New 12 String Headstock Design

loverickbass · Post by **loverickbass** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:00 pm

The website says it's new for 2005 but their link is broken. Fix it, hurry!

Cole

mike_smith · Post by **mike_smith** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:15 pm

It's working now Cole.... Text from the web-site:

Rickenbacker is pleased to announce a new headstock design for all of our standard 12 string guitar models (this exliudes vintage reissue models). Not only will this new headstock design make it easier to string up our 12-string models, but it will make them easier to tune as well. As an added bonus, the reduced weight will translate into an improved all around sound for the guitar. This design will be slowly phased into production on all non reissue 12 string models over an unspecified period of time.

loverickbass · Post by **loverickbass** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:19 pm

Thanks Mike! Interesting that they would toy with a classic hun?

Cole

loverickbass · Post by **loverickbass** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:21 pm

OK, I give up, what's so new about it?

Cole

loverickbass · Post by **loverickbass** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Oh, I see it, they are cutting the channel all the way thru now.

Cole

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:56 pm

This is a good change. It makes the guitar much easier to string, benefiting the musician. It no doubt makes the guitar much easier to finish, because there are few features more difficult to paint and clearcoat flawlessly than a closed-bottom box channel. When the bottom is routed clear through, it's easier to paint, clearcoat, and detail. This benefits everyone, the manufacturer included. Now they can spend a bit more time on other areas of the finish (not that this is needed).

This kind of slow improvement is what is to be expected from a topnotch manufacturing company.

jps · Post by **jps** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:09 pm

IIRC, Rickenbacker had tried this decades ago when first coming up with the 12 string headstock design.

8mileshigh · Post by **8mileshigh** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:20 am

A new headstock design? I was shocked at first- a bit like asking Henry Ford for a model T in Blueburst! I'm old school you see.... this is going to take some getting used to....... mmmmm........... but I'm warming to the idea.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:48 am

Hey, Graham, have a banana with your bran! Live a little!

IMO: "Meet the new boss--same as the old boss"--but BETTER.

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:07 am

Here's the old one from the 80's.

xcoyle · Post by **xcoyle** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:31 am

I don't like it. Looks like a classical guitar. Bright side: Once this is done, the old style guitars will bump up $100 in value immediately and more over time. This is a big shift, not quite as big as "toasters to highgain" but maybe second biggest change IMHO.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:44 am

I think that its a great idea. Will be easier to change strings (for me).

larry_mondello · Post by **larry_mondello** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:10 am

I too like it ... I thought it should have been done years ago .

It was hard to do with the Kluson tuners due to the casing size , but with Schaller tuners it seems easier to accomplish .
At least this is my guess as to WHY it is this way .

aristeas · Post by **aristeas** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm

It's a real breakthrough for the fumble-fingers restringers like me and there'll be fewer expletives when string replacement time comes round. That and a better balanced guitar - 660's, 620's etc with a lighter headstock will make for better playing. EXCELLENT decision John Hall.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:45 pm

Lee, give some thought to what you're saying... "lighter headstock"? You're not gonna change the balance of a 7-pound hunk of maple very much by removing two ounces of wood from the headstock...but of course it will be easier to string.

Looks like a classical guitar, David?

So did the old style, unless you looked real close. The genius of both is the small size doesn't screw up the proportions of the guitar! The WORST looking headstock ever conceived is the old Fender XII. Looked like a Jaguar with an old droopy sock stuck on the headstock. A size 16 sock, too...

Most average, non-guitar-geek people would, upon seeing a Rick 12 headstock, fail to notice two things:

1. That it was in fact a 12-string headstock--it's so compact!

2. Whether or not the channel for the second set of tuners had a bottom or was routed all the way through.

But we Rick geeks know the diff--let's just not get too carried away splitting headstock hairs. To me, looks good either way, and the functionality on the new one is a bonus.