A plea for wider 12-string necks - Mr. Hall?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
russell
I say again . . . if we ever do it, it won't be an OPTION . . . it's an all or none proposition. We need less models and/or variations, not more.
Let me throw something else out: how about a neck that doesn't taper? The problem is that to keep the current taper, every body would also have to be modified to accept a wider neck.
Let me throw something else out: how about a neck that doesn't taper? The problem is that to keep the current taper, every body would also have to be modified to accept a wider neck.
By "current taper", do you mean the one on the 660-12, which Already has a wider neck, or are we talking possibly making a neck with a nut width somewhere Between std. and the 660-12?I think having a taper is OK.At least on the solid body guitars, but somehow, an untapered board wouldn't look right on the semi hollow guitars.
Don,
Not wanting to put words in JH's mouth, but I suspect that he is talking here about the differences in neck-body joins betweeen the 300 series (set necks) and the 600s, which are neck-throughs. (Apologies if you realized this...) The wider neck of a 660, say, would require a wider joint to accommodate it, I'm guessing.
This would be because, starting at a 1 and 5/8" nut dimension, a tapered neck will give you a narrower neck width at the body than the neck with a 1 and 3/4" nut width would. Hence, the neck pocket would need to be enlarged.
= $$
=
I am still waiting to hear if anyone's tried a 1 and 11/16" neck-at-nut width guitar with twelve strings (and sporting a legitimate Rickenbacker nameplate.) And what their opinions of that neck might have been.
I like Peter's idea: kind of on a parallel track with the C-series guitars, that is, design and build a a few 300-series 12-strings with wider necks, use the 660 fingerboard, taper the neck in a set-neck guitar, and charge people more for that pleasure and apparent privilege. Perhaps a 360-12 only would be fine. But I'd prefer the full-size inlays, a la the 660, rather than the smaller modern 360. (And I would prefer the Vintage Pickup option too.)
If the C-series are, what? -- about 25 - 30% more than standard 325s and 360-12s? -- then go ahead and charge us of the fat-fingered gene a similar amount.
Or, as John Hall, has suggested, make 'em *all* a little wider, and keep the prices consistent.
Fred
Not wanting to put words in JH's mouth, but I suspect that he is talking here about the differences in neck-body joins betweeen the 300 series (set necks) and the 600s, which are neck-throughs. (Apologies if you realized this...) The wider neck of a 660, say, would require a wider joint to accommodate it, I'm guessing.
This would be because, starting at a 1 and 5/8" nut dimension, a tapered neck will give you a narrower neck width at the body than the neck with a 1 and 3/4" nut width would. Hence, the neck pocket would need to be enlarged.
= $$
=
I am still waiting to hear if anyone's tried a 1 and 11/16" neck-at-nut width guitar with twelve strings (and sporting a legitimate Rickenbacker nameplate.) And what their opinions of that neck might have been.
I like Peter's idea: kind of on a parallel track with the C-series guitars, that is, design and build a a few 300-series 12-strings with wider necks, use the 660 fingerboard, taper the neck in a set-neck guitar, and charge people more for that pleasure and apparent privilege. Perhaps a 360-12 only would be fine. But I'd prefer the full-size inlays, a la the 660, rather than the smaller modern 360. (And I would prefer the Vintage Pickup option too.)
If the C-series are, what? -- about 25 - 30% more than standard 325s and 360-12s? -- then go ahead and charge us of the fat-fingered gene a similar amount.
Or, as John Hall, has suggested, make 'em *all* a little wider, and keep the prices consistent.
