'87 Rose Morris 1993 Question.

[tvking]

From the Eriksson website previously mentioned:

"In 1987, there was a district manager at Sam Ash Music Stores who was an afficionado of Rickenbackers, and a fan of these particular models, known as "Jimmy D.". Of course, the model 1997 had been reissued, reproducing the most popular Rose-Morris model, but he wanted more. After contacting Shrilly Swanson at Rickenbacker, Sam Ash put in an order for some very special Vintage Reissues. At that time, Rickenbacker was building instruments to custom order on a limited basis, something they do not do anymore, sadly.

They ordered reissues of the model 1993 12-string. And to boot, they ordered some six-string versions as well. The difference between the reissue 1997 and the reissue model 1993 6-string are slight; the 1993 carries an R tailpiece, and the body is bound. The 12-string is essentially identical to the original 1993. The one difference, again, is the R tail in place of the trapeze used on most originals."

[k43rover]

From the Eriksson website previously mentioned:

"They ordered reissues of the model 1993 12-string. And to boot, they ordered some six-string versions as well. The difference between the reissue 1997 and the reissue model 1993 6-string are slight; the 1993 carries an R tailpiece, and the body is bound. The 12-string is essentially identical to the original 1993. The one difference, again, is the R tail in place of the trapeze used on most originals."

The first batches of model 1993 UK exports sent to Rose Morris in early/mid 1964 all used the trapeze tailpiece; a little later on they switched to the R tailpiece (most probably late '64) and by 1965 the R was the standard specification. So if the factory were ever to make a more accurate 1993 reissue either a trapeze or R tailpiece would be 100% correct versus "original" specs depending on which year of production you wanted to replicate (they only made original Rose Morris export 12 strings in 1964/5). If a C series type 1993 reissue does ever see the light of day, it would be even better if they offered buyers the choice of trapeze or R!

[Clifton]

This is the one I want, even though it's been pointed out on another thread that's it's not technically a 1993. I don't care! The color and appearance of the guitar are great!

[simer4001]

Here is my 2013 1993/12

[JakeK]

What's the story on that one, Brian?

[simer4001]

What's the story on that one, Brian?

You know.

[collin]

What's the story on that one, Brian?

You know.

Yeah.... but we don't!

(1997 RI conversion?)


Looks great, whatever it is!

[jps]

What's the story on that one, Brian?

You know.

Yeah.... but we don't!

(1997 RI conversion?)


Looks great, whatever it is!

Does this have anything to do with a certain guitar that befell a certain fate, Jake?

[krick]

I know but I'm not telling.

Looks great Brian!

[simer4001]

I know but I'm not telling.

Looks great Brian!

[k43rover]

Here is my 2013 1993/12

Looks fantastic Brian. And nice to see a correctly shaped f-hole on a "2013" guitar

However, in the interests of historical accuracy, it should be noted that a "1993 reissue" would have to have a single mono jackplate - this guitar is most definitely a 360/12S Old Style

[leftybass]

Here are a few shots of the lefty 1993. It seems that my photography lights want to bring out the red in the color, but it's actually brown in hue. It's not a perfect guitar, but still very clean for 26 year- old piece.

That's great..!

[collin]

Here is my 2013 1993/12

And nice to see a correctly shaped f-hole on a "2013" guitar

Ah, but it's a V64 (not a 2013). Nice work!

[simer4001]

Here is my 2013 1993/12

And nice to see a correctly shaped f-hole on a "2013" guitar

Ah, but it's a V64 (not a 2013). Nice work!

Colin wins!!!

[scotty]

is that a V641993 Brian ...What ever it is it looks great.Using that term is kinda like Jasons conversion to the 366V64 or is it a V64366 Who knows!