I did; unless I'm mistaking the body dimensions, I think I see four C58-thickness bodies with full-scale necks-left side; FG, JG, MG, RBY. Campbell guitars maybe?!stuart wrote:Did anyone see the RIC facebook photos this morning?
NAMM 2013
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
paologregorio
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6376
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:56 pm
- Contact:
Re: NAMM 2013
There is no reason to ever be bored.
...why yes, I suppose I do have a double bound guitar fetish...
"Uh, I like the double bounds. . . ."
...why yes, I suppose I do have a double bound guitar fetish...
"Uh, I like the double bounds. . . ."
Re: NAMM 2013
I think those are probably 350V63 models.paologregorio wrote:I did; unless I'm mistaking the body dimensions, I think I see four C58-thickness bodies with full-scale necks-left side; FG, JG, MG, RBY. Campbell guitars maybe?!stuart wrote:Did anyone see the RIC facebook photos this morning?
I believe a 24 fret 350 style model would be almost 2 inches longer than the 620 and 660 models on the rack.
Re: NAMM 2013
Kevin, you could be right...
One close up shows a pretty wide fretboard though. Check out the neck thickness on the left in this photo.
I believe the MC 350 (as I call it) has a Tom Petty 660/12 signature neck, but cut for 6-strings instead of 12.
One close up shows a pretty wide fretboard though. Check out the neck thickness on the left in this photo.
I believe the MC 350 (as I call it) has a Tom Petty 660/12 signature neck, but cut for 6-strings instead of 12.
- Attachments
-
Re: NAMM 2013
If I am understanding you correctly, the thicker looking fingerboard is due to no binding along the side of it.stuart wrote:Check out the neck thickness on the left in this photo.
Re: NAMM 2013
I don't mean that, I mean the width from low E string to high E string.jps wrote:If I am understanding you correctly, the thicker looking fingerboard is due to no binding along the side of it.stuart wrote:Check out the neck thickness on the left in this photo.
I guess we'll know in a week's time
.Re: NAMM 2013
Well, that is difficult to discern from a close up photo taken with a wide angle lens, as the the perspective gets skewed due to the stretching of the edges of images close to the edge of the photo as they get distorted and thrown out of true proportion.stuart wrote:I don't mean that, I mean the width from low E string to high E string.jps wrote:If I am understanding you correctly, the thicker looking fingerboard is due to no binding along the side of it.stuart wrote:Check out the neck thickness on the left in this photo.
I guess we'll know in a week's time
-
epitreture
- Member
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:35 am
Re: NAMM 2013
Lefty 330MG third from the right! Hubba Hubba!paologregorio wrote:I did; unless I'm mistaking the body dimensions, I think I see four C58-thickness bodies with full-scale necks-left side; FG, JG, MG, RBY. Campbell guitars maybe?!stuart wrote:Did anyone see the RIC facebook photos this morning?
If there isn't a 12 string Rickenbacker playing at my funeral, I'm leaving.
Re: NAMM 2013
There is an empty space on the rack And I don't see any 24 fret F-hole Guitars.
-
sloop_john_b
- Rick-a-holic
- Posts: 13843
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am
-
deaconblues
- RRF Consultant
- Posts: 2390
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:14 pm
Re: NAMM 2013
Hey I think I saw a 4005 in there too! 
-
rickyfricky
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 692
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:09 pm
Re: NAMM 2013
In Autumn Glo . . . ?dpowell wrote:Hey I think I saw a 4005 in there too!
Watch those teeth, Marlin. I'm not sure we've properly sedated the beast . . .
Re: NAMM 2013
Yep a 4005 would do nicely I like CJ's 4002 idea though. Hmmm Ruby 4005 WB yeah that would put me over the edge.......
-
kennyhowes
- Veteran RRF member
- Posts: 5022
- Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 1:03 am
- Contact:
Re: NAMM 2013
Two things:
1) Look closely, folks - you might be seeing 381V69s on that rack. I too thought they were 360 OS models at first.
2) I start my new job this week, so I can't go to NAMM. Bummed.
1) Look closely, folks - you might be seeing 381V69s on that rack. I too thought they were 360 OS models at first.
2) I start my new job this week, so I can't go to NAMM. Bummed.
Re: NAMM 2013
They do look like that, to me.kennyhowes wrote:...Look closely, folks - you might be seeing 381V69s on that rack.
Good luck with the new job, Kenny.