Fred
I personally don't see a problem with a neck like the one on the 660/12. I don't think it would look strange, and as there is a market (and at least some tooling) for the 660/12 neck, why not simply adapt this to the 330 of 360 (my personal choice here would be the 330, but I would buy a 360 version). When I had the opportunity to play a 660/12 I found the neck to be what I wanted but the body too small and sharp. If the neck socket could be preserved by creating this 660/3xx hybred, it would allow a varient without changing the existing versions. However I have stated all along that I beleive that a 1 3/4" neck is the norm, and the correct size. I would be willing to accept a 1 11/16" nut if that is what is offered, and perhaps the nuts could be modified per Mark's specs. This would allow only minimal change to the structure of the guitar, but the combination would be close enough.
As for the all or nothing approach, I would have no problem with this, I beleive that acoustic 12-string players would have no problem with this, but I don't know if others would object. The propostion that the "modern" models be changed and the "historic" c-series remain 1 5/8" seems reasonable, I don't imagine that the tooling is the same, or is it?
As for the all or nothing approach, I would have no problem with this, I beleive that acoustic 12-string players would have no problem with this, but I don't know if others would object. The propostion that the "modern" models be changed and the "historic" c-series remain 1 5/8" seems reasonable, I don't imagine that the tooling is the same, or is it?
12 strings, no waiting
Rob, Russell and all. There can be little doubt that the neck width of the Rickenbacker 12 string has been a consistent topic when the "playability" of these instruments has been discussed. I am thrilled that John Hall is considering this option. This underscores, for me, the importance of maintaining a place where the collective views of Rickenbacker owners can be expressed and archived.
Life, as with music, often requires one to let go of the melody and listen to the rhythm
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
Please join the Official RickResource Forum Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/groups/379271585440277
OK, I have a couple more thoughts on this.IF Rick
takes all this talk to heart and considers doing it, would this take place Only on, say, the[what I refer to them as] "contemporary" series, i.e., the 24 fret models? And this is Only to be done to the 12 strings, Not the 6s? If only on the 12s, I say, OK, do the 660 neck on it,exactly like the 660 is, including having 21, not 24 frets.I'd also like to see a more comfortable
profile on the back of the neck as well.Maybe someone could post some drawings of life size
cross sections of different possible back-of-the-neck radiuses[including the current 660-12 for a visual comparison], a round letter "C" shape, a letter "D " shape. etc., whatever alternate possible shapes could be done.Anyone else think this is a good idea?
takes all this talk to heart and considers doing it, would this take place Only on, say, the[what I refer to them as] "contemporary" series, i.e., the 24 fret models? And this is Only to be done to the 12 strings, Not the 6s? If only on the 12s, I say, OK, do the 660 neck on it,exactly like the 660 is, including having 21, not 24 frets.I'd also like to see a more comfortable
profile on the back of the neck as well.Maybe someone could post some drawings of life size
cross sections of different possible back-of-the-neck radiuses[including the current 660-12 for a visual comparison], a round letter "C" shape, a letter "D " shape. etc., whatever alternate possible shapes could be done.Anyone else think this is a good idea?
I say "Do It"! Maybe ALL of the contemporary RICs could have wider necks. Non-tapered would be fine (I guess). Leave the vintage models with their correct widths. Maybe more guitarists would check out RICs if they had wider necks. Hold it! Then production would be pushed back even more, it take a year or two get your guitar, JH would buy a 600SL, etc........
I think you're onto something , John.One Other
comment I've had from guys who like Ricks, and the wider neck, but not the shape, is this:They All say[and again, with reference to the contemporary Ricks only]Give us larger or taller frets.But Only on the 6 strings; 12 strings don't need those big frets.
comment I've had from guys who like Ricks, and the wider neck, but not the shape, is this:They All say[and again, with reference to the contemporary Ricks only]Give us larger or taller frets.But Only on the 6 strings; 12 strings don't need those big frets.
only the Brian MAy guitar ....it feels weird
Necks need the taper .Even a little .
The Rick bridge is narrower than the Gibson tun-o-matic- and far narrower than the Strat bridge .
These are the two most copied bridges for a six string ni the world .
If the Rick 12 bridge was the Gibson spacing at the bridge and the nut ...I believe the public would love it .I know this to be true as EVERY one that I speak to that owns one would rather it be that way ...except for Don Adamek and Roger McGuinn.
