Some expert help on this

harvey49 · Post by **harvey49** » Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:31 pm

Saw this on ebay, any comments re the vintage and "play ability" of this guitar:

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3771165790&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

Not real happy that a string is missing - doesn't indicate much love and attention has been nurtured on this guitar and may have neck problems - but probably not an issue for me as it's only available for sale in the US and not to that land of AUS - pity

Look forward to what you have to say. You'll have to forgive my ignorance but what are the major differences between the 320 3/4 and a 350 V63 apart from price?

Cheers
Ron

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:45 am

This might be obvious Ron, but the most major differance is that the 350v63 is a full scale gtr, while the 320 is 3/4 scale. The 350 (350v63)was made to be a full size version of the 320, for those that didn't like the short scale length (me for instance). While as the 350 had 24 frets & hi-gains, the 350v63 has 21 frets & toasters.

harvey49 · Post by **harvey49** » Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:28 pm

So Anthony, as I haven't seen any close up shots of each is the body style shape materials made from the same, except for being scaled down?

Getting back to my initial question, being scaled done does it affect playability for guys like me who have fat hands!

BTW any comment re this guitar on eBay?

Cheers

Ron

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:50 am

I don't have a 320 but I do have a 350v63. I believe that the body is the same, but just with differant necks. I am sure that some one will put me right if this is not the case. They are both hollow bodied, just without a sound hole, although there are some 320s with a soundhole. What I do know about 320s is that some love them & some hate them, so you will HAVE to try one to see which camp you fall in. If your hands are large, then it might be wise to stick to a standard scale length.
As to the one on ebay....it looks OK to me, but I am not an expert on 320s. The chap obviously doesn't know much about it....'high end p/ups'! I also assume that it used to be white & has aged to become the Rickenbacker vintage yellow.

harvey49 · Post by **harvey49** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 12:46 pm

Okay Anthony, now I'm starting to get a better understanding, (probably think I'm a little thick), so the only thing scaled down here is the length of the neck. The 320 isn't a 3/4 scale of the 350, neck width at the nut is similar to the 350 but fret spacing is slightly narrower up the neck. Am I on the right track here?

Now just to throw a spanner in the works, while trying to find info on the 320, I came across this picture.

While the guitars are both lefties they are according to the poster 320's. Is that correct and how do you distinguish between them. Confusion reigns supreme!!
Ron

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:00 pm

You are on track. It is the distance from the nut to the bridge. Scale = string length.

jsm610 · Post by **jsm610** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 2:48 pm

To distinguish between the 320 and the 350 in a photo, look at the inlay at the 12th fret mark:
350: 2 dots for an inlay
320: 1 dot for an inlay

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:02 pm

being scaled done does it affect playability for guys like me who have fat hands!

My hands aren't fat, if anything they're a little smaller than average, but the 320 and 325 are just way too small for me to play comfortably.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:27 am

Don't worry Ron, we don't think that you are 'a little thick'. This is one of the wonders of this forum, to ask, to learn & to help when you can. I too have asked questions that some would find obvious (as I suspect most have), but I have always received courteous, intelligent help.

xcoyle · Post by **xcoyle** » Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:31 pm

Ron, with regard to the picture above, the guitar on the left has a right-handed neck. The guitar on the right has a lefty neck. I think in the 70's they would just use right-handed necks, in the 80's Ric made lefty necks with the logo upright (not sure on dates).

harvey49 · Post by **harvey49** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:30 am

David, or others,
It wasn't the neck is was really interested in, notice the subtle rounding on the ends of the upper and lower cut aways. Is this like what was done with the 330's and the 360's? Any ideas which is the later model, body shape wise and how it is recognised as a model number? Sorry to be a pain

Ron

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:41 pm

Those guitars are a 1982 320 and a 1991 320. They used to belong to a great guy from Jekyll Island, Georgia named Thom, who has sadly passed away. I know because I sold him the '82, serial number VI 2652. It was the 2nd Rickenbacker I ever bought for resale.

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:43 pm

Those guitars are a 1982 320 and a 1991 320. They used to belong to a great guy from Jekyll Island, Georgia named Thom, who has sadly passed away. I know because I sold him the '82, serial number VI 2562. It was the 2nd Rickenbacker I ever bought for resale.

BobKat · Post by **BobKat** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:46 pm

The 1991 is the one with the Union Jack on it. The body templates were wearing throughout the '70s, making the edges softer, but when the 325v63 was reissued, the redid the templates and the corners were sharp again. I think that they went to "real" lefty necks in 1988 or '89.

xcoyle · Post by **xcoyle** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:59 am

Thanks Bob. I learn something everyday on this great site.