600-Series Shape Changes

[deaconblues]

This has come up before, but I think it deserves its own thread.

I've noticed recently that the 600 series (at least, the 620 and 660) has changed shape.

The basic shape from the inception of the series in 1963 or thereabouts has a flattened bass horn and a long treble horn, almost like a 325. Also notice the extra strip of wood to the right of the guard.



The newer 600s - since about 2010, by my reckoning - have a thinner bass horn with a rounded top that sticks out more, and a shorter treble horn.



Now, you could say "there is no consistency, they have changed a bunch of times, etc." But I challenge you to find a shift in design as significant as this one throughout the many decades of production.

So the question is, which do you like better? My personal opinion is that the new design looks off-balance, but I wanted to hear what people think.

[jps]

The basic shape from the inception of the series in 1963 or thereabouts

1958 IIRC.

[Ontario_RIC_fan]

The headstock shape changed in 1984... If I could vote it would be from 1962-1983 as preferred!

[ByrdBro]

Strewth, reading this was a real surprise, had no idea there had been recent changes to the 600 range.

Wonder why?

I have a 2000 model 660-12 and love it, as am sure many do. Can't understand why the shape should have been changed.

In fairness the new style doesn't look too different and this could go un-noticed if you walked into a music shop and
saw a new one hanging on the wall. But side by side, yes it is apparent.

Curious

[deaconblues]

In fairness the new style doesn't look too different and this could go un-noticed if you walked into a music shop and
saw a new one hanging on the wall. But side by side, yes it is apparent.

Personally, I noticed it straight away. The smaller treble horn is really obvious in person.

1958 IIRC.

You're right, I was thinking just of the 620.

[aceonbass]

I noticed the change in body shape (as well as the change in shape of the body contour under the tailpiece on 300 series guitars) a couple of years ago. I took a lot of heat here for noticing it and preferring the earlier shapes. John Hall said the change in 600 series shape was based on an early one he had sitting close to him, and Ben Said he liked the newer 300 series contour better. Kudos to you Dan for noticing this and posting a survey.

[chronictown]

I hate to be a fence-sitter, but I actually like them both. If I had to pick, I'd say the older version just for the sake of tradition, but the recent changes are not offensive IMHO (unlike the 300-series re-vamped ramp circa 2010, which has mysteriously returned to normal lately). I do like how the cresting wave line is not "broken" across the neck with the new style.

[deaconblues]

By all accounts, Ben is doing a fantastic job at the factory, especially QC-wise.

I won't be in the market for a 12-string anytime soon, but the new 620/660 shapes will definitely affect my decision when I am.

[aceonbass]

I do like how the cresting wave line is not "broken" across the neck with the new style.

I would consider this an improvement too, but did all of the older ones have the "broken" cresting wave line, or just some of them? The basses always seemed fine in this regard, so I'm wondering if the older 600 shown here is an exception rather than the rule.

[Clint]

Mine's "broken" it's an '87.

[chronictown]

Good question, Dane...I've owned three cresting wave guitars (two from '64 and one from '77) and they are all "broken" across the meeting of the neck and body. That said, though, there may be some other years of production when this was not the case; I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking.

[analogpackrat]

Despite the seemingly minor difference, I very much prefer the older style upper horn. Its flatter face looks more aggressive and wave-like to my eye. I find the lower horn difference less obvious for some reason.

[Clifton]

Despite the seemingly minor difference, I very much prefer the older style upper horn. Its flatter face looks more aggressive and wave-like to my eye. I find the lower horn difference less obvious for some reason.

I agree--I like the older style better, too. Even though it's probably only a visual thing, it looks like the guitar would be a little stronger with the extra wood. Tone-wise, it probably doesn't make much difference, I would imagine. I have a 620/12 from about 1980, and a 620/6 from 2006. What's interesting about the headstock of the 12-string is just how roughly cut the channels are for the extra strings--not as smooth as modern woodworking.

[Kingbreaker]

My (old style) 660/12 had just a bit of neck dive. . .. I think I'd prefer the heavier body, whatever that would be. They both look good. Old style is a little more distinctive and unique.

[Kingbreaker]

My (old style) 660/12 had just a bit of neck dive. . .. I think I'd prefer the heavier body, whatever that would be. They both look good. Old style is a little more distinctive and unique.

Looking at it closely, is it true that the upper horn is extended a bit?

This might give us an explanation, as it would probably balance a bit better.