I do not see this as a problem .Just an adjustment.
Similar to the evolving 4001/4003 bass and it's many changes through time .
Necks need the taper .Even a little .
The Rick bridge is narrower than the Gibson tun-o-matic- and far narrower than the Strat bridge .
These are the two most copied bridges for a six string ni the world .
If the Rick 12 bridge was the Gibson spacing at the bridge and the nut ...I believe the public would love it .I know this to be true as EVERY one that I speak to that owns one would rather it be that way ...except for Don Adamek and Roger McGuinn.
I do not see this as a problem .Just an adjustment.
Similar to the evolving 4001/4003 bass and it's many changes through time .
So you too want yours "ALAPWOB"?!?!
-
axel
NO fat frets, please.
Almost everybody else uses these - let's keep Rickenbacker as Rickenbacker. Plenty of lead players have made amazing leads with guitars having little frets (ie Roy Buchanan and his old Tele, Clapton and his black Strat etc).
We want more people playing Ricks, but let's not delude ourselves 360s will never sell as much as Strats. And it's a good thing: for RIC would have to open a korean susidiary and start making 2nd grade instruments 'n all that.
Sure, Rick 300/600s bridges aren't that perfect - has it forbid many players to do what they have done? No, so let's keep it the way it is.
Remember when Gibson started putting vibratos on some Les Pauls - do you see many of these in circulation?
Let's keep 650s as 650s and 360s as they are.
Just the neck width.
Almost everybody else uses these - let's keep Rickenbacker as Rickenbacker. Plenty of lead players have made amazing leads with guitars having little frets (ie Roy Buchanan and his old Tele, Clapton and his black Strat etc).
We want more people playing Ricks, but let's not delude ourselves 360s will never sell as much as Strats. And it's a good thing: for RIC would have to open a korean susidiary and start making 2nd grade instruments 'n all that.
Sure, Rick 300/600s bridges aren't that perfect - has it forbid many players to do what they have done? No, so let's keep it the way it is.
Remember when Gibson started putting vibratos on some Les Pauls - do you see many of these in circulation?
Let's keep 650s as 650s and 360s as they are.
Just the neck width.
I agree whole-heartedly with Axel, don't change the frets, or anything else except the neck width. Let's keep the other aspects of our beloved Rickebackers the same. As for Mark's suggestion of making the bridge wider as well - it is a good idea, and it would be more comfortable, but it would call for a re-design of the pickups to match the pole pieces to the string spacing. I have no doubts that this would add even more expense to the project, and would be cost prohibative. I think the most we can hope for, is the neck change
12 strings, no waiting
In case anyone missed what I said regarding fret size on Ricks,the comment on using Larger frets
was Not intended to be used regarding the Vintage
V or C series. No!! On that issue, I agree; leave well enough alone.I still think it's an OK thing for Contemporary series 6 strings.I'm actually more into Taller frets than stock, rather than Fat and tall. I have Dunlop 6105s on my reworked 60s 360, and everyone who has played it[including a number of guys who otherwise pretty much can't handle Ricks] have said, "If Rick used these frets on their 6 strings and set them up like this, I'd buy one".Whether or not Rickenbackers'
fretwire supplier has wire that is an equivalent of 6105, I have No idea.
was Not intended to be used regarding the Vintage
V or C series. No!! On that issue, I agree; leave well enough alone.I still think it's an OK thing for Contemporary series 6 strings.I'm actually more into Taller frets than stock, rather than Fat and tall. I have Dunlop 6105s on my reworked 60s 360, and everyone who has played it[including a number of guys who otherwise pretty much can't handle Ricks] have said, "If Rick used these frets on their 6 strings and set them up like this, I'd buy one".Whether or not Rickenbackers'
fretwire supplier has wire that is an equivalent of 6105, I have No idea.