jdogric12 wrote:Yep, they got fatter in the 90's (to boil it down very succinctly). It's one reason there is such a demand for vintage Ricks, and other brands for that matter, by players.
Well, the funny part is that Rickenbacker neck profiles changed constantly from 1961-1972 (only going by years that I own...), and with no rhyme, reason or pattern. The '61 365 neck I have is med-chunky, but not as big as a '64 RM1998, and the '69 381 I have has a tiny little neck, even smaller than the slim '72 331 neck.
Really, that's half the fun of old guitars, just feeling out the differences between them. Each one is handmade and different.
I wasn't a fan of the '07 330 neck I once owned. It was pretty too chunky, but I think the current profile (as carved by the CNC) is a decent, medium shape for both 6 and 12-string instruments.
Thing is, you can never please everyone all the time. Different players have different needs/tastes. At least in the Rickenbacker world, smaller necks aren't a bad thing to many people. In the Gibson world, they can devalue a guitar over 70% from the previous year with a larger neck.
In fact, think of all the people on the Les Paul forums that talk about '59 Les Paul profile necks being the best etc (while having never touched a '59 Les Paul). Gibson responded by making the necks larger and larger until they were quite literally baseball bats.....and not vintage profile.
The point is that, there really is no "standard" neck size, especially when you are reissuing guitars based on handmade instruments years ago. Best they can do is get a baseline profile etc.
