:12 am

Jerry: Instead of putting on a Bigsby which you will probably not use with your Model 325, why not install a trapeze tailpiece.

It will fit nicely on the bracket that is already there for the Kauffman and you won't have to drill holes in your guitar. It is a cool look and will allow you to put the Kauffman back on some day should you ever want to return to that look.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:36 am

Hi Peter,
Thanks for your input on the trapeze tailpiece, however I play alot of Ventures, Santos and Johnny, and Duane Eddy music and I really quite often use the vibrato to achieve the needed sound on most of those instrumentals, so it doesn't leave me much of an option on a vibrato unit. But thanks anyway.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:59 am

Jerry: Without venturing out too far on the limb, are you familiar with the differences in feel and action of the B5 versus the B3/B6/B11.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:28 am

Hi Peter,
I am familiar with the bigsby feel from a couple of Gretsch's I have played with similar looking Vibrato's to the B-5, but on the Gretsch's they had an added tailpiece.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:43 am

Jerry: The angle at which the strings meet the bridge using the B5 is steeper than it is for Bigsby models on Gretches such as the B3 or B6. The more severe angle of the B5 has its assets and liabilities.

I would try a B5 on a model 325 to explore its functioning first. Otherwise, you may end up installing a vibrato that does not suit your needs.

My two cents, given your experience thus far.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:54 am

Hi Peter,
I noticed that angle you were talking about, bridge to vibrato. When I played the Gretsch's which are more of a straight line to the bridge from the vibrato, many of the models had to use a string tensioner added to keep it in tune and to give some resistance. I figure the steeper angle of the 325 would negate the use of a tensioner to keep it in tune. What do you think?

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:49 am

Thanks Jerry. This is turning into an interesting discussion. I think, that the action to which you are accustomed with the Bigsby on Gretsch with the B3, for example, will not be the same as you get on the Model 325 with the B5. A spring will still be required.

I do not have a 325 with a Bigsby so I would very much like to hear what others here have to say about the action of the Bigsby. In particular, the ease of movement of the tremelo and its ability to return the strings back to pitch.

The type of bridge used is also critical in achieving efficient bending.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:34 am

Hi Peter,
Yes, I'd also like to hear from some of those that have the Bigsby on their 325 with the original roller bridge, and the bigsby bowtie.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:40 am

I have heard back from Mr. John Hall on my Rickenbacker 325C58. He told me I had misconceptions as to what my guitar is suposed to be and apoligized if the literature or dealer was not more informative. He stated "the 325C58 is a replica of a guitar produced in 1958-no better, no worse, warts and all", and that, "the whole point was to recapture the fairly crude construction of these instruments, exactly as they were and to make perfectly imperfect instruments". I never read a Rickenbacker advertisement that said that, all the ones I've read on this model stated that they were made using the finest materials and workmanship as in the past. Had I read an advertisement as Mr. Hall stated in his letter, I'd never have purchased it. He also stated that mine being a year old and already sold by Guitar Center, and who knows how many times this instrument went out on 30 day trials, it appears to have some good wear and tear. I highly doubt that, especially when in the beginning he comes right out and says they were built with the flaws, remember "Warts and All". Well I wrote him back dissatiisfied as a customer, not wanting any warranty from Rickenbacker, just merely pointing out what I deemed to be a substandard product, and I feel it should be advertised as what he said in his letter to me, warts and all. I also explained his need to be a little more customer oriented, and not rely so much on the Rickenbacker name and history to put out substandard poorly worked guitars, and this was a poor way to do business. I saved all correspondence for future reference.

adam_swapp · Post by **adam_swapp** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:58 pm

Jerry,

Even though I said that I didn't want one of these guitars, I'll defend RIC a little bit. In the last few months I've seen several posts by John Hall wherein he echoes what he told you: these guitars were reproductions of those made 45 years ago. This means that they duplicated features and components that were subsequently superceded by something better. Sure the Kauffman's a POS; that's why RIC quit using it. However, much of the marketing and 98% of the appeal for this guitar is based on fulfilling a fantasy. As with most dreams, things change when you open your eyes.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:23 pm

Adam,

Yes its too bad that John Hall didn't echo what he told me, in the Rickenbacker advertisements, and to the general public, instead of posts where alot of people don't see them. Every brochure I've read including the one that was in with my guitar, spoke only of the quality workmanship and materials that went into -ALL- Rickenbacker products, not just a selected few. Read the first page of your guitar owners manual, it reads, "Congratulations on your purchase of a new Rickenbacker instrument. Embodied in it is more than a half century of fine craftsmanship and quality. You can take pride in the heritage and tradition of the Rickenbacker name, and in the fact that you now own one of the world's truly fine instruments, lovingly handcrafted in America". Nowhere have I read in any advertisement of the 325C58 that it was made with the the "flaws" or "warts", of 45 years ago. I'm not just talking about the vintage Kauffman, which could have been set as to not damage the guitar finish, or the other vintage hardware of that time. I'm talking about, if you read my first post, the quality of the workmanship when assembling this hardware to the guitar. Such as stripping screws when putting them in, crazing/cracking the finish of a headstock because of too much torque on a tuner nut, too big a hole drilled into the body of the guitar to hold the strap screw in place, tailpiece hardware pushed into the top finish of the guitar causing deep impressions, and have since noticed glue residue coming from between the frets onto the fingerboard at the edges of the neck. I don't know about you and your fantasy, or how your dreams changed when you opened your eyes, but don't speak for me. I purchased after reading the Rickenbacker advertisements on THIS model, supposedly, a quality copy or reproduction of an original as per all the advertisements I have on this model, and from what is stated about this model on the Rickenbacker website. Please direct me to where on the Rickenbacker website or advertisements given to the general public that it talks of this model being what Mr. Hall, and now you, say it is. "Making perfect imperfect instruments, Warts and all."

beatlesgear · Post by **beatlesgear** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:47 pm

Jerry, you bought a guitar from a second dealer who bought it from Guitar Center, where it sat for almost a year and a half, likely being sold, returned and who knows what else. If you're wondering about the the screws on the keys being loose, it's quite possible that somebody bought the guitar, put real Grovers on it, changed them back to the Ric-tites and then returned it for some reason. As far as any indentations in the wood from hardware goes, it's pretty standard with any guitar I've ever removed things from, pick-ups, machine heads, tail-pieces, etc all leave marks in the wood from where they were.

You can read some info about the C series here:

http://www.rickenbacker.com/us/cseriesov.htm

A big part of putting the C series together, especially hardware, was to somehow engineer the imperfections of the past. If you want a modern guitar that doesn't have these features, buy a V series instead. But don't complain about those impressions under keys in the back of the headtsock from those Kluson repros, they are going to be there no matter how many years you've got under your belt.

I think it's obvious to all of us what you're trying to do with this thread Jerry, it's getting a little old. I remember laughing out loud when reading about somebody who bought a 4001C64 and they were complaining that it didn't play out the same way their 4003 did. Really? No kidding? The bass is replica of something that was made 40 years ago, it will no doubt be different than a modern counterpart.

matchlock · Post by **matchlock** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:06 pm

Hey Nick,
Whats getting old? Demanding a quality instrument that was promised by a manufacturer? As I again have said in my previous posts, I've compared notes with other owners of this model, who purchased theirs brand new from dealers, with the same problems that I've stated. I guess the new Rickenbacker mentality is to accept anything, as long as the name is there, sorry I don't support that way of thinking.