...what to do with it ? ..play it..LenMinNJ wrote: But I still have to decide what to do with the 1991 350JG that arrived here this morning.
and you could just start with Mike's PU configuration.
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
...what to do with it ? ..play it..LenMinNJ wrote: But I still have to decide what to do with the 1991 350JG that arrived here this morning.
I thought the Jackson Brown prototype was a 620/660 body shape, not a 350 shape.LenMinNJ wrote:So it seems that we don't yet know how wide Mike Campbell's 350's neck is. <sigh>
I'm trying to decide between converting a 1991 350JG into either a version of Mike Campbell's 350 or a replica of the turquoise Jackson Browne Limited Edition prototype that's in the Rickenbacker museum.
Anyone have a personal preference?
Myself I would plug it in and play it!LenMinNJ wrote:I love 660s too. Especially my 660-12TP.
But I still have to decide what to do with the 1991 350JG that arrived here this morning.
Pretty close.Electrostring wrote:Didn't Ben say the neck's 1.74 at the nut? Isn't that similar or at least very close to the 660?
Clifton wrote:I thought the Jackson Brown prototype was a 620/660 body shape, not a 350 shape.

That's surprising; Collin said the neck was akin to an R8 Les Paul (i.e., quite sizeable).8mileshigher wrote:This special one definitely had some sanding or CNCing done to it, to reduce some of the mass of the neck, while maintaining the width of the 660 style neck.
There are no immediate plans to do so and I really don't know what the future will bring on this one.LenMinNJ wrote:John: Will the 350V89 (if that's what we've been calling the 350MC 'til now will be called) be offered through your dealers?
most likely a lot of happy buyers if it's releasedjohnhall wrote:There are no immediate plans to do so and I really don't know what the future will bring on this one.LenMinNJ wrote:John: Will the 350V89 (if that's what we've been calling the 350MC 'til now will be called) be offered through your dealers?